School Improvement Planning Manual Assessment, Accountability, Research and School Improvement Division School Improvement Department Revised July 2011
5100 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89146 CCSD Board of School Trustees Deanna L. Wright District A Chris Garvey District B Dr. Linda E. Young District C Lorraine Alderman District D John Cole District E Carolyn Edwards District F Erin E. Cranor District G Dwight D. Jones, Superintendent Pedro Martinez, Deputy Superintendent
Vision Ready by Exit As taken from the Clark County School District Superintendent, Dwight D. Jones, May 2011 Phase I: Preliminary Reforms Report, How do we ensure all students are academically successful? What will focus our efforts? This addresses those questions. One drive consumes us. That is to ensure all students experience success in school. By success we mean all students are ready by exit. Ready means prepared to step into college or other postsecondary opportunities and compete without remediation... Specific objectives follow. Within five years (by June 2016): Graduation rate will reach 75 percent Percentage who are ready by exit from high school will increase each year College remediation rates will decline yearly Gaps in annual rates of academic growth for different ethnic and racial subgroups will narrow by half (based on state assessment) Percentage taking Advanced Placement courses and scoring 3 or above will increase yearly at each high school Percentage admitted to a postsecondary institution and successful in their first year will increase yearly Percentage exiting Grade 5 who read on- level on state assessment will reach 80 percent Percentage exiting Grade 3 who read on- level on state assessment will reach 80 percent Percentage exiting Grade 1who read on- level on a District- developed test will reach 80 percent Percentage exiting Grade 8 who are proficient in Algebra I will increase yearly (as measured by a standardized end- of- course exam that is adopted and used District- wide) To achieve the mission and vision of the Clark County School district, we begin with the end in mind. That is ready by exit. This means there is a pathway to opportunity and postsecondary success for all students (without remediation). To that end, we organize around five principles. Taken together, these five principles create greater ownership for the academic success of each student. When viewed as an organic whole, these elements work together so that the success of adults is defined in terms of the academic success of students. Principle #1: Get the optics right. Transparent data drives learning and continuous improvement. Principle #2: Grant greater autonomy in return for greater accountability for improved results. Principle #3: Recognize that enhanced student success depends on greater educator effectiveness. Principle #4: Align to what matters most and ensure that literacy remains the linchpin. Principle #5: Recognize that choice and innovation are the engines driving needed school reform. The Assessment, Accountability, Research and School Improvement (AARSI) Division School Improvement Planning (SIP) Manual is based on the aforementioned guiding principles and initiatives.
Integral Components of Clark County School District School Improvement Planning The Nevada Growth Model The Nevada Growth Model of Achievement, implemented in August 2011, provides a common understanding of how individual students and groups of students progress from year to year toward state standards based on where each individual student begins. The model focuses attention on maximizing student progress over time and reveals where, and among which students, the strongest growth is happening and where it is not. The Nevada Growth Model of Achievement shines a spotlight on the State s most effective schools and districts those that produce the highest sustained rates of growth in student progress. These schools and districts may or may not be districts or schools with the highest test scores every year. Nevada adopted the model to answer three essential questions about student, school and district performance: What is the growth rate of a student, a school and a district? What should be the growth rate for a student to reach a desired level of achievement within a period of time? What are the highest sustained growth rates that exist today and under what conditions could they improve? The Nevada Growth Model is a powerful tool to understand the progress of students based on where each individual student begins. The Nevada Growth Model enables parents, schools, districts, and the state to understand how individual students are progressing from year to year and provides a common measure to show how much growth is needed for each student to reach state standards. Nevada Common Core State Standards On June 2, 2010, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers released a set of state led education standards, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The English language arts and mathematics standards for grades K 12 were developed in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders including content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents. The standards establish clear and consistent goals for learning that will prepare America s children for success in college and work. The CCSS and related information can be found at http://www.corestandards.org. The Nevada State Board of Education believes that the adoption of the draft Common Core State Standards will significantly enhance the educational system of Nevada. Implementation of the CCSS will allow all students to be instructed to a common set of standards adhering to common expectations and goals within Nevada, as well as across state lines. Through collaborative efforts teachers, administrators and professional development providers will gain information and share ideas regarding instructional best practice and effective teaching. Working with other states within the SBAC will also allow Nevada the opportunity to gain and share expertise through the development of common formative and summative assessment tools and materials. All of these efforts will result in ensuring that Nevada s students will complete high school prepared for success in college and careers.
PREFACE On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. This law represents an education reform plan that contains the most sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. NCLB s intent is to help improve student achievement by setting standards, requiring frequent progress monitoring and holding school districts accountable for school performance. NCLB contains four guiding principles: Schools are expected to teach students using methods proven to be successful. Schools and districts must demonstrate that all students are making academic progress. Teachers and paraprofessionals must be highly qualified to work with students. Parents are given more information and more choices concerning their child s education. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the minimum level of proficiency that school districts and schools must achieve each year as determined by NCLB. To make AYP, a school and district must meet the required attendance, graduation and participation rate, and the annual measurable objectives in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. Nevada s accountability legislation, NRS 385, defines the process for reporting achievement data for all students in each school district, including the requirement to report each school district s AYP status for all subgroups in each assessed subject area. The School Improvement Plan (SIP) identifies which subgroups require additional assistance and determines appropriate, targeted improvement efforts. If any questions arise regarding School Improvement in the Clark County School District, ask SID.
INTRODUCTION Webster s defines the word school as an institution where instruction is given, and it defines the word improvement as a change or addition by which a thing is improved. The purpose of this manual is to assist administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, and students in making changes and/or additions to their instructional institution that will result in overall improvement. School improvement plans are one component of the accountability measures in place in Nevada. The State s blueprint for School Improvement is the Student Achievement Gap Elimination (SAGE) which defines the process for Title I schools designated In Need of Improvement. SAGE uses the following three-step cycle aligned with the CCSD SIP process: Planning Phase: Inquiry process and master plan design; Implementation/Monitoring Phase: Ongoing monitoring of SIP implementation and the impact on student learning and achievement; Evaluation Phase: Examines the effectiveness of the SIP and becomes the foundation for the next year s plan. The Clark County School District (CCSD) Strategic Plan provides the framework for the District s internal accountability plan. The Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) and other District level reports, combined with school level information, provide schools with longitudinal data to support a targeted, resultsoriented system in which all staff and students are held accountable for improving student achievement. District goals and objectives have been developed in response to the Strategic Plan to provide a cohesive structure for all students to meet or exceed District standards and benchmarks for academic competency. In order to facilitate with meeting these goals, this manual is divided into the following sections: Section I Section II Section III Understanding School Improvement Writing School Improvement, Restructuring, and Turnaround Plans Title I Budget Instructions Glossary
Section I Understanding School Improvement
The Spectrum of School Improvement No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires states to implement an accountability system that evaluates whether schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward the goals outlined in the legislation. In compliance with NCLB, Nevada AYP classifications are made annually based on the percentage of students tested, the percentage of students who score at or above the proficient level on annual statewide tests, and school attendance or graduation rates. When determining if a school has demonstrated Adequate Yearly Progress, performance on three indicators is disaggregated among nine groups in the school. Under NCLB, performance is evaluated for each population in the school with a large enough sample to be measured. In Nevada, populations with at least 25 students are evaluated. The nine subgroups considered for AYP analyses are: 1. The School 7. Students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 2. American Indian/Alaskan Native 8. Students of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 3. Asian 9. Students receiving Free or Reduced priced 5. Lunch (FRL) 4. Hispanic/Latino 10. Multi-Racial 5. Black/African American 11. Pacific Islander 6. White/Caucasian If any one of the nine groups does not meet the criteria for the three AYP indicators, the school is designated as not demonstrating Adequate Yearly Progress. The three AYP designation areas are: 1. English Language Arts (ELA) (participation and performance) 2. Mathematics (participation and performance) 3. Other Indicator AYP Targets Elementary and middle school: Attendance High school: Graduation rate or Attendance Under NCLB, each state established an AYP timeline to ensure that all students and students in each subgroup would meet or exceed the state s proficient level of academic achievement on the state assessment. The goal is 100% proficiency by 2013-2014. AYP targets identify the percentage of students in each school and subgroup that must achieve at the proficient level or above on that year s assessment. AYP is determined separately for ELA and mathematics. For each subject, the target indicates the minimum percentage of students that must score at or above the meets standard level of achievement on state standardized tests. In 2011-2012, the target for elementary and middle school math is 77.2%. This means that 77.2% of the students in the school and 77.2% of each subgroup must achieve at the meets or exceeds level (proficient or above) on state assessments. This table shows the increases in the target since the baseline year until 2013-2014, when 100% of the students are expected to be proficient on state assessments.
