This Professional Development Plan Encompasses All Professional Development Provided By

Oregon Department of Education

Professional Development Plan Cover Sheet

This professional development plan encompasses all professional development provided by the district using ANY source of funds. Plan may be submitted for up to 2 years.

For districts under the accountability of [NCLB Sec. 2141 (c)] districts MUST agree to the following assurances.

In accepting Title II-A funding the school district assures the following:

The professional development plan was developed with the involvement of teachers and principals and meets the requirements of Section 2141(c).

The Title II-A funding will be targeted to assist the district in meeting AYP and the 100% HQT requirements.

The Title I-A funding will not be used to pay for any new paraprofessionals.

Dan Goldman______

(Name of Superintendent or Designee)Signature of Superintendent or Designee

District: / Tigard-Tualatin School District / Date Submitted: / Revision submitted:
6/10/10
Submitted by: / Dan Goldman / Expiration Date: / 6/30/11
Phone: / 503-431-4117 / Check One: / Revision / x / New Plan
Fax: / 503-431-4047 / Email: /
For Districts receiving Title IIA funds and under the accountability of [NCLB Sec. 2141 (c)], districts MUST provide training to enable teachers to:
1.Obtain HQT status in all core academic classes being taught;
2.Improve student achievement in the classroom, particularly in the areas the district is not meeting AYP; and
3.Teach and address the needs of students with different learning styles, particularly students with disabilities, students with special learning needs (including students who are gifted and talented), and students with limited English proficiency.

Planning Team Members and Titles:

The plan must be developed through collaboration with teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, and parents. Please list all planning team members, as well as their titles, below.

Dan Goldman / Dir of Curriculum & Instruction (Title IIA, IID, IVA)
Ernie Brown / Director of Human Resources
Petrea Hagen-Gilden / Director of Student Services (Title I and III, IDEA)
Tricia Clair / Associate Dir of Student Services (K-5 SpEd)
Carol Kinch / Associate Dir of Student Services (6-12 SpEd)
Kana Sanders; Kim Lindsey; Lynn Bird / Teachers; Parents
Karen Bollinger / St. Anthony’s Catholic School Vice Principal
Judi Smith; Pam Pries / Horizon Christian School Principals
Greg Dinse / Associate Principal, Tualatin High
Liz Ryan / Principal, Hazelbrook Middle
Rick Patrick / Principal, Twality Middle
Mickey Toft / Associate Principal, Tigard High
Bonnie Wiegman / Classified
Percent of Core Academic Subject Classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers District-wide at the end of the 2008-2009 school year: / 96.9%

Summary of Needs Analysis:As part of the Professional Development Plan districts are required to conduct data analyses to identify needs and set goals in three areas: Professional Development, Adequate Yearly Progress and Highly Qualified Teacher status.The next three pages ask for a summary of that process and the results.

Section 1: Professional Development

a)Who was involved in the Professional Development (PD) needs assessment?

