2009-10 District Improvement Plan

2009-10 District Improvement Plan

With Initial Action Steps and Timelines

Shelton School District

Presented to Shelton School District Board of Directors

September, 2009

Contents

Introduction and Overview 1

Development of the Plan 2

Characteristics of Improving School Districts 2

Needs Assessment 4

District Mission 4

Strategic Priorities 4

Improvement Strategies 6

Leadership and Professional Development at All Levels 7

Increased Monitoring and Professional Accountability 9

Instructional and Behavioral Strategies 11

Strong Data System 15

Monitoring Implementation and Outcomes 17

Resources and Resource Allocation 18

Appendix A: District Improvement Leadership Team (DILT) 19

Appendix B: District Self-Assessment Team Members 20

Introduction and Overview

Under the federal law referred to as No Child Left Behind, school districts that fail to meet federally-established performance targets enter a status referred to as “District Improvement” and must develop a written plan for improvement. The established performance targets are referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, although the targets do not actually measure “progress” in terms of change in achievement over time, but rather measure whether the district meets specific, fixed targets, set by each state using a federally-mandated formula, for the percentage of students who score as proficient on state tests.

AYP targets are established separately for each subject area (reading and mathematics) and grade span (3-5, 6-8, and high school). The Washington AYP targets are also sometimes referred to as the state’s Uniform Bar for each grade span. Various student subgroups, as well as the district as a whole, must each meet the targets in order for the district to meet AYP. The student subgroups are demographic groups classified by race, plus Limited English Proficient and Special Education students, and students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Under NCLB, districts are also assessed in other ways that can affect whether or not they meet AYP: not only by calculating the percentage of students in each subgroup scoring proficient on state achievement tests in reading and math at three grade spans (3-5, 6-8, and high school), but also by measuring districts against requirements for test participation rates, attendance, and high school graduation rates.

Failing to meet AYP for two years in a row in each of the three grade spans and in the same area or subject, regardless of which subgroups are involved, results in the district entering District Improvement. A district in District Improvement must notify parents, revise its local district improvement plan, and set aside 10% of its Title I allotment for professional development. The Shelton School District failed to meet AYP in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Later sections of this plan document the areas in which Shelton did not meet AYP, including subgroups and subject areas affected.

Development of the Plan

The District Improvement Leadership Team (DILT) worked on developing most of the strategies in this overall improvement plan, especially the decision to move towards a “Response to Intervention” or RTI model, described later in more detail. Members of the DILT are identified in Appendix A.

Leadership from all of these individuals was essential to ensure completion of a comprehensive improvement plan while simultaneously beginning implementation of some of the strategies. Additional groups that worked on developing the strategies reflected in this plan were:

_  Shelton School District Board of Directors

_  District Leadership Team (school and central office administrators)

_  Coaching Cadre (building-based instructional coaches)

_  District Self-Assessment Team (See description of the rubrics and self-assessment process in the next section.)

Characteristics of Improving School Districts

This plan was developed using the framework described in the report “Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research,” by Sue Shannon and Pete Bylsma (2004.)[1] That report was a synthesis of more than 80 other research reports and it identified 13 common themes, which were clustered into four broad categories, as shown in the chart that follows.

District staff members also participated in a District Self-Assessment using rubrics developed by OSPI staff and consultants; rubrics were developed for the 13 themes identified in the Shannon and Bylsma report. Specifically, the District Self-Assessment team members reviewed data on four of the 13 themes and compared the data to the rubrics. This resulted in identifying some key areas for improvement. Members of the District Self-Assessment Team and the external team that supported this work are identified in Appendix B.

Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research
Effective Leadership
Focus on Student Learning
·  Focus on all students learning to high standards
·  Share beliefs & values, have clear goals and shared vision of change
·  Hold all district staff, programs and operations responsible for student learning / Dynamic/Distributed Leadership
·  Exhibit dynamic leadership, united in purpose, visible in schools, interested in instruction
·  Expand to encompass central office, principals, teacher leaders and others
·  Provide moral leadership that moves from talking to doing, to ensure students learn / Sustained Improvement Efforts
·  View educational improvement as long-term commitment and processes
·  Persevere, persist, and stay the course
·  Help staff internalize the changes
Quality Teaching and Learning / Support for Systemwide Improvement / Clear and Collaborative Relationships
High Expectations and Accountability for Adults
·  Hold all adults accountable for student learning
·  Expect excellence, monitor performance, provide feedback
·  Make high expectations part of personnel decisions
Coordinated and Aligned Curriculum and Assessment
·  Align curriculum with standards, assessment, policies
·  Centralize and coordinate curriculum approaches and decisions
·  Use multiple measures to assess learning
Coordinated and Embedded Professional Development
·  Provide high quality, ongoing professional development focused on classroom instruction
·  Include school-based coaching and support for instruction
·  Support professional development based on teaching and learning needs in schools
Quality Classroom Instruction
·  Pay close attention to instruction, provide guidance and oversight to improve teaching and learning
·  Develop a common vision of good instruction
·  Monitor instruction, curriculum, and changes in practice / Effective Use of Data
·  Use data to monitor results, equity, accountability, and for resource allocation
·  Use data for instructional decisions and professional development
·  Provide time and training to staff to use data
Strategic Allocation of Resources
·  Provide, allocate, reallocate, and find resources for quality instruction
·  Provide additional resources to support low performers
·  Give schools flexibility within parameters for resource use
Policy and Program Coherence
·  Develop and implement policies that promote equity and excellence
·  Review and revise policies as needed to link programs and practices to goals and ensure coherence
·  Monitor coherence of actions and programs to district focus, goals / Professional Culture and Collaborative Relationships
·  Build a culture of mutual respect, collaboration, trust, and shared responsibility
·  Support school communities of practice for continuous learning for adults
·  Develop central offices as professional learning communities
Clear Understanding of School and District Roles and Responsibilities
·  Set expectations, decentralize responsibility, and serve as change agents
·  Support learning, serve as mentors, and help seek solutions
·  Balance district authority with school flexibility and autonomy
Interpreting and Managing the External Environment
·  Analyze, interpret, and mediate state and federal policy with local policy
·  Buffer schools from external disturbances and internal distractions
·  Mobilize community and business support
·  Involve family and community