Watch List The watch list identifies schools that are in their first year of not having demonstrated AYP. Schools are designated as being on Watch for any of the three AYP designation areas in which they did not meet the targeted goals. In Need of Improvement (INOI) Schools that have not demonstrated AYP for two consecutive years in any of the three AYP areas (ELA, mathematics, or Other Indicator *OI+) are designated as In Need of Improvement Year One (N1). Schools that have not demonstrated AYP for three consecutive years are designated as In Need of Improvement Year Two (N2) and so on. To be removed from this status, a school must demonstrate AYP for two consecutive years in the area(s) identified as in need of improvement. NRS 385 identifies the sanctions for schools at this level of improvement. The District is required to provide technical assistance for all schools in need of improvement. The following descriptors identify demonstrated changes in student achievement at individual school sites over time (i.e., 3-5 years), based on performance on statewide Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT), AYP profiles, and/or a growth analysis under such a model of accountability. Growth substantial improvement Flat little or no improvement Inconsistent Achievement inconsistent pattern of performance, with some increases as well as decreases Decline substantial decline Chronically Low Performance in Select AYP Subgroups chronically low in only a few or less of the identified subgroups within a school Pervasive Chronically Low Performance chronically low across most or all AYP subgroups
New Regulation to NAC 385 Regarding Schools in Need of Improvement Relative to Corrective Actions, Consequences, Supports or Sanctions; Monitoring Implementation of Corrective Actions; and Turnaround Restructuring Plan Requirements Sec. 5. 1. Except as otherwise provided in section 6 of this regulation, if a public school that is not a Title I school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of the school district shall: (a) Not later than 14 days before the beginning of the school year, provide notice of the designation pursuant to NRS 385.3745. (b) Not later than September 30, implement the proposal developed pursuant to section 3 of this regulation. (c) Develop a turnaround plan to improve the academic achievement of pupils enrolled in the public school. The turnaround plan must, without limitation: (1) Include a list of persons who are responsible for developing the turnaround plan; (2) Be based on the needs of the public school, as identified in the comprehensive audit, including, without limitation, the analysis of the results of the comprehensive audit and any additional data that the board of trustees of the school district included in the proposal submitted pursuant to section 3 of this regulation; (3) Identify the concerns of the board of trustees of the school district relating to the public school, which must be listed in order of priority, the reasons for those concerns and any solutions to the concerns; (4) Identify measurable goals and objectives for obtaining adequate yearly progress; (5) Identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will implement to ensure that the public school obtains adequate yearly progress, including, without limitation, timelines for the implementation and completion of the action steps, the allocation and reallocation of resources, documentation of the implementation of the action steps, the expected results of the action steps and the persons who are responsible for carrying out the action steps; and (6) In addition to the actions taken by the Department to monitor the implementation of the turnaround plan pursuant to NRS 385.37605, identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will take to monitor and evaluate the turnaround plan, including, without limitation, timelines for the implementation of action steps, interim goals and objectives for the public school, the persons who are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the turnaround plan, and documentation of the monitoring and evaluating activities. 2. Not later than June 30 of the school year in which the public school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of the school district shall submit to the Department: (a) The turnaround plan developed pursuant to subsection 1. (b) An update of the proposal to implement one or more of the differentiated corrective actions, consequences or sanctions, or any combination thereof, developed pursuant to section 3 of this regulation, including, without limitation, a copy of the application submitted pursuant to section 13 of this regulation.
3. Within 45 days after the Department receives: (a) The turnaround plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2, the Department shall review the turnaround plan and may: (1) Approve the turnaround plan and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school district that the turnaround plan was approved; or (2) Return the turnaround plan to the board of trustees of the school district with its recommendations for revision. (b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2, the Department shall review the proposal and may: 4. If the Department returns: (1) Approve the proposal and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school district that the proposal was approved; or (2) Return the proposal to the board of trustees of the school district with its recommendations for revision. (a) The turnaround plan pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 3, the board of trustees of the school district shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the turnaround plan, revise and resubmit the turnaround plan to the Department. (b) The updated proposal pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 3, the board of trustees shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the proposal, revise and resubmit the proposal to the Department. 5. Within 20 days after the Department receives: (a) The revised turnaround plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 4, the Department shall review and approve the turnaround plan. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to include in the revised turnaround plan the recommendations for revision of the Department, the Department may include such revisions in the approved turnaround plan. (b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 4, the Department shall review and approve the proposal. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to include in the updated proposal the recommendations for revision of the Department, the Department may include such revisions in the approved proposal.
Sec. 7. 1. Except as otherwise provided in section 8 of this regulation, if a Title I school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of a school district shall: (a) Not later than 14 days before the beginning of the school year, provide notice of the designation pursuant to NRS 385.3746. (b) Not later than September 30, implement the proposal developed pursuant to section 3 of this regulation. (c) Develop a plan for restructuring the school. The plan for restructuring the school must, without limitation: (1) Include a list of persons who are responsible for developing the plan for restructuring the school; (2) Be based on the needs of the public school, as identified in the comprehensive audit, including, without limitation, the analysis of the results of the comprehensive audit and any additional data that the board of trustees included in the proposal submitted pursuant to section 3 of this regulation; (3) Identify the concerns of the board of trustees of the school district relating to the public school, which must be listed in the order of priority, the reasons for those concerns and any solutions to the concerns; (4) Identify measurable goals and objectives for obtaining adequate yearly progress; (5) Identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will implement to ensure that the public school obtains adequate yearly progress, including, without limitation, timelines for the implementation and completion of the action steps, the allocation and reallocation of resources, documentation of the implementation of the action steps, the expected results of the action steps and the persons who are responsible for carrying out the action steps; and (6) In addition to the actions taken by the Department to monitor the implementation of the plan for restructuring the school pursuant to NRS 385.37607, identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will take to monitor and evaluate the plan for restructuring the school, including, without limitation, timelines for the implementation of the action steps, interim goals and objectives for the public school, the persons who are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the plan for restructuring, and documentation of the monitoring and evaluating activities. 2. Not later than June 30 of the school year in which the school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of the school district shall submit to the Department: (a) The plan for restructuring the school developed pursuant to subsection 1. (b) An update of the proposal to implement one or more of the differentiated corrective actions, consequences or sanctions, or any combination thereof, developed pursuant to section 3 of this regulation, including, without limitation, a copy of the application submitted pursuant to section 13 of this regulation.