District personnel, teachers, principals, paraprofessionals and parents) participated in the needs assessments of Title I-A, Title I-C, Title II-A, Title II-D and Title V-A professional development activities.
Date / Agenda Topics/Planning Steps / Participation by Administrators / Participation by All Staff (licensed and/or classified) / Participation by Parents/Community
Bi-Monthly / Instructional Improvement Team: Strategic Planning and oversight of district-wide program integration and instructional improvement / Superintendent
Curriculum & Instruction;
Student Services
Oct 2008 –
Dec 2008 / Title 1 Schoolwide discussion about proceeding with Schoolwide Planning Process and building consensus amongst constituents to commit to this process. / X / X / X
Jan 2009 –
June 2009 / Title 1 Schoolwide Planning Process for 5 elementary schools: Data Carousels, Needs Analysis, Action Planning / X / X / X
May &June 2009 / Parent meeting to get feedback on Schoolwide Plan for 5 elementary schools / X / X
May 2009 / Title 1 Survey to get feedback on Schoolwide Plan for 5 elementary schools. / X / X / X
June 23, 2009 / District Equity Leadership Team reviews student achievement and discipline data disaggregated by race and identifies culturally relevant teaching as an equity goal for the district. / X / Representative
April 1, 2009 / Stimulus Fund Survey: Identification of priority areas for use of IDEA Stimulus funds for professional development / X / X / X
June 3, 2009 / SS/HS Family Advisory Council met to identify needs of students being served by the Safe Schools/Healthy Student Grant / X / Representative / X
June 23, 2009 / Analyses of district achievement and discipline data disaggregated by subgroups: OAKS, DIBELS, MAZE, SWIS (expulsion/suspension); eSIS (grades) / X
June 25, 2009 / Reported data analyses to TTSD School Board / X
Monthly meetings beginning August 2009 / SS/HS Family Advisory Council: Priority Setting, Program Development and Evaluation for Safe Schools/Healthy Student Grant / X / Representative / X
June 3, 2009 / SS/HS Student and Parent Community Forum: Program update/training; community members provide program input, planning, and prioritization / X / Representative / X
April 14, 2009 / Federal Program input meeting: Consultation with private school partners and district representatives from each title grant to co-plan activities for 2009-2010. / X / Representative / X
August 11, 2009 / Written report to private school partners with opportunity for further input on federal program activities and participation / X / X
May , 2009 / K-5 Literacy Specialist shared observation data from lowest skill group reading classes with Literacy Specialists to discuss and identify professional development needs for teachers. / Curriculum & Instruction;
RTI Department / Representative
June 5, 2009 / Elementary Principal Meeting: Input from Literacy Specialists on professional development needs for teaching K-5 reading / X
February 2009 / Technical Training for HQT / X / Representative
March 2008 / Alternative Options Focus groups : input for changes to alternative program / X / Representative / Students; parents
October 2008 - April 2009 / Alternative Options Committee Meetings: identified needs – online learning options and support for student behavior issues affecting learning / X / Representative
May 2009 / Report to administrators and TTSD School Board on Alternative Options Study conducted by Center for Student Success at PortlandStateUniversity: / X
June 2008 - November 2009 / School and department CIP Process / X / X / Site Councils
May 2009 / Common Formative Assessment team (representative teachers and C&I staff) met to prioritize standards, and identify student needs in science. / Curriculum & Instruction / Representative
May and June 24 & 25, 2009 / Common Formative Assessment team (representative teachers and C&I staff) met to finalize prioritized standards, and identify student needs in Mathematics. / Curriculum & Instruction / Representative / Representative Parents provided feedback throughout the year
June 29-30, 2009 / Common Formative Assessment team (representative teachers and C&I staff) met to finalize prioritized standards, and identify student needs in Language Arts and Reading. / Curriculum & Instruction / Representative
June 2009 / Secondary Instructional Coaches, C&I staff, and Assessment Staff met to analyze student data and identify needs for secondary students in reading / Curriculum & Instruction
Student Services / Representative

b) What data was collected and analyzed to determine PD needs?

In reviewing Perceived Areas Needing Improvement in the Title 1 Schoolwide Planning processes completed in April 2009 by 5 elementary school communities, there was inconsistency between the teacher perception that they are adequately prepared to teach writing and the student writing assessment results. During district review of trend data for student writing performance, it was determined that while we show developmental growth and improvement in writing over grade levels, it is slow compared to how other districts perform in writing.
WRITING Data: 2007-2009 Goal: The percentage of students not meeting the writing benchmarks on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills will decrease by 10% in 4th grade from 54.7% to 49.2%, in 7th grade from 40% to 36%, and in 10th grade from 54% to 48.6%. NOTE: This data is for Percent of Student NOT Meeting Benchmark in Writing.

Analysis: The goal was met for 10th grade students and during the first year for 4th grade students. The district needs to focus efforts on improving writing K-8.

SCIENCE Data: Science outcomes for students throughout the district have been relatively flat, though we did see a jump at the high school level in 2009-10. This jump was primarily at one high school where the teachers powered and unwrapped the science standards, developed common assessments and had students demonstrate mastery of those standards in order to obtain credit (a credit by proficiency model). In order to effect such changes across the district, a committee of science teachers, principals, and C&I staff will meet over the course of the year to prioritize and vertically align the K-12 science standards, as well as research best practices in science instruction, towards recommending and implementing a newK-12 science curriculum.



