Comprehensive Review

January 13, 2010 Richard J. Damelio, Ed.D., State Administrator/Trustee Vallejo Unified School District 665 Walnut Avenue Vallejo, California 94592 Dear Dr. Damelio, Attached is the Seventh Progress Report for Pupil Achievement with respect to the Assess- ment and Improvement Plan for the Vallejo City Unified School District. Although local authority has been returned in the Pupil Achievement area, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) has conducted this review at your request to provide a comprehensive analysis of the education reform work that has occurred in the district over the past four years. Fieldwork for a comprehensive review update of the Financial Management area, which is still under state administration, will occur in February 2010. That update will include an independent multiyear financial projection and cash flow analysis, with the final report to be issued tentatively in mid to late March. The FCMAT study team would like to thank district staff for their cooperation and assistance in this review. Sincerely, Michelle Plumbtree Chief Management Analyst FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Vallejo City Unified School District Assessment and Improvement Plan for Pupil Achievement Seventh Progress Report January 13, 2010 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Pupil Achievement Getting Results Vallejo City Unified set an ambitious educational reform agenda in fall 2004, as the district struggled toward fiscal solvency under state administration. The initial FCMAT review of the pupil achievement area found that the structure and artifacts of a well-run curriculum and instruction division were not present, from current board policies and regulations to fundamental supports for classroom teachers. A survey, administered to Vallejo teachers by the California Department of Education in spring 2004 and included in each school plan, indicated that the nine essential components of standards-based instruction were not fully implemented in the district and not initiated at all in many cases. This included teaching materials, related teacher and principal professional development, and strategies to address the needs of all learners. Not surprisingly, the percent of students in the district proficient on the California Standards Test in 2004 averaged below 30% in English language arts and just over 20% in mathematics. Thus, curriculum reform and renewal in the district had to focus on creating a structure to plan and implement the curriculum while leading a standards-based curriculum reform in the schools. Progressive improvement on the FCMAT standards from fall 2004 to spring 2008 demonstrated the results of effective leadership in curriculum and instruction at the district and school levels. By setting and holding to a course of systemic change, district and school leadership implemented specific high-leverage strategies: standards-based materials, pacing guides, formative assessments, professional development and collaboration, and principal supervision and feedback. In fall 2009, FCMAT’s interviews with principals and co-administrators, together with class visits, found the critical elements of instructional reform mostly thriving in the elementary and middle schools and starting to take root in high schools. Although it is well recognized in edu- cational research, fidelity to reform agendas can be difficult for school districts. However, many Vallejo City USD schools are reaping the benefits of visible student growth, which is encourage- ment to stay the course (see chart below). Districtwide Percentage* of Students Advanced and Proficient on California Standards Test (CST) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 English Language Arts, Grades 2-11 27% 31% 32% 33% 35% 41% Mathematics, Grades 2-8 and End-of-Course 21% 26% 29% 29% 31% 37% Academic Performance Index (API) 641 657 668 671 687 714 Number of Met Criteria (out of 42) for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)** 40/42 37/42 36/42 37/42 31/42 30/42 *Rounded percentages from California Department of Education. Percentages vary among schools and grade levels. **AYP proficiency expectations increased significantly each year. District personnel interviewed were elated at the spike in 2009 California Standards Test (CST) scores and Academic Performance Index (API), but also realistic about the need to take the reform deeper to reach more students – a critical step to improvement on the yearly increasing targets of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Principals Pupil Achievement 1 know that additional work is ahead, but there is a strong sense among those interviewed that they and their faculties are collaborating effectively on data analysis and developing a better under- standing of the issues. With the identification of essential standards and instructional strategies, district staff have been empowered to use their professional judgment on high-leverage strategies that include pacing guides and much more, while focusing on the future. Improving Opportunity and Access A significant goal of the reform has been to improve access and opportunities for all the district’s children: creating a universal access period for elementary students; developing data-based placements in strategic and intensive secondary classes in English language arts and mathemat- ics; and strengthening the access of English learners and special education students to the core curriculum. Recently, summer school and after school programs have been aligned to the stan- dards-based core curriculum. Additionally, there is greater monitoring of instructional minutes. The most likely reason why a student does not perform well on an assessment is that he/she has not been instructed in the area being assessed. Granted, for many students, there may be additional factors, but until the opportunity to learn is provided, other variables cannot be well understood nor effectively addressed. Implementing the California standards is having a positive effect on student performance in the district. With more students accessing the core curriculum, there are also gains for subgroups. For example, while districtwide, the percentage of students performing at advanced and proficient levels increased 14 percentage points from 2004 to 2009 on the ELA test, English learners gained 7 percentage points, African American students 12 percentage points, and students with disabilities 19 percentage points. The last figure exemplifies what is meant by the term “clos- ing the gap.” These are the groups of students who are underrepresented in the top performance levels of the assessment and overrepresented in the two lowest levels (Below Basic and Far Below Basic). Standard 3.1, the equal access standard, contains a chart showing a reduction of the number of students in the lowest performance levels for some of these groups. The district has had access to significant resources due to the presence of special student popula- tions and has been proactive in applying for discretionary funds. Embracing the designation of Vallejo City USD as a Title I Program Improvement district (based on federal growth targets), the district has developed corrective action plans that focus on ensuring that all students have opportunities to learn. The reform also brought about a significant change in the delivery of student services, where better attendance and behavior data have resulted from a reconstituted School Attendance Review Board and a proactive approach to student discipline in the schools and classrooms. More recently, a standardized checklist for managing the high school completion rate (tracking, preventing, and coding dropouts) is also contributing to better access. All of these strategies contribute to better student access to the curriculum. Finally, a results-driven approach is emerg- ing for the counseling component of the educational program, giving more diverse and younger students the benefit of educational and career planning. Sustaining and Moving Forward Earlier it was noted that the reform had to move on two fronts: (1) creating a district leadership structure to develop a strategy and (2) leading a reform to implement a standards-based curriculum. A sound organizational structure for the curriculum and instruction division was developed, and 2 Pupil Achievement periodically revised, to administer this large task. Since the pupil achievement area was returned to district governance in May 2008, the district has had leadership changes and a reorganization of the curriculum and instruction and student services areas into one division, referred to as CISS. While there are many possible divisional structures that are successful in various educational agencies around the state, they all have one thing in common: they are accountable, explicit and transparent so that all stakeholders know their respective roles and are held accountable. Just as important, school personnel need to know what to expect from district leaders. A group of dedicated educators in the CISS division, in cooperation with principals and teach- ers, have sustained the reform even though there have been district leadership changes without clearly delineated lines of responsibility. They have also maintained student services and categorical programs. However, district support staff are fewer in number, positions have turned over, personnel are on sick leave, and interdivisional communications have languished. Key responsibilities have not been met, such as secondary principal supervision and evaluation, and student performance was negatively impacted in a few schools that moved away from the reform agenda during the leadership change. The organizational structure and job descriptions must be clarified; letting the structure of this important department drift is highly undesirable. There is still much to be accomplished in the reform, and with school reorganizations looming, a strong, consistent leadership structure is essential to support schools as they navigate changes while advancing the reform agenda. Pupil Achievement 3 4 Pupil Achievement 1.1 Planning Processes Professional Standard: A common vision of what all students should know and be able to do exists and is put into practice. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In fall 2004, Vallejo City Unified School District created a vision that emphasized (1) access to necessary knowledge and skills, (2) a safe and orderly environment, and (3) systemic supports, including fiscal stability and capacity to sustain improvements. The vision of what students should know and be able to do is most evident in the devel- opment and implementation of a common curriculum based on the state standards and supported by standards-aligned texts and materials, pacing guides, and formative assess- ments in English language arts and mathematics. This is buttressed by relevant profes- sional development. In fall 2009, the district continues to be guided by this vision and maintains a strong focus on the implementation of standards. The identification of essential or key standards, which began in 2006-07 and was implemented for English language arts and mathematics (in conjunction with pacing guides) in 2008-09, has become the basis of a deeper level of implementing the vision for what students should know and be able to do. For many of the interviewed principals, teachers, and district leaders, the step of identify- ing what is essential has provided greater clarity of focus and led to more professional collaboration and dialogue about unit/lesson development in the classroom. Principals believe that the essential or key standards – with the indicators of what is required for the grade level, what may need to be reviewed from the previous grade level, and what could preview the upcoming grade level – led to greater use of teacher professional judg- ment in evaluating and implementing numerous reform elements. Several principals also believe that permission from the former superintendent caused them to place more value on their professional judgment. Class visits, particularly in intensive and strategic classes in secondary schools, revealed more effective lessons (better structuring of skills lessons around a central concept) and more student engagement than seen previously, though engagement has been gradually improving. 