3. Within 45 days after the Department receives: (a) The plan for restructuring the school submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2, the Department shall review the plan for restructuring the school and may: (1) Approve the plan for restructuring the school and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school district that the plan for restructuring the school was approved; or (2) Return the plan for restructuring the school to the board of trustees of the school district with its recommendations for revision. (b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2, the Department shall review the proposal and may: 4. If the Department returns: (1) Approve the proposal and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school district that the proposal was approved; or (2) Return the proposal to the board of trustees of the school district with its recommendations for revision. (a) The plan for restructuring the school pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 3, the board of trustees shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the plan for restructuring the school, revise and resubmit the plan for restructuring the school to the Department. (b) The updated proposal pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 3, the board of trustees shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the proposal, revise and resubmit the proposal to the Department. 5. Within 20 days after the Department receives: (a) The revised plan for restructuring the school submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 4, the Department shall review and approve the plan for restructuring the school. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to include in the revised plan for restructuring the school the recommendations for revisions of the Department, the Department may include such revisions in the approved plan for restructuring the school. (b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 4, the Department shall review and approve the proposal. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to include in the updated proposal the recommendations for revisions of the Department, the Department may include such revisions in the approved proposal.
The Nevada Department of Education (NDE) Conceptual Framework for a Differentiated System of Support The Nevada Department of Education (NDE) has provided the following conceptual framework for consideration as a differentiated system of support that will be required for schools that reach N4 or greater in the needs improvement cycle. Sanctions and supports outlined under this system are attached to the development and implementation of corrective actions as prescribed relative to Restructuring and Turnaround Plan requirements for schools N4 and beyond. These proposed sanctions and supports (i.e., consequences) fall into several different categories and vary in the degree of support provided. This framework proposes a system in which schools are assigned to one of six categories based upon student achievement trend data (e.g., 3-5 years of Criterion Referenced Test [CRT] results), and/or AYP profiles, and/or a growth analysis under such a model of accountability. Accordingly, the assignation of a given consequence could be applied in response to a school s data in the years preceding the identification as in need of improvement, year four or beyond. It should be noted that while some funding is available under SB 389 to assist schools and districts in implementing these requirements, and will be allocated as part of this framework, it is anticipated that this funding will not be sufficient in and of itself to create the targeted outcomes to move a school out of needs improvement status, and that districts will retain ongoing fiscal responsibility for improvement initiatives as well. Consequences (Supports and Sanctions) Update Curriculum Audit - Schools assigned this consequence must revisit their findings from conducting the Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S) in the previous school year, in order to validate and/or modify the results from the original audit. This effort must take place with assistance from individual(s) who are not employees of the school. The School Improvement Plan (if the school is in year four of improvement) or Restructuring/Turnaround Plan (if the school is in year five or beyond of improvement) must be adjusted in response to any new audit outcomes, if appropriate. Supplemental Targeted Technical Assistance - Schools assigned this consequence must receive technical assistance that is supported by scientifically based research. One or more of the following types of technical assistance must be received by the school: (1) Assistance in acquiring, analyzing, and/or using data from the State s assessment system, and other examples of student work, to identify and develop solutions to problems; and/or (2) Assistance in identifying specific professional development needs and solutions, and in coordinating access to professional development in instructional strategies and methods that have been proven effective, through scientifically based research, in addressing the specific instructional issues that caused the schools to be identified as in needs of improvement status; and/or (3) Assistance in analyzing and revising the school s budget so that the school effectively allocates its resources to implement the Restructuring or Turnaround Plan. The technical assistance a school receives must be above and beyond the support typically available to most or all schools in the district. Examples of Technical Assistance: Data Analysis, Webinars, Use of Technology, Resource Allocations, or Assistance from an outside expert.
Supplemental Targeted Professional Development - Schools assigned this consequence must receive professional development that adheres to the state s established PD standards (e.g., embedded, sustained, at the application level). Instructional staff and/or administrators at the school must participate in such professional development in accordance with needs revealed through data analysis derived through the NCCAT-S results and any other relevant data sources, if any. Content must directly address the academic achievement problem(s) that caused the school to be identified as needing improvement and afford maximum opportunity for mandated staff to participate in the professional development. The professional development must be above and beyond the support typically available to most or all schools in the district. Examples of Professional Development: Participation in a Leadership Academy; participation in training for appropriate school staff designed to increase knowledge of assessment data and how to use the results of the assessment data to modify instruction to meet the instructional needs of the students; participation in training on implementing a tiered intervention system at the school; training meant to broaden the content or pedagogical knowledge among the school s instructional staff. Focused External Support - Schools assigned this consequence must be provided with focused support from an external expert or group of experts, based on the school s identified needs as derived through the analysis of data from the NCCAT-S and other relevant data sources, if any. Examples of Focused External Support: Content area specialists; provision of support for effective instructional strategies; a coach or mentor. School Support Team (SST) - Schools assigned this consequence must receive support from a team of experts, led by a School Support Team Leader (SSTL), that are assigned to the school to address a variety of specific issues based on the school s identified needs as established through the NCCAT-S and other relevant data sources, if any. Existing requirements with regard to SST membership remain in place through Nevada Revised Statutes. Example of SST (team of experts with designated leader): The team could consist of individuals with content area expertise, and/or expertise in meeting the needs of students in targeted subgroups (e.g., IEP, LEP), or whole school reform. Resource Acquisition - Schools assigned this consequence must do one or more of the following, in alignment with needs identified through NCCAT-S and/or other data analysis efforts: (1) purchase research-based program(s) proven effective for resolving issues at schools with similar demographics and data-based needs; and/or (2) hire personnel to provide supplemental services for students; and/or (3) purchase a system to collect and/or manage data to track student progress toward targeted benchmarks; and/or purchase equipment. Example of resource acquisition: Afterschool program; reading program; data system for progress monitoring; technology solutions.
The Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S) The Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S) is designed to assist schools, districts, and the State in identifying the priority needs of a school in need of improvement and for identifying the types of technical assistance a school will need in order to improve. The NCCAT-S is a collection of 20 rubrics. Each rubric is comprised of one indicator and two to five elements. This audit tool was developed by the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) in response to the 2009 Nevada Legislature s Senate Bill 389, which requires districts to conduct a comprehensive curriculum audit of schools identified as In Need of Improvement (INOI) Year 3, as a corrective action. It is also part of the State s system of support and corrective actions under the requirements of Section 1116 of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Ultimately, the results of the NCCAT-S will be used to determine the types of focused technical assistance and support that a school will need, and to guide the district in its development of the school s Restructuring or Turnaround Plan. The NCCAT-S serves as the foundation for the work of turning around or restructuring schools. Using a rubric format, the NCCAT-S describes characteristics of high-performing schools in the following categories: I. Curriculum and Instruction II. Assessment and Accountability III. Leadership Research states that these are the most important focus points for turning around schools and rapidly improving student performance. They are overlapping and inter-dependent. When a school is functioning at high levels in all three categories, student achievement improves. Indicators - Within each category are indicators. The entire audit tool contains a total of 20 indicators. Curriculum and Instruction includes 9 indicators, Assessment and Accountability includes 4 indicators, and Leadership includes 7 indicators. Collectively, these indicators characterize the essential components that are typically in place for a school to be successful. Elements - Under each indicator, there are elements that help to more clearly define the indicator. Elements provide the audit team with descriptors that detail the nuances of an indicator. Additionally, the degree to which an element is implemented will be scored on a rubric using the following scale: 4 = Exemplary This element contributes to the school s success, and provides a model for other schools to emulate. 3 = Meets Expectation This element is fully functional and all required elements are evident. 2 = Area of Concern This element is marginal. Performance in this area should be monitored for change and may need to be addressed quickly. 1 = Area of Need There is little to no evidence that this element is met or understood by the school. This element should be identified as a priority and would need to be addressed quickly. As aforementioned, the NCCAT may be updated as an assigned consequence.