READING Data: Synthesis of CIPs, Schoolwide plans, and program evaluations indicated that there is a problem with student engagement in below grade level reading groups. Teachers expressed frustration with the skills of students to independently maintain active engagement in reading, the district literacy specialist conducted a mini program evaluation that confirmed this, and the performance of these groups on DIBELS suggests this is a serious instructional issue. Since effective classroom management skills is a contributing factor to student engagement during instruction, the activities identified to address this need will occur in Focus Area 6. During the Technical Training for HQT in February 2009, a district team determined that the highest need for providing financial support for secondary teachers to become highly qualified was in the area of reading endorsements.
The average growth in reading for TTSD students in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th grade did not exceed the average growth for each grade in Mastery in Motion. DIBELS data indicates that TTSD needs to enhance reading instruction in first grade because an increase in Percent Low Risk and At Risk between Spring 2008 and Spring 2009 occurred. However, our recent data (2009-10) suggest an overall decrease in the percent of k-5 students at-risk for reading failure over the past few years. This data suggests our new “walk-to-read” reading program, implemented in 2007-08, is quite successful. The district needs to ensure continued progress for students in k-5 reading program by continuing to focus on professional development for teachers and literacy specialists. The review of MAZE outcomes indicates that the TTSD Secondary Literacy program is improving student reading scores. The district needs to continue to be consistent in supporting the secondary reading program.

MATHEMATICS: Principals and teachers at the elementary level are concerned about the alignment of and consistency in instruction in Math. This is related to the need to delay the purchase of the elementary math adoption. In Schoolwide plans and CIPS, staff and parents identified the need to use state standards to refocus and improve the use of the current curriculum. The adoption of “Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Curriculum,” a systematic instructional approach that can be overlaid on standards or curriculum, was selected as a method of overcoming our curriculum shortfall. During the Technical Training for HQT in March 2010, a district team determined that a professional development need that must be addressed is working with elementary school teachers to use effective instructional strategies in delivering math curriculum. A new comprehensive elementary math curriculum, Math Expressions, has been purchased for execution in the 2010-11 school year and will require ongoing professional development to ensure fidelity of implementation.
RACIAL DISPARITY Data: TTSD students of color and language minority status seriously underperform White, English speaking students with respect to academic achievement, and grades and graduation. Further, they are significantly overrepresented in disciplinary rates. Uniformly, planning groups such as the Safe Schools/Healthy Students committees, site councils, teams developing CIPs, and leadership groups identify eliminating these disparities as top priorities for the district.
Racial Disparity Data reviewed by constituents:




BEHAVIOR Data: In CIP and Schoolwide planning, elementary staff consistently report that, as economic and social stressors have increased, student behavior is presenting as more challenging. The district has a long history of developing school and system wide supports for children, but classroom level support has not been addressed recently. Administrators, teachers, and parents have identified the need for improved classroom management skills to address this student need. This is linked to the academic performance of students who are in below grade level groups.
Behavior Data Reviewed by Racial Groups and by Location of Misbehavior:

c)What PD needs were identified?

Professional Development:

1. Train K-12 teachers on the effective use of common formative assessments for writing, science and math.
2. Train K-12 teachers and administrators in using common formative assessments, curriculum-based measures (CBM), and summative data (e.g., OAKS, ACT, grades, etc.) to make instructional decisions.
3. Train K-12 administrators and teachers on effective data-driven professional learning team processes.
4. Provide training for K-5 teachers on developing independent activities that are appropriate for students in approaching reading skill groups using connected text.
5. Train K-5 elementary school teachers to use effective instructional strategies in delivering math curriculum.
6. Train K-5 teachers on the Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program through implementation of the Math Expressions curriculum.
7. Provide instructional support to K-5 teachers in math through an instructional coaching model
8. Support K-5 teachers and EBS teams with improving classroom management through the use of Effective Behavior Support.
9. Financially support secondary teachers teaching reading classes to become highly qualified once they use their Licensed Discretionary Funds and Professional Development Funds allocated by contract.
10. Dedicate time and training for the secondary school Instructional Coordinators to coach content teachers on the effective use of SIOP, differentiation techniques and the use of literacy strategies across core content areas.
11. Train and coach representative teachers from each school in culturally relevant teaching strategies using a “Courageous Conversations about Race” model.
12. Train secondary alternative options teachers in the effective use of technology-based supports for improvement of basic skills.
13. Train new teachers in sheltered (SIOP) and differentiated instruction, classroom management, cultural competency, teaching reading across all content areas and implementing effective teaching strategies into all math instruction.
    