2. Policy development over the years of the reform are evidence of the board’s commitment to the vision and the means of implementing and evaluating programs, including Vision and Goals (BP 6000a), adopted April 5, 2006; Core Curriculum (BP 6000b), adopted April 5, 2006; Assessment and Testing (BP 6000c), adopted April 15, 2006; Program Evaluation (BP 6000d), adopted June 21, 2006; and Promotion and Retention (BP 6000e), adopted October 18, 2006. In spring 2007, Student Discipline (BP 5000a) was adopted. BP 6146, High School Graduation, which delineates higher graduation requirements established in 2005, was adopted in October 2007 and revised in 2008, along with regula- tions. Pupil Achievement 5 Overall, the development of policy and regulations for curriculum and instruction has moved more slowly than other elements of the reform, but a significant body of written plans and documents from the curriculum and instruction and student services areas strongly illuminates the connection between the vision and the ongoing improvement of professional practice in schools and classrooms. 3. The vision/goals are featured on the district’s Web site and in board agendas. The new instruction policies and new student policies are posted on the Web site in the board sec- tion. Guidelines for communicating the vision are not contained in the policy; however, communications to parents about student expectations (e.g., behavior) continue to im- prove, and there is a continuous message about improving professional practice on behalf of the district’s students through professional development and instructional focus. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 6 Pupil Achievement 1.2 Planning Processes Professional Standard: The administrative structure of the district promotes student achievement. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The original FCMAT assessment in 2004 found little evidence of a formal administrative structure or of current job descriptions for the curriculum and instruction or student ser- vices area. There was also confusion in the schools about supervision and support from the district because of turnover in leadership, position openings, and interim assignments to positions. By fall 2005, the district had developed an organizational framework that was both hori- zontal and vertical. The new organizational structure also provided new job descriptions for all district staff that listed titles, responsibilities, and lines of supervision. In subse- quent progress reports, there was substantial evidence of the collaboration among district and school staff to implement high leverage strategies in the schools, as well as scheduled interactions between district and school staff focused on improving student achievement. In 2008, under the direction of a new superintendent, a combined student services and curriculum division called CISS (formerly Academic Achievement and Accountability) was formed with the intention of creating a closer working relationship districtwide. Now in fall 2009, the effect of the new division seems to have run counter to this intent, such that opportunities for articulation and team planning are hindered or reduced and eventu- ally may be lost. This circumstance is likely attributable to unintended consequences of the reorganization and fewer personnel to get the work done as well as the lack of a clearly articulated organizational chart. There are very talented and dedicated people in the department positions, including interim staff, who are sustaining the reform elements in the instructional program and student services, along with other division functions. Fortunately, their efforts are documented with increases in STAR scores and API ratings; however, these student gains are the outcome of several years of work with a fully staffed department whose roles are articulated on an organizational chart. It may become increas- ingly difficult for the reduced staff to maintain the complex reform over time, particularly as it advances to more challenging achievement gap issues. 2. The original assessment conducted by FCMAT in fall 2004 found that principals had been left out of the communication loop the previous spring as the district entered fiscal crisis and came under state scrutiny. Regular principals’ meetings were canceled and many principals’ evaluations were not completed. Subsequent actions by new district leaders addressed these concerns. By May 2005, the district clarified how principals were to be supervised and evaluated. For each level (elementary, middle, and high school), a written description of expectations and a time line and process for the completion of the evaluation activity was developed and implemented. Interviews of a sample of principals in fall 2005 found that they had been evaluated according to the identified process and that evaluations had been conducted Pupil Achievement 7 in a timely manner with helpful feedback. In the fall and spring of the 2006-07 school year, principals and teacher leaders who were interviewed reported the positive support they receive through district supervisory and evaluative structures such as regular walk- throughs and school portfolios. A structure of routine meetings provided two-way com- munication between principals and district office administration, as well as professional growth and implementation know-how. In May 2008, school leaders were aware that the change of district leadership meant changes in priorities. Once again, in fall 2009, changes and openings in administrative positions in curriculum and instruction are having an effect on supervision and evaluation. At mid-September, the position of chief academic officer is unfilled, a director is on extended sick leave, and some positions are interim assignments. Interview findings conclude that while elementary prin- cipals were evaluated in the previous academic year, secondary principals were not, though their evaluations were begun. Some principals have not been evaluated in two years. Other positions in the district also were not evaluated. Additionally, secondary principals are not clear about who their supervisor/evaluator will be for the current year. More importantly to them, a district office administrative support structure is not apparent. 3. The initial review found that the chaotic opening of school in 2004 at the height of the fiscal crisis and change to state administration negatively affected student learning. For- tunately, according to interviewed principals, the 2005 opening of school was “like night and day.” With a few exceptions, the schools were staffed on the first day because of the hiring plan created in the spring and implemented throughout the summer. Principals had participated in candidate recruitment. A district matrix showed the objectives for the opening of school, the person responsible, and the target date. Areas included central ordering, purchasing and delivery of textbooks, classroom cleaning, transportation, bell schedules, food services, secondary student schedules, and teacher orientation and buy- back days. On the October 2006 board agenda, the State Administrator once again reported a smooth opening of school. Principal interviews affirmed the generally smooth start of their schools. Classroom observations by FCMAT showed instruction to be proceeding. The effects of administrative supports, such as teacher staffing, a working schedule, instruc- tional materials and teacher training, were all apparent. Principals reported that the opening of school for fall 2009 was not as smooth because of staffing issues related to the uncertainty of state funding and accompanying teacher layoffs and last minute rehires or recruiting. Instructional time has been impacted while teaching positions are filled last minute; some teacher assignments have been changed requiring last minute preps and catching up. (One teacher taking on a new intervention class assignment commented that in missing the training on the materials she fears that she is less effective, though it was not evident.) Additionally, some principals, though not all, lacked the required information about their categorical budgets to assign staff to positions funded by state and/or federal funds. Although the information seemed to exist, the change in district staff led to a communication gap, although efforts are under way to address this issue. 8 Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 9 1.3 Planning Processes Professional Standard: The district has long-term goals and performance standards to support and improve student achievement. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In fall 2005, the district completed its Instructional Action Plan, which was prefaced by the vision, the district’s goals, and a statement of purpose. The plan features eight essential program components with objectives, benchmarks, due dates and completion dates. Sub- sequently, the Program Improvement Corrective Plans guided many district improvement efforts through District Assistance and Intervention (DAIT) and School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) plans with goals and performance targets. A report to the board in September 2008 summarized the goals, progress, and continuing challenges in the goal of increasing student achievement and in particular the role of sites and the district in ensuring that students learn. Also noted in the session was the state board’s selection of a corrective action from those required by NCLB: Institute new curriculum and professional develop- ment for staff. A session was held in December 2008 to update the DAIT. Principals and district administrators in fall 2009 reported on the use of SMART Goals, a goal-setting process started in 2007-08, but which really got fully under way in 2008-09. This method aims at more specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely goals and provides vertical articulation into classrooms. Schools set math, ELA, and discipline goals. There is generally support for this process, though some suggest it is redundant while others see it as a motivator. The goals reviewed seem to be focused and few, which improves realization. 