Section II Writing School Improvement, Restructuring, and Turnaround Plans
School Improvement Plans (SIP) and Restructuring / Turnaround Plans (RTP) In the spring of 2011, the CCSD School Improvement Department redesigned a three-year reporting template that complies with State and Federal requirements. The template provides schools with clear, concise guidelines for effectively and efficiently implementing improvement initiatives, and it serves as the foundation for: School Improvement Plans, Restructuring Plans (Title I schools N5 and above), and Turnaround Plans (non-title I schools N5 and above schools). Sections of the Plan The major sections of the plan are described and details are provided for writing, monitoring, and evaluating each section. CCSD plans include: o Membership of School Planning Team o Year to Year Analysis Vision for Learning o School Vision/Mission Statement Inquiry Process o Comprehensive Needs Assessment Key Strengths o Root Cause Analysis Priority Concerns Root Causes Solutions (tied to Action Plan) Master Plan Design o Action Steps and Monitoring Plan Goals and Measurable Objectives Action Steps Action Plan Resources Timeline/Position Monitoring Plan Evidence of Implementation Timeline/Position Evaluation Plan Evidence of Results Completing the Plan o Required Elements for ALL Schools Budget o Required Elements for ALL Title I Schools ONLY o Required Elements for NON-Title I Schools Identified as Needs Improvement or Needs Improvement Hold Restructuring and Turnaround Plans include an appendix to notate NDE and NCLB-mandated consequences.
Focus Questions It is recommended that the following focus questions be addressed throughout the course of the school improvement planning cycle as the basis for monitoring progress, understanding the evidence, and making midcourse corrections based on the current evidence. What is working? How is the plan guiding daily activities and instructional decisions? How is the action plan being implemented in classrooms? How do we know it is working? What evidence is being analyzed to determine the implementation of the plan in all classrooms? How is the progress toward goals being monitored and how often? How will the plan be adjusted based on current data? What data is being used to make mid-course adjustments to the plan? What mid-course adjustments have been made based on the data? Planning Team The first decision in the school improvement process is the selection of the SIP team. This group is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the plan. Selection should be distributed among building administrators, a variety of staff members, counselors, specialists, parents, and all who are recognized as instructional leaders throughout the school. The principal should lead the SIP team by modeling inquiry and team building, routinely re-visiting the status of the plan and the progress made toward achieving SIP goals/objectives. Title I schools require at least one parent on the team. This individual may be a district employee, but may NOT work at the school site for which the plan is being written. Restructuring and Turnaround plans require at least one district-level representative in charge of plan oversight. Year to Year Analysis Although CCSD s planning template spans a three year period, data analysis occurs on a regular basis and is reported yearly via the plan s year to year analysis. Here, schools determine whether or not the measurable objectives identified previously have been Met, Not Met, or have shown Growth during the school year. Teams provide a summary of evidence to justify the selection of the aforementioned descriptors, based on the ongoing collection of data from the site s monitoring and evaluation plans.
Vision for Learning Mission or Vision Statements Effective mission statements describe in a few words the purpose of the school, its academic focus, and its benefit to the students in the present, while vision statements speak to the organization s future. While vision statements reflect where the school wants to go, mission statements tell how it will get there. Ultimately, such statements are about meeting the needs of students and are the basis for all aspects of continuous improvement. The statement is shared, understood, believed, and practiced by school staff and other stakeholders. It is important to revisit and revise an existing mission or vision statement or create a new one that aligns with the current purpose of the school. This statement, proudly displayed throughout the school, should unify and focus the efforts of the school community, serving as a reminder to all stakeholders of what is important and valued. Guiding Questions for Mission or Vision Statements Schools with existing mission statements should consider the following questions: How and when was our mission developed? Does our existing mission statement reflect our current values and academic focus? New schools or schools revising their mission statements should consider the following: What do we value as a school? What principles will guide us? How do we intend to accomplish our mission? How does our mission statement impact the day-to-day practices of the school? Data Analysis Guide Assessment is a huge topic that encompasses everything from NDE s statewide criterion tests and assessments to CCSD s assessments. Understanding and using student assessment data is fundamental to improving schools. The more information we have about students, the clearer picture we have about achievement or where gaps may exist. Reflective data analysis enables schools to identify the priority concerns that require action, determine the root causes of those concerns, and select appropriate solutions to move the school toward increasing achievement. Questions to consider: What data is available, what does it reveal, and what components of it are relevant for making decisions related to school improvement planning? Ongoing analysis of data provides insights for making mid-course corrections necessary to reach the determined goals. As school improvement teams begin the planning process, it is important to involve the staff in the data analysis process in order to know the status of the school on many levels.
The terms formative and summative assessments have become confusing in the past few years. In a balanced assessment system, both formative and summative assessments are an integral part of information gathering. Formative assessment is part of the instructional process. When incorporated into classroom practice, it provides the information to adjust instruction and learning while they are happening. Formative assessment is practice. Students should not be accountable for a grade. Formative assessment gives students an opportunity to become involved as an assessor in their own learning. Summative assessments are given periodically to determine at a particular point in time what students know and do not know. Summative assessment is an accountability measure that is typically used as a part of the grading process. It is a means to gauge at a certain point in time student learning relative to content standards. Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III Data CCSD uses Tier I (quantitative system-wide), Tier II (quantitative school-wide), and Tier III (qualitative) terminology to refer to the different levels of data available to the school to support student achievement. Tier I data include State and District achievement data such as Nevada s Proficiency Examination Program components. These include the NDE s Nevada High School Proficiency Examination (NHSPE) and CRT data, NDE AYP reports, the Accountability Report, CCSD s Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), CCSD Assessments, School Improvement Assessments, and other CCSD wide assessments. The CCSD Parent, Student, Teacher Survey is considered Tier I Data. Tier II data focus on school information related to student achievement. Examples include demographic data, CCSD school wide exams and scoring rubrics, grades, and measurable results of instructional strategies, remediation programs, professional development, and curriculum and program implementation. Tier III are the qualitative analysis of student achievement, including the learning environment, culture and student engagement, teacher and administrator observations, meeting logs and notes, and parent involvement. All three levels of data must be used in conjunction for school improvement teams to conduct the depth of data analysis required to fully understand the school s strengths and concerns. SIP teams may use the various tools provided by the CCSD and the NDE to access and analyze data. AYP reports, Measured Progress reports, Instructional Data Management System (IDMS) reports, P-Values, the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), and a variety of other data reports are available for use. Most are disaggregated by subgroups, grade levels, and classrooms providing a close look at performance levels and differences. Identifying, collecting, analyzing, and using pertinent data helps the school tell its story. It is the responsibility of the school improvement planning team to facilitate the process of collecting the necessary data, analyzing it, and answering key questions with input from the entire staff. Data use provides direction and keeps the staff on course to school improvement and student success.