Section 2: Adequate Yearly Progress

a)Who was involved in the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data analysis?

1. School Site Councils and Parent Service Organizations, Teachers, and Administrators through annual school improvement planning processes.
2. District Instructional Improvement Team – Superintendent, Student Services and C&I department administrators, principals and teachers on special assignment.
3. District EBIS Leadership Team – District Literacy Specialist, EBIS coaches, C&I and Student Services administrators, Assessment Department, teachers, OrRTI staff.
4. District Cabinet.

b)What AYP and other data was collected and analyzed?

1. OAKS Reading and Math data disaggregated by AYP subgroups for Meets/ Exceeds

• All TTSD Elementary Schools met the 60% target with all AYP subgroups for Reading Knowledge. All AYP subgroups met the 60% target at the middle school level with the exception of Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities but these two groups met with academic growth. Limited English Proficient middle school students had an 11.93 change in % met with a growth target of 6.49% and middle school Students with Disabilities had an 10.71 change in % met with a growth target of 6.84%. The high schools met the 60% target with Asian/pacific Islander, Black (Not of Hispanic Origin), and White (Not of Hispanic Origin) groups. The other subgroups did not meet the Academic Growth targets.

READING / K-5 Adjusted Status / 6-8 Adjusted Status / 10th Adjusted Status
All Students / 91.29% / 80.64% / 78.27%
Economically Disadv. / 82.36% / 65.31% / 54.87%
Limited English Prof / 77.65% / 46.60% / 30.38%
Students with Disabilities / 66.53% / 43.37% / 47.49%
Asian/Pacific Islander / 97.29% / 90.42% / 84.67%
Black (Not of Hispanic Or) / 98.97% / 86.37% / 79.47%
Hispanic Origin / 79.05% / 61.65% / 48.06%
Am Indian/Alaskan Native / NA / 92.83% / NA
White (Not of Hispanic Or) / 96.49% / 88.56% / 87.58%
Multi-Racial / 99.87% / 90.80% / NA

• All TTSD Elementary Schools met the 59% target with all AYP subgroups for Mathematics Knowledge and Skills. All AYP subgroups met the 59% target at the middle school level with the exception of Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities but these two groups met with academic growth. Limited English Proficient middle school students had an 10.57 change in % met with a growth target of 6.20% and middle school Students with Disabilities had an 13.37 change in % met with a growth target of 6.89%. The high schools met the 59% target with Asian/pacific Islander, Black (Not of Hispanic Origin), and White (Not of Hispanic Origin) groups. The other subgroups did not meet the Academic Growth targets.

MATHEMATICS / K-5 Adjusted Status / 6-8 Adjusted Status / 10th Adjusted Status
All Students / 87.29% / 79.06% / 72.02%
Economically Disadv / 75.77% / 59.72% / 46.79%
Limited English Prof / 72.64% / 48.84% / 33.39%
Students with Disabilities / 61.78% / 44.23% / 35.37%
Asian/Pacific Islander / 93.66% / 91.17% / 92.32%
Black (Not of Hispanic Or) / 93.30% / 80.63% / 59.86%
Hispanic Origin / 73.55% / 62.30% / 42.37%
Am Indian/Alaskan Native / NA / 90.83% / NA
White (Not of Hispanic Or) / 92.96% / 86.18% / 80.48%
Multi-Racial / 96.12% / 87.74% / NA
2. Average RIT gain for students disaggregated by AYP subgroups from previous year OAKS (10th grade RIT gain is measured from 8th to 10th grade.)

c)What student needs were identified as a result of the analysis of the data listed above?