2. The State Administrator’s goals became the initial basis of the district’s vision and goals in the Instructional Action Plan. District goals to support and improve student achieve- ment are also found in revised board policy through the following adoptions: Vision and Goals (BP 6000a), adopted April 5, 2006; Core Curriculum (BP 6000b), adopted April 5, 2006; Assessment and Testing (6000c), adopted April 15, 2006; Program Evaluation (6000d), adopted June 21, 2006; and Promotion and Retention (BP 6000e), adopted October 18, 2006. A recently updated Instructional Action Plan (K-5) for Elementary Schools for 2009-10 identifies assumptions and a theory of action for the instructional plan, which addresses core program implementation, intervention, professional development, monitoring, and communication. The user-friendly plan indicates the action, how it will be carried out, the person responsible, and the evidence that will be used to measure success. There are also three SMART goals: one each for English language arts, mathematics, and student discipline. A secondary plan for 2008-09 lays out the challenges and intended actions but is not in plan format (when, by whom, etc.). No update was available for the current academic year. 10 Pupil Achievement Altogether, planning processes and documents have gone from nonexistent (except for categorical programs) in 2004 to elegant and useful administratively in fall 2009. They are evidence of the use of multiple sources of data in planning and the willingness to adjust and/or self-correct as needed based on evidence. 3. The original comprehensive assessment conducted in November 2004 found categorical programs to be working with good intentions but not fully aligned with mainstream pro- grams or state standards. Several actions taken by the curriculum and instruction division clarified and strengthened the role of categorical programs in supporting and improving student achievement: In fall 2005, a matrix titled General Education and Categorical Programs Working Together was provided to show the role of categorical programs in supporting learn- ing and school improvement. Also in fall 2005, the district was designated as a Title I Program Improvement district based on AYP scores. As a result, as discussed above, a county-appointed SAIT team developed a DAIT plan for the district (February 2006) identifying corrective actions and benchmarks in nine essential areas. The plan was updated for 2009-10. By spring 2006, a new director and assistant director for categorical and English learner programs had begun work with the county office to revise the District Master Plan for English Learners, complying with state and federal regulations for this program and others. A completed draft of the Master Plan for English Learners is available, but had not yet been board approved as of fall 2009. Observations in secondary schools both in fall 2006 and spring 2007 showed schedules that accommodate students with special needs or with English language development require- ments. Additionally, students with intensive or strategic needs in English and math are provided instruction during the school day in the secondary schools. These classes are sup- ported by special materials (REACH and Language!) and teacher training. In special educa- tion, development work started in 2007-08 on Response to Intervention (RtI), the database approach to identifying and serving special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization. The special education staff have identi- fied three tiers of interventions to be used before referral to special education. 4. The Director of Assessment provides an annual cumulative report of progress by district, school, grade level, and other components on the California Standards Test (CST), with charts showing student proficiency levels. District leadership made formative assessments a priority early in the reform and provided support in data analysis, setting classroom teaching priorities and developing interventions. In spring 2007 interviews and visits, it was noted that consistently since fall 2005, prin- cipals had reported that the formative assessments, along with aligned material, pacing guides, and training and collaborative opportunities, are contributing to greater commit- ment to, success in, and most recently, individual teacher accountability for standards- based teaching and learning. Agendas for district professional development days demon- strate the routine use of data in discussions of curriculum and classroom practice. Pupil Achievement 11 Principal interviews and school visits in fall 2006 and spring 2007 indicated that principals and teacher leaders were using data to work with school faculties. Principal interviews in May 2008 reinforced the critical role that data play in the work of the staff, particularly in elementary schools. Principals also use these data (along with pacing guides) for classroom supervision planning. There is some variation in principals’ views of the access and format of data. Several are ready for teachers to have more opportunity to work with data; others would like to have more routine structured reports from the district and less teacher time involved with reading assessments. In fall 2009, principals interviewed were looking at the spike in their CST and API scores as mostly attributable to the effective use of district benchmark data (in conjunction with pacing guides and professional training) by their faculties. The formative assessments and quick turnaround of the data, they believe, form the basis of high quality dialogue and collaboration on instructional decisions. Principals pulled out their assessment data during interviews to demonstrate changes and identify issues, talk about how their staffs make use of the data, and point out accomplishments. A few principals spoke of the issues around errors in the benchmark assessments. For most, the usefulness of the data makes it worth working around the errors, though for some teachers it is an ongoing concern. 5. The original review in fall 2004 found that leadership turnover and inconsistent student data tracking was contributing to weak monitoring of student attendance and behavior. By fall 2005, the district had initiated two efforts to continually monitor student atten- dance and behavior: (1) the Aeries system to track absenteeism and suspensions and to print reports that show patterns in these areas (several principals report the use of these functions); and (2) a Student Support Services Division established for accounting, monitoring and reporting student attendance and behavior. This division also coordinates effective interventions, provides training, and coordinates the work of principals and counselors. Subsequent visits to the district documented the efforts of the new division to improve student school behaviors, including: evidence of progress in analyzing and dis- seminating data on student attendance, behavior, and program effectiveness; implementa- tion of a School Attendance Review Board (SARB) with collaborative participation of community agencies; coordination of the school resource officer program; liaison with the Vallejo Police Department; and discretionary approval of work permits. Assistant and vice principal meeting agendas include topics that assist staff with legal issues related to discipline decisions, i.e., due process, expulsion procedures and time lines, suspensions and methods of reducing suspensions, school site intervention teams, and special education student discipline. There has been an annual legal training for assis- tant principals, counselors, special education specialists, and district administrators. In fall 2009, the student services area is beginning its second year as part of the CISS division, with changes in leadership and resources. Because of the city’s bankruptcy and budget cuts, as well as the non-renewal of the NAPA grant, there are no school resource officers to work with the schools on student behavior issues. For this reason, the campus supervisors have been upgraded. However, the district employs Student Attendance Review Team (SART) workers who are charged with improving attendance (using Aeries data) collaboratively with the principal. They make parent contracts, visit parents, and 12 Pupil Achievement participate in Site Intervention Team meetings. One principal spoke of a SART worker’s role in getting a school-phobic student to school. SARB is functioning and currently looking into a county truancy court similar to the one in Santa Clara County. The CISS department has improved the tracking of homeless youth with an improved data collection system. In 2008, 56 homeless youth were identified and in 2009 655 were identified. The significant increase is likely attributable to both better data and the eco- nomic situation in the city. Services include meals, bus tickets, and some connections to other services, such as health. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 May 1, 2005 Rating: 2 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 13 1.6 Planning Processes Professional Standard: The district’s planning process focuses on supporting increased student performance. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. Focusing on student performance in planning and aligning essential elements requires aligning district policy and regulations to send clear messages about district intent and to establish accountability. A new policy, Core Curriculum (BP 6000b), lists the key compo- nents of the district’s plan: “to raise student achievement, close the gap, and ensure equal access.” It was adopted on April 5, 2006. This policy clarifies the board and district intent that the district’s core program is based on state standards. Two other policies adopted in April 2006, Vision and Goals (BP 6000a) and Assessment (BP 6000c), highlight the district’s focus on increased student performance. The revision and adoption (October 18, 2006) of Promotion and Retention (6000e) supports the success of students in the core program. In fall 2009, there are no additional board policies related to planning, though there is evidence of the board hearing reports in the previous year on DAIT/SAIT planning, on progress on the K-5 Action Plan, and on the Secondary Schools Action Plan. 2. A separate policy, Program Evaluation (BP 6000d), adopted in May 2006, outlines the rationale for program evaluation in the district and lists the elements to be considered. Reviews of school plans show their focus on supporting increased student performance and have a consistent format, including key elements that indicate direction, cooperation between the district and schools, and assistance in their development. The district has developed a school planning process that retains the district focus but where school issues and needs guide local planning decisions. A matrix shows the areas of the school plan that are the district’s responsibility and those that are the school’s responsibility. The SAIT and DAIT corrective action plans focus on the nine essential components outlined by the state for all schools. A review of a sample of school plans in fall 2006 showed: (1) reference to school and district achievement data; (2) a distinction between district corrective action plans and single-school plans; and (3) a system of ongoing reflection and evidence-based evalu- ation of progress. After school ended for the 2005-06 year, a full day was dedicated to a Review of Progress (ROP), where school teams were given the opportunity to reflect and talk about their attainments, ongoing issues and needs with other school teams. The daylong session was facilitated to keep the teams focused on evidence. The ROP was conducted again in March 2008. In fall 2009, the Review of Progress (ROP) for elemen- tary schools was scheduled (September 22). School leadership teams are designated for morning or afternoon sessions where they are to be prepared to discuss their school’s results and plans in a format called: “Here’s What, So What, and Now What.” 3. Since the inception of the reform in fall 2004, student achievement data have been a critical element, leading to better understanding of student achievement, the ability to 14 Pupil Achievement pinpoint gaps and identify strategies to address them, and the basis of professional de- velopment for both principals and teachers. In addition to the state data packet available in the fall, schools rely on the more frequent district benchmark data to analyze student progress and make decisions. In fall 2009, there is evidence that district and school administrators thoroughly reviewed the compiled data report from the assessment department, showing the state data (CST, API) and a summary of trends, and are using the information with faculties to plan instruction. Each interviewed principal had school and district data; several administra- tors and co-administrators use the data file to generate their own reports based on their questions; and all believe that student achievement data from all available sources are critical to their improvement efforts. They uniformly know where the learning gaps are. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 15 2.3 Curriculum Professional Standard: The district has clear and valid objectives for students, including the core curriculum content. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The initial review showed that many teachers and administrators believed implementation of the state standards to be permissive because there had been no official designation that they would be the basis of the district curriculum. BP 6000b, Core Curriculum (adopted April 5, 2006), indicates that the California standards will provide the content for district goals and objectives. It identifies the district’s Instructional Action Plan as the district’s guide for instructional planning and ensuring that student objectives for reaching the standards are met. It identifies key components of the district’s plan “to raise student achievement, close the gap, and ensure equal access.” BP 6000e, Promotion and Retention (adopted October 18, 2006), has been revised to conform/connect to the district’s reform agenda and meet the intent of California law. The policy is based on seven guiding principles, among which are equal access, support for students at risk of failing, and early identification and notification so that interventions can be timely and parents can be informed. Focus group sessions have allowed staff members to provide input into the implementation of the policy. In May 2008, the district graduation policy (BP 6000f; adopted 2007, revised 2008) and regulation was in evidence. It identifies the a-g university requirements as the course of study for students and outlines a phase-in plan for the class of 2011 as well as approved alternatives and minimums for the classes of 2009-10. In fall 2009, there is an Interscholastic Activities and Co-curricular Policy (BP 6145.2), adopted March 4, 2009, clarifying the district’s role in student activities. Though there is no related policy, there is greater clarity about middle and high school counseling services for students through the AB1802 requirements and funding. Addition- ally, Extended Learning Options has been established to bring together after school and summer programs to define these intervention services in a more articulated manner for the benefit of students and parents who need these academic options and support. 2. By fall 2005, the district had composed the VCUSD Instructional Action Plan, show- ing the relationship of the vision to the district’s goals and objectives for instructional program implementation. This plan uses many research-based strategies. The ongoing implementation of objectives in the plan is validated by interviews and documentation. Standards implementation work in the district is leveraged with aligned materials, profes- sional development for teachers and principals, pacing guides, formative assessments, collaboration, and supervisory walkthroughs. 16 Pupil Achievement In fall 2009, CST and API gains for most of the schools provide evidence of five years of sound implementation of state standards, particularly for mathematics and English language arts. Greater focus on science and social studies is planned. Principals attribute gains to their schools’ adherence to the reform elements, though some report that some teachers, particularly secondary teachers, believe that the pacing guides are too manda- tory. Principals really like the identification of essential standards, which they believe contributes to better lesson development by teachers. 3. In 2004, there was an identified need for high schools to connect planning elements of the WASC process with school plans, and graduation requirements. In fall 2005, the district was identified for Program Improvement and by spring 2006, corrective action plans had been developed. Agendas, minutes, and explanatory pieces document the district’s preparation for implementation. The district and schools are required to implement all nine components of the Academic Program Survey (APS) to ensure equal access and equity. It is especially helpful that secondary schools, where change is complex, are receiving the guidance and support to address the core curriculum for all students. In fall 2006, changes in high schools were evident in school schedules, intervention and support classes, and newly implemented formative assessments. In spring 2007, as indicated above, curriculum, student learning materials, and teacher training to address underachievers at the secondary level were evident. The assessment protocols for student placement and the development of entrances onto student graduation paths helped schools avoid the potential inequities sometimes found in grouping practices. In fall 2009, two of three comprehensive high schools gained on the API, including one that spiked 57 points; but a third high school dropped 12 points. One high school met all growth targets. High school and middle school principals with schools that made signifi- cant growth report more collaborative work with benchmark data and pacing guides, as well as an effort in the school to adopt a “no excuses” attitude. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 17 2.4 Curriculum Professional Standard: A process is in place to maintain alignment among standards, practices, and assessments. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In 2004, a state survey seeking to identify the implementation of the nine components of the standards-based program found missing components and inconsistent alignment practices. The May 2005 progress visit noted that a standards-based alignment model was central to the State Administrator’s plan to improve student achievement and includes the follow- ing: (1) having clear measurable goals; (2) aligning resources to accomplish goals; (3) monitoring progress; (4) using proven instructional materials consistently; (5) develop- ing immediate interventions at the student, teacher and school level; and (6) providing focused, data-driven professional development. At that time, the district was in the midst of implementing the model, which is similar to the state’s nine components of program implementation, by focusing on high-leverage strategies. The K-5 schools benefited from a state standards-aligned reading text, the use of pacing guides, the use of common and curriculum-embedded assessments, and train- ing on the adopted ELA materials. Middle schools used pacing guides to improve access and rigor; administering common assessments for language arts and math, and using structures such as meetings to improve the learning culture. Teachers had been provided coaches and collaboration time to review assessment data and work on alignment. High leverage alignment strategies for high schools included: examining course offerings; reviewing graduation requirements for rigor and access; developing common course descriptions and end-of-year course assessments; and using meetings, department time and walkthroughs to improve instruction. The May 2006 progress report found the process of alignment among standards, practices, and assessments to be further supported by the DAIT/SAIT corrective action plans required because Vallejo City USD had been identified as a Program Improvement district. The minutes of the District Program Improvement Team (February 13, 2006) for secondary schools showed careful planning to bring school site employees into the corrective actions as part of the overall effort to align program elements and improve achievement. In fall 2006, ongoing alignment work, with evaluation and revision as needed, included: (1) the new promotion and retention policy; (2) revision of the elementary report cards based on identified essential standards; (3) analysis of the effectiveness of the pacing guides and proposed revisions; (4) new adoptions and pacing guides for the intensive intervention classes; and (5) secondary master schedules aligned to meet the diverse needs of students. Once again, in fall 2009, it is hard to argue with the success of a carefully aligned stan- dards-based program when assessment and API scores rise; but interviews with district 18 Pupil Achievement leaders suggest that they felt “close to losing the alignment and implementation gains” through recent leadership changes because a different philosophy led to confusion, weak communication and lack of coordination from the district. Most interviewed principals, however, insist that they and their staffs were able to stay on track with the critical com- ponents of the implementation, that they benefited from the district’s work on essential or key standards in staying focused, and that they and their faculties were empowered to use their professional judgment. Particularly, several principals noted that having the aligned district benchmark assessments and data was most important to them, even though there are some errors on the tests, a circumstance that has caused some consternation with a few teachers. In 2004, the district had not yet taken advantage of funds provided for teacher and principal professional development under AB 466 and AB 75. By fall 2005, documents, sign-ups, participant evaluations, and principal interviews show that the alignment of pro- fessional development continued, with significant progress on AB 466 and AB 75 train- ing. During the summer, about 210 elementary and middle school teachers voluntarily participated in English language arts AB 466 training, and 16 of 18 principals participated in AB 75 training. Written evaluations from the participants and reports from the princi- pals characterized the workshops as effective and empowering. From 2005 to May 2008, professional development calendars and sign-in sheets for workshops demonstrated the district’s steady effort at the AB 466 and AB 75 trainings that helped teachers and principals align standards, materials, assessments and classroom practices. In May 2008, most principals interviewed identified the alignment of the AB 466 train- ings to their program implementation and ongoing improvements, in addition to pacing guides and formative assessments, as critical to progress in their schools. Alignment resonated well with many teachers and principals, particularly the publisher pacing guides. However, this highly focused and standards-aligned program continues to have some detractors. In fall 2009, teacher and principal trainings have continued, even through unsteady state financial times. A large number of teachers attended advanced trainings during the summer as well as trainings for new textbook adoptions. However, hiring and/or placing teachers later in the summer and changing some assignments after school was under way has meant that training sessions were missed. There are plans for some catch-up. Classroom observations during the fall 2009 visit attest to the importance of teacher professional development with the standards-based materials and with the communica- tion of the standard(s) by posting the standard being taught on the whiteboards, with the objective and agenda. This creates student awareness of the rationale for the lesson. Some teachers are explicit in teaching about the standard; in other instances, it is implicit in the lesson. One middle school visited had a large number of SDAIE certified teachers (des- ignated on the master schedule). This teacher training, aimed at English learners, leads to better-structured lessons for all learners, which was evident in the classes visited. Pupil Achievement 19 Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 20 Pupil Achievement 2.9 Curriculum Professional Standard: Teachers in K-8 are provided with professional development in reading and mathematics by a state-approved provider; teachers in 9-12 are provided with defined professional development in implementing content standards. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. As explained in Standard 2.4, the recommendation for this standard suggested by the findings during the initial assessment and report to the district was for the district to cre- ate a plan that would allow the teaching staff and principals to catch up on AB 466 and AB 75 (reauthorized as AB 420) training. This was a huge undertaking considering the district’s size and the fact that few staff members had attended these workshops. The dis- trict was considerably behind other school districts in utilizing the special state funding and training program. Subsequent progress reports have documented the steady progress the district has made on this recommendation. The district, as it began to implement standards, made the trainings and the aligned materials a high priority, and district leaders, principals, and teachers all committed time (often uncompensated) and effort so that a remarkable number of teachers and principals have completed the training. Resource specialists and EL teachers have participated in the training and received relevant materials. The summer 2006 training schedule was intensive and included training for teachers in supporting English learners. The training schedule and completions are well documented with calendars, rosters, invoices, evaluations, and various debriefings. A monitoring system identifies comple- tions and teachers who have yet to attend workshops (mostly new teachers). The cor- rective action plans urge the schools and district to train all ELA and math teachers and principals. As indicated in Standard 2.4, the commitment in fall 2009 to professional development has continued, even in the face of a difficult financial forecast. The district has committed both unrestricted state funding and other categorical funds to this high priority area. The main inhibitor to the trainings was the layoff and subsequent late rehires or new hires and some last-minute changes in assignments such that teachers were unable to attend the summer workshops. One hundred fourteen teachers participated in Houghton Mifflin Advanced Training in August; 55 in math training; secondary teachers participated in workshops for Holt and SRA/REACH (language arts materials) workshops; principals participated in AB 420-funded workshops; and a multi-day summer workshop for admin- istrators was held in August. Pupil Achievement 21 Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 May 1, 2005 Rating: 2 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 22 Pupil Achievement 3.1 Instructional Strategies – Learning Opportunity Legal Standard: The district provides equal access to educational opportunities to all students regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, gender, physical disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic standing, and other factors (EC 51007). Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. As the original FCMAT comprehensive report findings in fall 2004 noted, the district statement on equal access was in board policy, but not referenced in district communica- tions. A non-discrimination clause was included in parent notifications, but one could not be found in the board policy manual. In spring 2007, the uniform complaint policy and procedures were posted at stations throughout the district in a brochure. In May 2008, the revised policy (BP 2000b, adopted January 2008) and forms could be found on the Web site. The policy says that uniform complaint procedures should be used when addressing complaints alleging “unlawful discrimination regarding actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic group identification, race, ancestry, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability, or age or on the basis of a person’s association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” In fall 2009, the Parent and Student Responsibilities and Rights and Parent Notification Form were updated for the opening of school. Updates included the addition of “disabil- ity, sexual orientation, and gender identity” to the categories against whom discrimination and harassment is prohibited. The district has developed a vision statement saying that all students will be provided with access to the necessary knowledge and skills to access higher level education and career opportunities – and more recently, a prohibition against discrimination and harassment against specifically named groups. A district that provides equal access to educational opportunity must be proactive, and over the course of the reform the district has taken critical actions that indicate an awareness of the learning opportunity issues in the district’s schools and commu- nity and the intent to overcome them. Examples of strategies to improve access for all students that are being implemented in the course of the reform include the following: • The use of assessment data to identify students who are not succeeding and intervene with support, placement in differentiated curricula, CAHSEE preparation and other critical services. Providing professional development to teachers, such as SDAIE train- ing, contributes to improved access and opportunity within the classroom. • The collection of behavioral data and the initiation of more systematic approaches to school climate and student behavior issues, particularly pinpointing grade levels and specific groups with high disciplinary contact, and proactively adopting a behavioral intervention program in spring 2007, Second Step. Some schools use Peace Builders. In fall 2009, class visits documented the middle and high school classroom implementa- tion of Noah Salzman’s classroom management program that helps teachers create a supportive learning climate, especially for hard-to-reach or confrontational students. Pupil Achievement 23 2. For the community, the redesigned (2005) district Web site is more accessible, attractive, relevant, and timely, though portions are still being developed. On the Web, the agendas and actions of the board are more transparent, and board policies are posted. There is a “how to” section on the site (apply for GATE, file a complaint, etc.) that, when fully implemented, may help improve parent and student access, particularly as more items are added in key community languages. In fall 2009, the Web site is being updated for the new school year, so some information is not yet current; nor are all changes in staff posted. Significantly, items of critical inter- est to the community, such as the work of the committee on school consolidation and sur- plus property (SCPAC), are quickly accessible on the home page. There still is no posting of an equal access statement, nor are there additional items in Spanish. Some school Web sites are significantly out of date (which may be a WASC issue for high schools). In fall 2004, evidence suggested that schools needed disaggregations of data on assess- ment, attendance/suspensions, course enrollments, grades, etc., to evaluate and address access to educational opportunities and reduce the achievement gap. Beginning in fall 2005, the district provided principals and schools with assessment data showing ethnic and other subgroup growth over time (trends) in an informational workshop session, establishing what has been a critical feature of the reform: the analytical use of student achievement data from the classroom to the district. The performance gap between and among ethnic groups was identified at that time as a major district concern, and improve- ment of training, materials, and practices to better serve students performing below proficiency continue to be addressed in an ongoing and purposeful way. Increasing the achievement of subgroups has required addressing and monitoring the academic growth of special education students and English learners, as well as identifying other struggling students for interventions. From fall 2005 to spring 2008, several district initiatives, actions, and research-based practices demonstrated the district’s response to the need to improve access for all learn- ers. For example: • A universal access period for elementary schools with targeted interventions was implemented in fall 2005. Students were identified for intervention based on CST and formative data. A board presentation on October 19, 2005 explained the rationale for an aggressive intervention program backed by people, time, and financial resources as a way to accelerate learning for the lowest performers. • Corrective actions and benchmarks for program improvement (DAIT/SAIT) plans (spring 2006), which support equal access, were developed under Title I District Improvement. Corrective action plans outline several components for ongoing moni- toring of student achievement and interventions for those below standard, including actions leading to revised master schedules to provide the required number of minutes for students in interventions. Improvement of access to instructional minutes was seen in the 2005-06 implementation of class size reduction in third grade and ninth grade English language arts and math, and in the district’s monitoring of master schedules. Middle and high school schedules contain secondary intervention courses. In fall 24 Pupil Achievement 2009, funding for class size reduction, except for Reading First and QEIA schools, was removed from the budget. • Beginning in the 2006-07 school year, secondary students identified as “intensive” or “strategic” were afforded targeted instruction during the school day. This initia- tive has required significant work with master schedules and student identification for placement, as well as teacher training for and the purchase of Holt, REACH, and Language! for use in ELA/reading interventions. As observed in May 2008, students continued to be provided interventions, albeit with some modifications in secondary schools mid-year. Class observations found that curriculum and pacing guides provide synchronicity of topics for the various levels combined with diverse teaching strategy. For example, at