When analyzed properly, data: Helps teams raise questions about student achievement Creates a baseline for analyzing student performance Provides an accurate picture of current school practices Guides actions taken to improve or increase outcomes The process of asking and answering key questions take the team from the overall picture of the school relative to state and federal targets to the details of content area and Depth of Knowledge (DOK) performance by subgroup. Depth of Knowledge replaced ability level reporting beginning with the 2010 AYP report. At the end of this data analysis the team will have a detailed picture of student performance in order to identify key strengths and priority concerns to be addressed in the plan. Some schools may find that there are many areas that need improvement. While it seems critical to address all areas of concern, CCSD research results indicate that a lack of focus is a major obstacle to effective school improvement planning. This in-depth data analysis, along with the Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool School (NCCAT-S) results, is the foundation for Improvement Planning. The Inquiry Process The next step is the inquiry process. It uses the findings from the data analysis to determine priority concerns and key strengths, linking them to the root causes, and identifying appropriate solutions to increase achievement. The inquiry process is based on the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data. Inquiry is the road map that determines which direction the Master Plan Design must take. In order to improve student achievement, it is critical to know how and why strengths were achieved and how and why weaknesses still exist. The planning team should question how the following have affected strengths and weaknesses: Adult actions Instructional practices Curriculum implementation Intervention strategies Data This section of the guide will help planning teams: Determine key strengths and priority concerns Conduct root cause analysis to determine the sources of the priority concerns Identify solutions aligned to root causes that form the basis for the action plan All staff should be involved in the inquiry process. Planning team members can facilitate meetings to determine key strengths and priority concerns, and identify the underlying root causes that inhibit student achievement. All aspects of the school are examined and analyzed relative to the results of the data in order to determine what is working and what is not. There are multiple factors that impact student achievement. Some are within the control of the school and others are not. The inquiry process should only address the issues that are in the school s control.
The inquiry process is about determining which adult actions in the school impact learning. Along with the NCCAT-S results, the team reviews the analyses of the Tier I, II, and III data gathered. This process requires a thorough investigation of curriculum instruction, assessment, professional growth, school climate, leadership, participation, and resources allocation. ALL associated adult actions and school practices must be a part of this process as these are the factors that are in the school s control. Preparation for this process includes: Collection of evidence needed to conduct an in-depth analysis of the school Analysis of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data Staff representatives from key areas who are committed to the school improvement process Key Strengths After completing the data analysis, the team identifies key strengths that increased student achievement. These results will remain part of the continuous cycle of school improvement. It is important to identify strengths/successes in student achievement relative to the practices that contribute to these results. All conclusions must be evidence-based and every effort should be made to determine whether the identified practices are directly or indirectly linked to student achievement. Strengths should reflect the analyses of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data and make connections between instructional strategies, levels of program implementation, interventions, etc. that led to student achievement increases. Key strengths should evaluate growth in performance for all subgroups, address progress made at ALL performance levels, and assess progress from prior years. This depth of analysis will enable the school to make instructional decisions to benefit all students. Consider the following areas when determining the school s key strengths and connect the teaching practices and program implementation associated with growth: - Growth by subject area - Remediation efforts - Subgroup growth - Collaborative planning - Content clusters/dok levels - Classroom instruction strategies - Instructional programs - Student engagement - Fidelity of implementation - Academic focus Examples of Key Strengths: 1. Students who were identified as struggling or emerging in reading, based on DIBELS scores, were provided small group differentiated instruction during Tier I instruction and either Tier 2 or Tier 3 instructional support. This resulted in an increase in the percent of students who scored on track at every grade level. Specifically, the grade levels increased by the following percentages: K = 23%, 1 st Grade = 5%, 2 nd Grade = 8%, 3 rd Grade = 16%, 4 th Grade = 17%, and 5 th Grade = 17%.
2. Increased use of writing prompts, consistent use of the writing rubric and opportunities for teachers to participate in staff development resulted in increased academic performance on the March 2011 NHSPE writing test in the following subgroups: school from 87.8% to 89.7% (+2.1), Hispanic from 83.6% to 85.0% (+1.4), Black from 80.6% to 85.6% (+5.0), IEP from 44.9% to 58.0% (+13.1), and FRL from 47.5% to 86.9% (+39.4). The increases in the program groups significantly closed the achievement gap for these subgroups. 3. Using the same math basal with fidelity over a three year period yielded increased math proficiency on the Nevada CRT assessment, when the same students were followed over time. The fifth grade students showed 49% proficiency in 2009, 63% proficiency in 2010, and 66.7% proficiency in 2011. The fourth grade students showed 55.9% proficiency in 2010 and 79% proficiency in 2011. Priority Concerns The same process that is used to identify key strengths will also identify priority concerns. Subgroup and content cluster performance gaps for students at all levels should be evaluated before prioritizing concerns. Priority concerns should focus on significant gaps between subgroups, or gaps in instruction, curriculum, and interventions supported by Tier I, II, and III data. After reviewing the data, the team determines the most critical barriers to increased achievement and prioritizes them for further analysis. Priority concerns are the basis for determining root causes and identifying solutions in the next part of the inquiry process. This depth of analysis will enable the school to make instructional decisions that benefit all students. In addition to connecting Tier I, II, and III data to student performance, teaching practices, support structures, and program implementation, etc. consider the following: Subject area trends over time Subgroups not meeting targets Subgroup gap trends Content clusters/ability level difficulties Instructional program implementation Status of remediation efforts Level of collaborative planning Classroom instructional strategies Levels of student engagement Academic focus Examples of Priority Concerns: 1. Classroom observations, lesson plan review, grade level meeting logs, student assessment data, FOSL data analysis, and corresponding CRT data reveal that struggling students did not make sufficient gains in the area of reading, with significantly lower performance in Comprehend, Interpret & Evaluate Information Text, resulting in an achievement gap for Black, Hispanic, IEP, and LEP subgroups.
2. CRT data supported by classroom grades, CCSD Assessments, and level of engagement showed an achievement gap between subgroups in the areas of Measurement and Geometry and Problem Solving. IEP, White, LEP, and Hispanic students did not make sufficient gains in math. 3. CRT math results show a slight decline in grades 3 and 5. Hispanic and LEP subgroups showed more significant performance declines than other subgroups, but all subgroups in grade 5 showed lower performance than grade 3. Strand/cluster data show 10-12% lower scores in DOK level 3 in both 3 rd and 5 th grades. Item analysis data from CCSD Assessments show performance on standards 2.3.4 (2.5.4), and 3.3.6 (3.5.6) were more than 5% lower than others. Root Cause Analysis The second part of the inquiry process focuses on root causes and solutions for the priority concerns. This section begins with root causes analysis which is the single most important element in the planning process as it correctly identifies the reasons behind the priority concerns. A well-written plan that is not based on accurate reasons for identified concerns will not provide the staff with the necessary map to identify appropriate solutions and create action plans designed to increase achievement. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a method of problem solving designed to uncover the deepest root and most basic reasons for identified concerns. RCA helps schools to correctly identify the true problems rather than addressing symptoms. RCA is commonly used in the business world to solve a variety of problems including issues with safety, quality control, and analysis of system failures. It is gaining ground in education and is an especially effective process in school improvement because here are so many variables in determining issues of student achievement. The most challenging aspect of RCA is the ability of the staff and its administration to be open and honest in a safe, collaborative environment. This climate will foster true examination of causes which may be uncomfortable, including issues of climate, organization, and instructional quality. This is an important step in reaching the root of the problem impacting student achievement and the achievement gap between subgroups. Root Cause Analysis in School Improvement Root Cause Analysis in combination with priority concern identification is the most critical component in school improvement it is the foundation for the Master Plan Design. Although time constraints are a reality for school improvement teams, data analysis and the process of inquiry are well worth the time. Rather than relying on assumptions, anecdotal information, and/or teacher perceptions that name symptoms of problems, the true root causes must be identified. The climate and culture in a school is critical to the staff s ability to delve into deeper levels of analysis like RCA. A school where staff members are supported and encouraged to take responsibility for success and failure empowers all key stakeholders to take risks and work as a team to create effective solutions to address student learning. Schools that have had a lack of student achievement for several years will more than likely need to address school culture issues through some form of team building before they can let go of the past and move forward with a fresh new approach.