Needs Assessment

Shelton School District is a heterogeneous district of approximately 4350 students. Based on the State Report Card for Schools, in comparison with students in the state of Washington, Shelton students are:

·  More likely to be eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals

·  More likely to be in Special Education

·  More likely to be White or Alaskan/Native American

·  Less likely to be Black or Asian

As federally-mandated targets for schools and districts have become more ambitious through scheduled increases that are mandated by law, Shelton School District has sometimes struggled to meet those rising targets. The table that follows shows patterns over time with respect to groups and subjects where SSD did not meet AYP.

District Mission

In developing this District Improvement Plan, it was important to consider the overall mission of the school district. A school district’s mission statement provides an important context when selecting strategies and allocating resources to serve the needs of the entire student population. To meet our duty to students and to maintain the support of our community, we must serve both the struggling students and the highly capable ones, along with all the students whose aptitude and achievement falls somewhere in between. The mission of the Shelton School District captures the complexities of this task very well:

To provide the highest quality educational opportunities possible to all students in environments that nurture and promote each student's unique capabilities and finest achievements.

Strategic Priorities

Many school districts fail to meet AYP targets with two groups of students that might be expected to take longer to reach grade level standards: special education students and students who have limited English proficiency (LEP.) While these groups sometimes miss AYP targets in Shelton, as the targets have risen, other students in Shelton have also failed to make AYP. Thus, the district’s improvement plan needs to focus on the entire spectrum of students, rather than solely focus on Special Education students or those with limited English.

At the same time, the majority of Shelton students already meet state standards. Appendix C has data showing the overall performance of Shelton students. Shelton must find ways to meet AYP targets while meeting the needs of the majority of students who need challenging opportunities that exceed state standards. Thus, the superintendent and other district leaders identified three strategic priorities in the fall of 2009. These priorities were:

·  Priority 1: Raise achievement levels for all students and close the achievement gaps.

·  Priority 2: Establish a more data-driven culture for decision making, including a system for frequent, longitudinal assessment of student progress.

·  Priority 3: Develop a strategic plan to guide decision-making in a variety of areas for the next 3 to 5 years.

4

AYP Status in Shelton School District Across Seven Years, By Grade Level Bands
Year / 2002-03 / 2003-04 / 2004-05 / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09
Reading (Elementary) / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups)
Math (Elementary) / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
(Limited English) / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups)
Reading (Middle) / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
(Special Ed.) / No
(Special Ed.) / No
(Multiple subgroups)
Math (Middle) / Yes / Yes / No
(Low Income) / No
(Low Income) / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups)
Reading (High School) / No
(Special Ed.) / Yes / No
(Special Ed.) / Yes / Yes / No
(Low Income) / Yes
Math (High School) / No
(Special Ed.) / Yes / No
(Special Ed.) / Yes / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups) / No
(Multiple subgroups)
Attendance / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
(Middle ) / Yes / Yes / Yes
Graduation Rate / Yes / No / Yes / Yes / No / Yes / No
Participation Rate / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
(High School) / No
(High School) / No
(High School)

The table above shows the grade bands and subjects in which AYP is measured. Achievement targets for Washington are raised every three years, so districts making AYP in the early years of NCLB may not make AYP in a later year due to the higher targets, even if achievement in the district increased

.

4

Improvement Strategies

As previously mentioned, SSD participated in a District Self-Assessment process, using rubrics developed by OSPI staff and consultants. The District Self-Assessment team members reviewed data on four of the 13 themes:

Broad Category / Theme Studied for the District Self-Assessment
Leadership / 1.  Focus on Student Learning
Quality Teaching and Learning / 2.  Quality Teaching and Learning
3.  Coordinated and Aligned Curriculum and Assessment
Support for Systemwide Improvement / 4.  Effective Use of Data

From the District Self-Assessment process, five areas for improvement emerged, and three of these five were ranked as high priority by the team members. These three areas were:

1. Instructional Leadership, beginning with the superintendent, and including clear expectations and accountability throughout the district. This leadership would include such components as:

·  District vision and mission statements --with each school’s vision and mission aligned to the district’s vision and mission.

·  Definitions of what high-quality instruction would look like in the district.

·  All decisions based on what is best for student learning, with meeting and decision protocols used throughout the district.

1. Implementation of tiered interventions such as RTI, with a strong assessment system and strong core instruction. Expanding the use of Data Boards and early intervention with students at-risk for dropping out also emerged as important areas that could help the district improve.
2. A strong data system, with in-depth training and ways to aggregate and disaggregate data. (The team noted that the district needs to be able to do three things with data: storage, access, and retrieval.)

Two other areas that also emerged essentially support the three areas for improvement just described. Those two additional areas for improvement were: 1) better monitoring of the implementation of programs and improvement initiatives, and 2) developing a document that includes local curriculum, clear expectations, a description of alignment with state standards, pacing guides, information on vertical alignment, and a description of what you would see in classrooms where high quality instruction was taking place.

This section describes the strategies Shelton has identified to address both the areas in which the district did not meet AYP and the areas that emerged in the District Self-Assessment process. It also indicates the initial action steps and timelines for each strategy. Additional action steps and extended timelines will be included in subsequent revisions of this plan, so that the plan remains up-to-date.