one high school, all ninth graders were reading Romeo and Juliet, but the support class observed was also highly engaged in reading comprehension strate- gies that helped them follow the sequence of events and to see how attention to poetic conventions deepened understanding. Principals at all levels continued to note the decline in students qualifying for intervention classes. • There was a phased-in implementation of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model for special education, which evaluates students with needs in comparison to all other students in a single standards-based accountability model and leads to an integrated service delivery model for students with learning disabilities. Decisions are based on student data and are problem-solving in focus, and will help reinforce the new data-decision practices emerging in the district. In May 2008, the implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) was found to be progressing with the development of a model that is conceptualized as a two-part, three-tier pyramid. The two parts are academic and behavioral; the three tiers outline a research-based process for academic intervention and services to address student needs at each level. • Addressing the achievement gap also means analyzing disaggregated data on atten- dance, suspension, course enrollments, and grades/credits and developing solutions for students whose school behavior patterns interfere with their learning. Headway has been made in this area: a better data/tracking system and regular reports; a recon- stituted SARB, professional development for principals and co-administrators on student behavior interventions; partnerships; and work on the issues of school climate and discipline in the schools and classrooms. In addressing the achievement gap, it is important to identify groups of students who are performing in the lower two categories of the CST. The following two charts show district average performance in three underperforming groups in 2006 and 2009, com- pared with state averages. These are figures that both the district and state have interest in reducing. Pupil Achievement 25 English Language Arts California Standards Test, 2006 VCUSD/State Comparison of Percentage of Students Performing at Below Basic and Far Below Basic Grade VCUSD State VCUSD State VCUSD State VCUSD State Economically African American Students with All Students Disadvantaged Students Disability Students 2 29% 27% 37% 42% 37% 37% 73% 56% 3 38% 32% 45% 40% 47% 43% 84% 64% 4 29% 23% 43% 32% 38% 32% 72% 59% 5 30% 26% 42% 35% 37% 36% 81% 63% 6 36% 27% 44% 37% 46% 39% 86% 68% 7 37% 28% 51% 40% 45% 39% 91% 70% 8 35% 26% 46% 27% 44% 38% 85% 69% 9 38% 30% 55% 43% 48% 42% 92% 74% 10 41% 35% 57% 50% 55% 50% 88% 79% 11 43% 42% 58% 56% 55% 34% 96% 84% English Language Arts California Standards Test, 2009 VCUSD/State Comparison of Percentage of Students Performing at Below Basic and Far Below Basic Grade VCUSD State VCUSD State VCUSD State VCUSD State Economically African American Students with All Students Disadvantaged Students Disability Students 2 22% 21% 31% 26% 27% 28% 58% 52% 3 34% 29% 40% 36% 40% 39% 47% 53% 4 17% 14% 21% 21% 24% 20% 34% 37% 5 21% 17% 29% 24% 27% 25% 55% 44% 6 28% 17% 40% 26% 37% 25% 81% 49% 7 23% 18% 33% 27% 30% 27% 54% 54% 8 22% 22% 33% 32% 28% 31% 63% 59% 9 31% 23% 41% 34% 39% 32% 74% 64% 10 33% 27% 50% 40% 40% 37% 84% 71% 11 43% 35% 62% 49% 43% 46% 92% 60% Comparing these two charts shows that in 2009, the percentages of all Vallejo students in grades 2-10 performing in the Below Basic and Far Below Basic categories decreased (grade 11 remained the same). The percentage of African Americans in grades 2-10 performing in these two lower categories significantly decreased, as it did for the economically disadvan- taged and students with disabilities subgroup at grades 2-11. The state also is making progress in reducing these percentages, but at several grade levels the district is closer to the state average than before or, as in the case of the fourth grade African American students, the same. (Note that percentages are sensitive to the numbers of students at each grade level and that these are comparisons of cohorts, not of individual student growth.) 26 Pupil Achievement For fall 2009, several significant changes and actions intended to benefit access to learning for all students were under way. First, the NCLB/CDE introduction of dropout monitor- ing on the AYP and the resultant standardized procedures for schools to document student enrollments and disenrollments support timelier tracking of dropouts and potential dropouts. A checklist outline of procedures and strategies for managing the high school graduation rate has been developed that includes proper coding and data tracking. With a high degree of principal awareness, the district should use these data to give significance and a sense of urgency to the loss of students through dropouts, and develop a proactive, innovative, and ongoing approach to pursuing dropouts. Second, several after-school programs have been organized as “Extended Learning Options” under the directors of elementary and secondary education. Although already somewhat in place, the programs previously had been treated as separate entities. Extended Learning Options was formed as an extension of the school day for identified students who need extra support. Programs are at 11 elementary schools, four middle schools, and three comprehensive high schools and include, for example: ASES or 21st Century After School Programs, Saturday School, Supplemental Instruction, Cyber High (credit recovery), CAHSEE intervention at middle school (includes materials and training for teachers) and middle school summer retention, and high school summer school. Programs were evaluated by an outside agency, using a survey of students, parents, and teachers. The summer school curriculum has been standardized with topics, pacing guides, and materials that complement the academic year courses and focus on credit recovery. Finally, the board approved the conditions for AB 1802 funding for counselors, and coun- selors and administrators were provided professional development on the components of results-based counseling and the issues of counseling work by an outside agency. Imple- menting these changes to the counseling program will greatly enhance student access to learning opportunities during school and beyond graduation. Per a settlement agreement with the ACLU in December, the district will provide staff and students with training in gender identity and sexual orientation harassment and discrimination. Administrators completed the training in August. The district is undergoing an Office for Civil Rights investigation related to the number of suspensions of African American students. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 5 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 27 3.2 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: Challenging learning goals and instructional plans and programs for all students are evident. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The district has developed and the board has adopted (April 5, 2006) a core curriculum policy (BP 6000b) that identifies the state standards as the basis for learning goals and objectives and ensures equal access to this core of learning. Board Policy 6000a provides a vision and the goals for the district in realizing the vision. A revised high school gradu- ation policy (BP 6000f) and regulation, adopted in February 6, 2008, includes a plan to phase in the a-g university requirements as the graduation requirements by 2011. 2. District leadership developed expectations for a challenging curriculum based on full implementation of the state standards in reading and mathematics and began to act ag- gressively on these expectations in 2004-05 using several high-leverage, research-based strategies, including grade-level pacing guides, consistent materials adoptions for use across the district, and formative assessments and monitoring/feedback, supported with AB 466 and AB 75 professional development, collaboration, and coaching. New expecta- tions for high school included a-g requirements for all students, common course guides, and end-of-course assessments, as well as smaller learning communities. In 2005-06, the district’s instructional plan was developed to extend, formalize, and benchmark the district’s expectations for a challenging curriculum. The district began addressing universal access in the elementary program with additional training and mate- rials for students requiring more focused instruction. In May 2006, initiation of the corrective action plans for the schools, as the district came under Title I Program Improvement, supported efforts to implement standards-based instruction for all students, contributing to work under way in grades K-5 and providing a substantial boost to the full implementation of standards in the secondary schools. A working document showed the district’s analysis of high school graduation requirements by grade level and the need to accelerate learning for students identified as strategic and intensive simultaneously with the goal of helping all students meet the a-g requirements and pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) for graduation. In fall 2006, the secondary school master schedules had been successfully revised to allow identified students to receive intensive and strategic instruction, as well as English learner support. Teachers were provided with training and appropriate materials to accel- erate student learning programs for students who did not meet standards. Pathways for high school students to receive this type of instruction and continue to progress toward graduation were identified. Counselors were included in this work. In spring 2007, visits to intensive, strategic and support classes in a sample of second- ary schools showed students to be placed in benchmark and intensive programs at their instructional level. Some class structures provided additional time for students. Teachers 28 Pupil Achievement using the new programs were provided with assistance and coaching by reform coordina- tors and, as is the case with Language!, on-site feedback and coaching from the trainer. In fall 2009, the district continues to provide a BTSA program for the induction of new teachers. Program standards relate directly to improving students academic achievement through the Plan, Teach, Reflect, and Apply cycle. Teachers set goals and reflect on those, as well as examine their practice through the analysis of student work and lesson planning. The district’s BTSA program uses the New Teacher Center of UC Santa Cruz Formative Assessment System, which is research-based, aimed at improving the practice of beginning teachers to improve instruction and therefore student achievement. In fall 2009, it appears that the leading publication (in the district) of the district’s expec- tations for “challenging instruction” is the pacing guide/essential standards, augmented by information from benchmark assessments. These documents, according to one principal, ensure that there are no gaps in the curriculum; that a rigorous pace is set and maintained; and that students have studied what they are being assessed on. According to another principal, students who move around the district do not miss significant pieces of the curriculum because of the pacing guides; and from still another principal, the pacing guides help when he does classroom walkthroughs because he goes out knowing what to look for. A principal also noted that during a walk-through, one sees the pacing guide in action without ever seeing uniformity of instruction. Professional development, in the form of AB 466 training, and grade level collaboration, provide the basis for professional commitment and know-how for a challenging curriculum. Students in high schools are offered Career Pathways, which introduce rigorous work- place curriculum and relate other coursework to those pathways. Hogan High School has three Partnership Academy grants that fund their pathways. The lack of grant funding in the other high schools may impact the quality of their career programs. In fall 2005, a matrix was developed to demonstrate how categorical and district funds coordinated to support the common work in the schools, such as professional develop- ment. A core of district-funded services goes to schools, regardless of the schools’ entitle- ment to categorical funds. Other categorical funds go to serve the identified students in their respective schools. The corrective action planning contributed to the effort to serve students well with the designated categorical funds. 