The first step in this process is to identify priority concerns based on analysis of Tier I, II, and III data. It is important that teams analyze multiple sources of data, data triangulation, to validate concerns. Data triangulation is one methodology that can be used to determine the root cause of the problem. At a minimum, planning teams should use at least three sources of data to identify each concern. The most common graphic organizer to assist with root cause analysis is the fishbone diagram. The following illustration demonstrates the process. Select a priority concern and list all factors and suggested causes related to the problem. It is important in the group process to validate all responses. 1. Label each one either S if it is a student generated cause or A if it is an adult generated cause. Cross out all the S causes. 2. Label each remaining adult cause I for In Our Control or O for Out of Our Control. Cross out all the O factors. 3. Be sure that the remaining causes are supported by at least three data sources. The data may tell a different story than what the team perceived and it may create another cause to add to the fishbone. 4. Use the enhanced 5 Why Questions to determine which of the remaining causes are root causes. If a question cannot be answered completely, then that factor is NOT the root cause, and should be removed. Identified Root Causes should be: The deepest and most basic reason Within the school s control Evidence based Focused on the adult actions of the leaders and teachers A blank fishbone diagram for school can be found on the following page.
The Enhanced 5 Why Questions: 1. What is the proof that this cause exists? Is it concrete? Is it measurable? Are there more than two data elements that provide evidence? 2. What is the proof that this cause could lead to the stated effect? Am I merely asserting causation? (Ex. If a program is identified as the reason students are not achieving, is there evidence that it is not aligned to tested and taught curriculum? Have students spent the majority of the allotted instructional time using this program?) 3. What proof is there that this cause actually contributed to the problem? Given that it exists and could lead to this problem, how do I know it was not actually something else? 4. Is anything else needed, along with this cause, for the stated effect to occur? Is it self-sufficient? Is something else needed? (Ex. Are Special Education student schedules the only problem that prevents them from grade level curriculum exposure, or is there another key factor, perhaps the level of experience of teacher to scaffold instruction to meet the needs of all learners?) 5. Can anything else, besides this cause, lead to the stated effect? Are there alternative explanations that fit better? What other risks are there? Restructuring and Turnaround plans should include NCCAT-S results in the identification of root causes and may include verbiage from the Area of Need and/or Area of Concern columns from the NCCAT-S rubric to highlight specific causes. Identifying Solutions Once the root cause is identified, the team can identify the most appropriate solution to correct the priority concern. Each proposed solution should describe the research-based instructional practices, curriculum implementation, or targeted interventions that will be implemented in the plan. Solutions should be determined through a collaborative process that may include district staff, outside experts, or research organizations to ensure that the most effective solutions are identified. Solutions, grounded in research and supported by the evidence, are discovered in the inquiry process, and focus on anticipated changes in instruction and remediation in the classroom that will result in increased achievement. Restructuring and Turnaround plans may choose to include verbiage from the Meets Expectation or Exemplary columns of the NCCAT-S rubric as a foundation for appropriate solutions. Many schools refer to the following School Improvement Flow Chart to determine whether or not their priority concerns are aligning logically through root cause analysis to research-based solutions.
Guiding Questions for Developing Solutions Is this solution grounded in research? Will implementing the solution address the identified concern and root cause? Will this solution, if properly implemented, result in increased achievement? Will the staff support this solution? Does the school have the power and resources to implement and sustain this solution? How will intensive and sustained professional development be provided? Is everyone who is part of the challenge also part of the solution? Goals and Measurable Objectives In this section of the plan, the team determines the goals and measurable objectives that set achievement targets for the school and guide the rest of the planning process. Goals are the broad statements about what is to be learned. Measurable objectives define the goals by outlining the specific targets that are met through the Master Plan Design. Creating Goals Goals are determined by the results of the inquiry process completed in the previous section of the plan. Teams should also have reviewed their previous SIP / RTP and determined whether or not previous goals and measurable objectives were achieved. Based on this analysis, the team will either continue or revise the goals and measurable objectives. It is critical that the goals address all of the priority concerns identified in the inquiry process. Use the information gathered from the inquiry process to identify a maximum of two goals. Goals should address student achievement increases across multiple content clusters and Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels in order to meet or exceed the increasing proficiency targets for all subgroups and to close the achievement gap. One goal may address multiple content areas if the team believes the action plan is essentially the same. Examples of achievement goals follow. Examples of Goals: 1. Teachers will utilize effective, research-based instructional strategies to improve instruction, increase active student engagement, and to increase student achievement in ELA and math. 2. With a change in the monitoring, feedback, and professional development structure to focus on effective instructional strategies, Sample School will increase proficiency in English Language Arts and mathematics. Developing Measurable Objectives Objectives clarify the goal statements by providing specific information to determine how achievement of the goal can be recognized. Objectives are the foundation for action planning as they define who, what, when, and how much. Well-written objectives define and clarify the goal statement, giving direction to the staff about expected outcomes.
The CCSD template provides space for two objectives per goal. The first objective is required and the second is optional. It is important to remember that the plan should be focused to address the most critical needs of the students based on the results of the inquiry process. Examples of measurable objectives are listed below. Examples of Measurable Objectives: 1. Grades 3, 4 and 5 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 65.9% or attain Safe Harbor (reduce non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 63.8% or attain Safe Harbor, as measured by the NDE CRT. 2. Grades 6, 7 and 8 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 65.9% or attain Safe Harbor (reduce non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 63.8% or attain Safe Harbor, as measured by the NDE CRT. 3. Grade 11 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 71.3% or attain Safe Harbor (reduce non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 86.7% or attain Safe Harbor, as measured by the NHSPE. S.M.A.R.T. Language The SMART acronym includes all of the required elements of well-written objectives. Specific objectives include descriptions of individual grade levels and subjects. They address the needs of subgroups and the most critical standards and skills that students must master. Measurable objectives contain multiple criteria for measuring progress toward the goal and include clear baseline data. Achievable objectives are the most critical to student achievement and match the capacity of the school with the selected goal, thereby increasing the likelihood that the goal will be met. Achievable objectives differentiate expected performance between subgroups based on the needs of the students and their current performance levels. Relevant objectives are realistic and represent the most urgent critical needs in the school based on the results of the inquiry process. Achieving these objectives would result in closing the achievement gap for the targeted subgroups. Timely objectives are grounded in appropriate time frames and allow for frequent measurement of progress toward the goal. The measurable objectives, tied to their respective goals, define the performance requirements of the goal with SMART language Who is involved? (Specific) What is the desired outcome? (Specific) How is progress measured? (Measurable) What is the proficiency level? (Achievable & Relevant) When will the outcome occur? (Timely)
Guiding Questions for Goals and Measurable Objectives Will implementation of the goals and measurable objectives improve student achievement? Are the goals and measurable objective specifically linked to the priority concerns and their associated root causes and proposed solutions? Are the goals and measurable objectives written in terms that can be measured? Are student groups and performance standards clearly identified? Are the goals and measurable objectives focused on student performance based on the team s analysis of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data? Is there a clear rationale for each goal that can be articulated by all members of the staff? Master Plan Design The Master Plan Design defines the implementation of the goals. The planning team has already identified key strengths and priority concerns aligned to root causes and solutions to be addressed in the current plan. In this section, the team creates action plans to achieve the goals and measurable objectives. Each action step describes desired student learning outcomes, resources required, and staff responsibilities. Each step includes a monitoring plan to ensure implementation. The last section of the master plan design requires the team to design an evaluation plan to measure the result of each action step. *In Restructuring and Turnaround planning, district-level representatives play a greater role in the development of the Master Plan, guiding school sites to targeted action steps and available technical assistance based on NCCAT-S findings. Furthermore, supervising district-level administrators provide another layer of oversight, assurance and accountability for monitoring and evaluation. Developing an Action Plan In this section of the master plan design, teams: Build action steps describing desired outcomes Identify the resources required to ensure effective instruction (programs, activities, materials, and professional development) Create a timeline for implementing each action step Determine the position(s) responsible for completing each action step For each goal and measurable objective(s), the team identifies a maximum of five action steps to accomplish the goal. Each action step describes a learning outcome and associated strategies to ensure that students achieve the goal. Each action step implements a solution developed in the inquiry process. Action steps should identify different strategies to address the varying needs identified in the goal and measurable objectives.
The Role of Professional Development Job-embedded, purposeful, focused, research-based, and sustained professional development increases student achievement. Data-driven professional development guided by the needs of the students will increase student learning. Effective professional development translates into classroom practices that positively impact student achievement. Professional development needed to ensure effective instruction for each action step is identified in the resources needed for implementation column. Professional development supports the knowledge required to implement the instructional strategies, curriculum, programs, and interventions needed to increase student achievement. Creating the Monitoring Plan In the monitoring section, teams: Determine the evidence used to ensure the implementation of the action steps Create a detailed and specific timeline for collecting and analyzing the data Establish the position(s) responsible for ensuring completion of each action step Monitoring the progress of each action step and paying close attention to the implementation of standards-based curriculum, effective instructional strategies, student progress indicators, and embedded professional development keeps everyone focused on results. Procedures for collecting and analyzing data, assessing the effectiveness of the plan s implementation, and evaluating student progress on a daily, weekly, and/or monthly basis are essential to success. The monitoring process should be shared by all stakeholders in the school. Staff members may participate through grade level or department meetings, staff meetings, Structured Teacher Planning Time (STPT), or other collaborative sessions centered on evaluating student work. Consistent monitoring of the status of the plan relative to student achievement keeps the school on course to reach the identified goals. The monitoring plan gives the school the formative data needed to make mid-course corrections. A variety of Tier II and Tier III data, including CCSD Assessments, schoolwide tests and exams, student grades, and logs of STPT or other collaborative sessions should all be used to determine if students are on the right course to reach the identified goals. It is important to remember that significant improvement may take time, and successes along the way need to be recognized and celebrated. However, it is equally important to know when plans are not working and when mid-course corrections need to be made. Designing an Evaluation Plan In this section of the plan, the team identifies the evidence used to determine whether or not the action steps have been successful. The evaluation phase requires teams to carefully consider the evidence that demonstrates the progress the school and each subgroup has made toward achieving the goal. Outcome data are summative and include evidence measuring the effects of instruction, remediation, and program implementation to results. Formative data should be continuously analyzed during the year as part of the monitoring process. It is critical to compile all student achievement data at the end of each year in order to analyze the results.
In the evidence of results column, teams describe specific measures and strategies to analyze performance of subgroups, effectiveness of instruction, curriculum implementation, content areas, and DOK levels and compare the actual results with the anticipated outcomes. This in-depth look at the learning environment, student achievement, and program implementation provides fundamental data for corrections, modifications, and revisions to the plan for the upcoming year. Evaluation occurs in two phases. In the first phase, teams review the existing school improvement plan before the end of the school year with the staff that was responsible for its implementation. Although formative and school-wide data are available for this phase, summative data such as CRT/HSPE results are not yet available and many goals are measured on this assessment. Phase two of the evaluation process takes place in August when the team reconvenes to make plans for the coming school year. This evaluation review is actually the initial part of the inquiry process that begins the planning cycle again. For Restructuring and Turnaround plans, District-level representatives identify and insert specific consequences into the Evaluation Plan for sites that are unable to successfully move toward expected results. Completing the Plan This section of the school improvement plan includes additional questions required by NRS 385 to meet the legislative requirements of No Child Left Behind. Responses to these questions should be embedded in other parts of the plan. Section A is required for all schools. Section B is required ONLY for Title I schools. Section C is required ONLY for non-title I schools identified as Needs Improvement or Needs Improvement Hold status. Appendix A is required ONLY for Restructuring or Turnaround schools. Guiding Questions for Master Planning Does each action step implement an identified solution? Are the action steps closely aligned to the root causes? Does each action step include a significant strategy that will ensure the achievement of the goal? Does each action step clearly describe the expectations for student performance? Does each action step focus on the strategies, curriculum, content, and performance levels that students will be required to demonstrate? Is the professional development required to implement and sustain the teaching strategy(ies) in each action step identified in Resources? Is professional development limited to 2-3 critical strategies that will impact student achievement? Do the action steps for each goal include strategies, programs, or structures and the expected outcomes for students who need significant intervention?
Do the action steps in each goal include strategies, programs, or structures and the expected outcomes for students who are performing above the targets? Do the action steps for each goal identify strategies that will close the achievement gap? Are all action steps focused and aligned to the most critical student learning strategies and performance expectations required to achieve the goal and measurable objective(s)? Does the timeline for implementation for each action step include dates that delineate professional development and classroom implementation? Are the position(s) responsible those closest to the implementation of the action step? Has the responsibility for monitoring been distributed across a range of individuals most closely associated with the implementation of the action step? Does the monitoring plan provide the essential data to determine progress? Is there a process for mid-course corrections? Have the action and monitoring plan timelines been placed on a calendar to determine how realistic and achievable they are? Are the outcome data in the evaluation plan aligned to the data collected in the action plan? Do the outcome data include student performance, curriculum implementation, and instructional strategy information from Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III? Is the selection of outcome data broad enough to determine the success of the implementation of the plan? Does each measure of success describe exactly how the outcome data will be analyzed to determine progress toward the goal? Is the measure of success focused on subgroup performance expectations? Do the measures of success connect the relationship between program implementation, instructional strategies, and remediation to student achievement outcomes? Has the responsibility for analyzing and evaluating the data in the position(s) responsible column been distributed across a range of individuals responsible for the implementation of the plan? How will all staff be involved with analyzing the plan to determine what worked and what did not?