3. In fall 2004, school plans appeared to meet the state and federal regulations but were not focused realistically on the improvement of instruction or the alignment of standards. In fall 2005, a matrix was developed to demonstrate how categorical and unrestricted funds coordinated to support the common work in the schools, such as professional develop- ment. A core of district-funded services goes to schools, regardless of the schools’ entitle- ment to categorical funds. Other categorical funds are designated to serve the identified students in their respective schools. The corrective action planning contributed to the effort to serve students well with the designated categorical funds. In May 2006, new district administrators for the categorical and English learner programs were assigned. They worked with county consultants to bring the programs into compli- Pupil Achievement 29 ance and develop a Master Plan for English Learners. As of fall 2006, single school plans and school portfolios were part of the principals’ evaluations and provided an opportunity to reflect, evaluate progress, and plan. In fall 2009, the school level planning process appears to have become more complex: an 11th school (out of 12 Title I schools) has been designated Program Improvement. (Lincoln met AYP and is not Program Improvement.) The district is in year 3 of Program Improvement. Every school has a Single School Action Plan, which tells how the schools plan to spend any allocated funds to reach their goals and what methods they will use. Part of the Single School Action Plan is the Corrective Action Plan (PI). Every site has one because all sites in the district have program improvement as part of the reform goals. SMART goals can be found in the single school plan as well. An annual Review of Progress (ROP) provides schools with opportunity to evaluate their plans. The special projects administrator meets with principals to let them know what funds, including carryover, are available. By ensuring that more financial information is available, the district has been able to bring back personnel funded through special programs. 4. As noted above, the formal adoption of revised curriculum policies and the district’s in- structional plan, which marshals its focus and resources toward challenging teaching and learning, are evidence of district leadership to provide for and challenge all students. Dur- ing the 2005-06 school year, a new student services department began work on many of the student and parent issues that impede student participation in challenging learning. In May 2008, interviews and observations found classroom resources to be evenly distrib- uted and specialized materials (such as for English language learners) to be in use. The availability of current teaching materials in basic classes is a significant outcome of the district reform. While recognizing the financial limitations, many district and school site leaders were concerned about the aging computers and the need for technology services. The 2007 CDE technology survey indicated that Vallejo had a higher ratio of students to computers and students to Internet-connected computers than the state, region and county. The survey showed that the percentage of computers over four years old was fairly close to the state, region, and county averages, however. The average hardware fix time was higher in Vallejo than the state, region, and county. Also in May 2008, several interviewees expressed optimism that instruction for gifted students would be reviewed and addressed. • In May 2008, both formal and informal interviews with district and school academic staff were characterized by reflection on the next steps or phases of the reform – what is critical to maintain from the current model and what needs refining as the district moves forward under new leadership. Mid-course corrections based on data, reflec- tion, and dialogue should continue to strengthen student programs and opportunities. • In fall 2009, it is evident that the district has stayed on course to provide leadership, training, and resources for the reform despite changes in leadership and open posi- tions in the district as well as funding cuts from the state that have led to teacher layoffs. For example: teachers are being rehired or recruited; 114 teachers participated 30 Pupil Achievement in Houghton Mifflin Advanced Training in August, 55 in math training; and a large number of secondary teachers participated in workshops for Holt and SRA/REACH (language arts materials) workshops. English and mathematics lead teachers provide subject area support from the district level. Categorical funding together with unre- stricted general fund funding is centered on school support, including lead teachers and reform coordinators, to advance professional development and the students’ educational experiences. A multi-day summer workshop for administrators was held in August. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 31 3.4 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: Students are engaged in learning, and they are able to demonstrate and apply their knowledge and skills. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In fall 2004, the State Administrator articulated the essential elements of the district’s ac- ademic programs. Three of these elements are significant for student engagement in stan- dards-based instruction throughout the district: (1) pacing guides that focus and maximize instructional time and ensure that the standard is taught; (2) standards-based materials accessible to all students; and (3) formative assessments administered at regular intervals that allow staff to monitor and adjust instruction. In fall 2005, the beginning district work was formalized in the Vallejo City USD Instruc- tional Action Plan with eight program components, objectives, benchmarks, and due/ completion dates. At that time, additional district actions that support student engagement in the learning program were evident in the following: (1) class size reductions in kin- dergarten, third, and ninth grade; (2) monitoring of the secondary schedules for student placement in courses leading to graduation and success on the CAHSEE; (3) the estab- lishment of a student support services division to monitor attendance, suspension, and other behavioral data and provide timely and effective interventions to re-engage students in learning; and (4) a vigorous and effective effort to provide a smooth opening of school, including qualified teacher staffing, so that instruction could engage students on the very first day of school. In fall 2006, observations in a sample of schools showed that students in the elementary and middle schools were clearly engaged and focused; however, the high school student engagement rate varied from classroom to classroom. The protocol for schoolwide classroom walkthroughs included an assessment of student engagement. There was also significant evidence of the success of the district’s focus on universal access, intervention strategies, master schedules that support all learners, inclusion of resource teachers and ELD teacher trainings based on new standards-based materials, and walk-through super- vision protocols that included engagement rates. In spring 2007, observations of ELA and math interventions and ELD support classes in a middle and high school during two days showed the results of ongoing efforts to engage and accelerate students who had fallen significantly behind their peers. While students in this category, who are grouped for instruction, are often likely to be off-task, most students in the classes observed were engaged in the lessons. The exceptions noted in the sample were in intensive ELA classes with new teachers or ELD classes without a fully qualified teacher. Observations from walkthroughs, according to district and school leaders, indicated that professional development, fidelity to the standards-based pacing guides and collaboration 32 Pupil Achievement were combining to create classrooms where students were more engaged rather than less engaged as some teachers had predicted. In May 2008, observations of ninth-grade ELA at all levels showed students to be highly engaged. Engagement in seventh- and-eighth grade ELA intensive and support classes was higher without the new teacher issues observed in the previous year. Engagement levels in secondary mathematics classes were lower, and in a few instances, teachers did not appear to be fully prepared. Observations of elementary classrooms showed students to be on task. At the elementary level and in the ninth-grade ELA classes, class observers thought that the effect of pacing guides – same topic, different approaches – was compel- ling. In fall 2009, class observations yielded a higher rate of on-task students in secondary school than previously observed. Though there were outliers (including a completely off- task class and teacher), teachers were keeping students engaged in learning about topics ranging from the French Revolution to the Iroquois Constitution, to simplifying algebraic expressions to pre-calculus, to spelling common but tricky English words. Overall lessons are better structured, and SDAIE methods are being used in some classrooms. The use of computer presentational software/projection is emerging in social studies classes. Improvements may be attributable to classroom walkthroughs by principals and/or teacher teams that frequently focus on the element of student engagement. A sample of a middle school walk-through checklist and the data collected for each teacher and depart- ment shows the number of students on and off task, the physical environment, and the display of the standard, objective, and agenda in the room. A summary of trends in the data is available for discussion. There is also a Six-Minute Feedback form used in ELD classes to collect data on student engagement and learning opportunities and discuss funding with teacher peers. 