SIP Template Directions Template Instructions: Open the template attachment emailed by your Data Coordinator. Get the free Adobe Reader 9 from: http://www.adobe.com/go/reader or see your ECS for assistance. 1. If your computer has ADOBE PROFESSIONAL this message will appear every time the document is opened. Click cancel. 2. If fields are not distinct, use the Highlight Fields feature found at the top of the purple toolbar. 3. Begin entering information into template. Hover cursor over highlighted fields to see detailed directions. Additional detail for these directions can be seen in Section II of the School Improvement Planning (SIP) Manual. For an electronic copy of the manual, follow these links on Interact: District Link, Research and School Improvement, School Improvement Planning (SIP) Manual. 4. When completed, SAVE AS: School Name ES/MS/HS CCSD 2010-2013 Year# ZONE# SIP/RTP Date For example: BOWLER, G. ES CCSD 2010-2013 Year2 ZONE1 SIP 10.01.11 Each time edits are completed, the template will request that you SAVE A COPY. Like a Word file, you can either replace the former version of the file, or save it as a new version by changing the date so it reflects the last time of edit.
5. Return completed document to your Data Coordinator as an email attachment or use the Submit Form button. Forms cannot be submitted if required fields (outlined in red) are empty. 6. Editing notes: If the Comment & Markup toolbar is not present go to Tools menu: Comment & Markup. Sticky Note is the ONLY recommended tool for edits. If other tools are used within highlighted fields, they may become part of the Adobe template and cannot be removed. For technical assistance, please contact the Office of School Improvement at (702) 799-1041 or your Data Coordinator.
In order to change the plan type, (Improvement, Restructuring, or Turnaround) use the arrows and then click inside the box so that the field turns blue. Otherwise, the selection will return to the original. By law, Title I schools require at least one parent on the team. This individual may be a district employee, but may NOT work at the school site for which the plan is being written. Team membership should include the school principal, and particularly for Restructuring and Turnaround plans, must include at least one district-level representative who is responsible for plan oversight.
Use the arrows to select whether each measurable objective for the past school year was MET, NOT MET, or showed GROWTH. Once a selection is made, click inside the box so that the field turns blue. Otherwise, the selection will return to the original. If there were no additional measurable objectives for the year, select N/A. 1.1 = Goal 1, Measurable Objective 1 1.2 = Goal 1, Measurable Objective 2 2.1 = Goal 2, Measurable Objective 1 2.2 = Goal 2, Measurable Objective 2 Provide a summary of evidence that justifies the selection of MET, NOT MET, or GROWTH for the appropriate goal, measurable objective, and school year.
Effective mission statements describe in a few words the purpose of the school, its academic focus, and benefit to the students. After analyzing all tiers of data (Tier I [system-wide], Tier II [schoolwide], and Tier III [qualitative]), identify 1 to 3 key strengths that have increased student achievement and will remain a part of the continuous cycle of school improvement.
Prioritize concerns in student achievement, instruction, remediation strategies, program implementation, and professional development. Identify 1 to 3 priority concerns, requiring further analysis that will become the basis for developing your plan. For each priority concern, identify a maximum of two root causes that impact or impede student achievement. Root causes focus on the adult actions in the school, verified with evidence (data) to support the cause. Continue analyzing each cause until the root of the concern is reached. Only by understanding the root cause of the concern can effective solutions for increasing student achievement be determined. Restructuring / Turnaround plans should include NCCAT-S results and may include verbiage from the Area of Need and / or Area of Concern columns from the NCCAT-S rubric to highlight specific causes. After a root cause has been identified, propose one researchbased solution for each root cause that describes the instructional practice(s) to be implemented in the action plan. Solutions are global and should not be confused with strategies that belong in the action steps. Restructuring / Turnaround plans may choose to include verbiage from the Meets Expectation or Exemplary columns of the NCCAT-S rubric as a foundation for appropriate solutions.
Based on the results of the inquiry process, identify 1 or 2 goals to focus the school improvement process. Goals should address student achievement in content, cognitive (Depth of Knowledge) levels, instructional strategies, or remediation. A goal may address more than one content area if the results of the inquiry process indicate that the identified subgroup(s) require instruction or remediation that includes similar action steps in multiple content areas, or that subgroup data is not significantly different and performance in cognitive levels decreases from D1 to D3. For each goal, write 1 or 2 measurable objective(s). Measurable objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely. )
Identify 1 to 5 action steps to accomplish each goal. Each action step will implement a solution developed in the inquiry process. Action steps are strategies that may be student-focused in SIPs or adult-focused in Restructuring and Turnaround plans. Identify the resources required to ensure effective instruction (programs, activities, materials, and professional development). Create a timeline for implementing each action step. Determine the position(s) responsible for DOING the action step. Determine the data used to measure the implementation of the action step. Create a detailed and specific timeline for collecting and analyzing the data. Establish the position(s) responsible for determining if mid-course corrections are necessary following data analysis. Identify outcome data and measures to determine whether or not the goal(s) and associated measurable objective(s) have been met through the specific performance and strategies outlined by the action step. For Restructuring and Turnaround plans, Districtlevel representatives identify and insert specific consequences for sites that are unable to successfully move toward expected results.
Budget items may be linked to a specific action step and/or purpose. List the amount available, as well as the funding source. This page is to be completed by ALL schools.
TEN COMPONENTS Section B: Required Elements for ALL Title 1 Schools ONLY 1. Identify the AYP status of the school and describe the required services the school provides (comprehensive needs assessment). AYP/W Year 1/H: School Choice Year 2/H: Supplemental Services Year 3/H: Corrective Action Year 4/H: Restructuring/Turnaround Yr 1 Planning Year 5/H: Restructuring/Turnaround Yr 1 Implementation Year 6/H: and Beyond 2. Specify how Title I funds will be used to continue school-wide reform strategies. 3. Describe the school's teacher mentoring program and instruction by Highly Qualified teachers. 4. Describe the school s plan to ensure High Quality and on-going Professional Development. 5. Describe the school's strategies to attract Highly Qualified teachers to your school. 6. Describe the school's strategies to increase parent involvement. 7. Describe the school's plans for transitions between school programs. (ie: assisting preschool children from early childhood programs such as Head Start, Even Start, Early Reading First, or a state-run preschool program, to elementary school, fifth grade students to middle school, eighth grade students to high school, etc.) 8. Identify the measures that include teachers in decisions regarding the use of academic assessments. 9. Describe the activities to ensure that students who experience difficulty attaining proficiency receive effective and timely additional assistance. 10. Describe how available federal, state, and local services are coordinated and integrated to maximize the impact and carry out the school-wide program. Red denotes Title 1 required changes as of July 2001.
This section is to be completed by NON-TITLE I schools that are INOI or INOI-Hold ONLY.
Options for Restructuring / Turnaround Schools: A = Replace all or most of the staff who are relevant to failure of the school to make AYP. B = Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the public school. C = Request that NDE oversee the operation of the school, if agreed to be NDE. D = Nevada option D only applies to schools where the NDE is responsible for restructuring as the LEA. E = Take any other action to restructure the governance of the school if the action is designed to improve the academic achievement of the pupils enrolled in the school and has substantial promise of ensuring that the school makes AYP. Under this option, NDE requires that the LEA changes the governance structure of the school in a significant manner that either diminishes schoolbased management and decision-making or increases control, monitoring, and oversight of the school s operations and educational program by the LEA.