2. During summer 2005, 210 teachers began the AB 466 training sequences with the reading and mathematics materials and 16 of 18 elementary principals began the AB 75 training. There was a written plan to complete the reading and math training sequence for all teachers and principals. In May 2006, there was additional documentation of teacher and principal training. The corrective action plans for district program improvement gave more impetus to this training. As outlined in other standards (see Standard 2.9), training continued and was monitored for participation and completion. In spring 2007, the outcome of the effort, resources, and leadership that brought focused professional development to the district’s teachers continued to be remarkable, particu- larly the tracking system that seemed to keep any teachers from slipping through the cracks. In fall 2009, as noted in previous standards, the district continued with AB 466 train- ing in the face of budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Participants included 114 teachers in Advanced Houghton Mifflin Reading and 58 in math. Pupil Achievement 33 3. The district began the use of formative assessments almost immediately in the first year of the reform, and training was provided. With input from the principals, the 2005 CST data were arranged in a more useful disaggregated format. Principals reported that student data was central to their school and district work. In May 2006, there was evidence that the elementary school staffs were using data to identify students for targeted interventions and that progress was already apparent in elementary schools where several variables – a strong intervention program, quick results with the lowest performers, and high student engagement – converged to bring about successful implementation. Early results indicated that interventions in middle and high schools have improved, supported by the corrective action plans. In spring 2007, principals and the district leadership demonstrated how walk-through data was collected systematically and used to improve the quality of the ongoing work in schools and classrooms. An example from Cooper Elementary School showed data collection and analysis using a three-question procedure, and decisions for next steps to improvement. Another example showed a school tallying the types of student feedback in use and compiling the data for analysis. In May 2008, principals continued to extol the virtues of the benchmark data as the basis of school planning, student intervention, and classroom supervision, and showed the systems used to plan and document their supervision. Suggestions for improvement from principals and teachers included a closer alignment between the benchmark test items and the CST items and benchmark assessments for science and social science. In fall 2009, the district provides a case study in the empowering effects of information on teachers, principals, and district leaders. The collaborative use of data has increased substantially, but more impressive is the belief of faculties that they can support learners though precise data, monitor and adjust their own practices based on compelling data, and bring a little science to the art of teaching. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 4 May 31, 2006 Rating: 5 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 34 Pupil Achievement 3.5 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: The district and school staffs promote and communicate high expectations for the learning and behavior of all students. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. Key instructional/student policies adopted by the board on April 5, 2006 communicate the expectations for district students: BP 6000a, Vision and Goals; BP 6000b, Core Cur- riculum, which designates the California standards as the expected student curriculum; and BP 6000c, Assessment and Testing. Board Policy 6000e, Promotion and Retention, establishes criteria for decisions about student promotion. Board Policy 5000a, Student Discipline, which outlines behavioral expectations for students, was adopted in spring 2007. BP 6000f, High School Graduation, and its accompanying regulations were adopt- ed in 2007 and revised in 2008, and set the expectation established in 2005 that all gradu- ates will have met the a-g university requirements by 2011. Other actions by the district and school leadership to promote and communicate high expectations for learning and behavior included the following: • The school climate committee has made recommendations that, when implemented, will contribute to improved student behavior and support a strong learning environ- ment. Collection of baseline data will provide for the ongoing monitoring of progress in this area. • The district expanded formative assessments and systematic and aggressive academic interventions into the secondary schools with a supportive master schedule. • The district provided orientation to special education RtI and professional develop- ment for special education teachers; and in May 2008 a process was well under way to create an RtI model illustrated by a two-part, three-tier pyramid to evaluate special education candidates through response to interventions. • A draft of the Master Plan for English Learners was headed for board approval in June 2008. The plan outlined goals for English learner programs, staff, and supports. In fall 2009, there is no record of board adoption of the plan. • Student work permits are issued or withheld based on student attendance and aca- demic behaviors. In fall 2009, the board policies are posted on the Web site for the community and staff to view. However, it is in their actions, such as adopting a high school graduation policy that sets rigorous standards; a student discipline policy that is the basis of a communication to students and parents about good behavior; and the anti-discrimination policy/uniform complaint procedure that is backed up by mandatory training for all staff and students, Pupil Achievement 35 that the governing board shows it is serious about its expectations for a high quality and inclusive education. 2. In the interest of clear communication about expectations, principals have been directed by district leadership to share new policies with the community and school staff. Prin- cipals have also participated in the development and implementation of new policies through a special principal retreat and regular meeting agendas. The 2005 design of the Web site includes making the board policies, vision, goals, and expectations available online. It is the practice of the curriculum and instruction division to connect all reform initia- tives to expectations for students so that the communications about high expectations for adults are correlated with outcomes for students. Staff development days are well planned, with written communications that show the reasons for activities and how they connect to the district’s overall vision and expectations for students. The aggressive inter- vention program sends a message that there are high expectations for students and that all staff members are enablers of these expectations. In March 2007, a climate and culture meeting provided the opportunity for curriculum and instruction and student services staff to consider a systematic approach to school climate that encourages and supports academic achievement. Staff members developed a theory of action and evaluated the district’s practice in the following areas: agreed- upon vision, policies and practice, positive student discipline, classroom management, and clear responsibilities. The district subsequently adopted the Second Step program to communicate expectations for student behavior, purchased materials and began train- ing. In May 2008, Second Step or Peace Builders was implemented in many schools to provide students with social interactive skills and decision-making processes. Another behavior program by Noah Salzman was provided for all middle schools in spring 2008, with follow-up visits to the schools as requested. A session was provided for the district’s professional development days in August 2009. In fall 2009, the expectations for students have been updated, distributed in hard copy, and posted on the Web site. This document mostly relates to student behavior and interac- tions; while academic expectations, for the most part, are communicated by teachers and to some extent by report cards. 2. The direction to the staff from the State Administrator is that new policy statements should reflect short- and long-range goals to build trust and confidence. The goals of the State Administrator and the board include seeking a long-term solution to the fiscal crisis and a commitment to build the resources and ability of the district to sustain improve- ments when local control is returned. The State Administrator’s messages to the staff and community communicate high expectations for students and for the performance of all district systems on behalf of students. By May 2008, as the district was in the process of returning to local control in some of the five operational areas, interviews with school and district staff showed that most were convinced that the elements of the short-term turn-around reform have been positive as 36 Pupil Achievement the district learned to work together for a common purpose and believed they would be able to shift into gear for the next phase of the reform. Fall 2009 interviews demonstrate that the reform has built trust and confidence through- out the district. School and district leaders have generally maintained the momentum of the reform even though there have been leadership changes and reductions at the district, as well as funding and staffing cuts created by the state budget crisis. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 2 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 37 3.8 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: Principals make formal and informal classroom visits. Based on these visits, principals provide constructive feedback and assistance to teachers. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In 2004-05, the district implemented a formal walk-through protocol and follow-up feedback plan at the elementary level. Principal and lead teacher agendas indicated that training and support was ongoing and provided at all levels as a strategy to support stan- dards implementation. The district was aligning all systems, including formal evaluation, with the district’s achievement agenda. A planning calendar for secondary instructional leadership for 2005-06 included assigned roles and showed the preparation for aligning the secondary program with district goals by learning new tools such as a feedback protocol. In 2006, lead teachers and principals indicated that classroom walkthroughs had become an established practice. Walkthroughs were based on a district observation protocol that included items such as the rate of student engagement. In some schools, other teachers participated in these walkthroughs as well. Lead teachers identified walkthroughs as a key strategy for working with teachers and identifying needs. In spring 2007, district leaders had compelling evidence that walkthroughs were a systematic component of all levels of the system. The walkthroughs were designed to monitor student progress and promote improved teacher practice through performance feedback. Walk-through data were systematically collected, summarized and analyzed so consensus could be reached about best practices and needed improvements. Evidence of systems could be found in the visitation schedules and various observation tools, includ- ing accompanying texts in use and those developed by a school to collect data on a topic of interest, such as strategies to engage all students. In May 2008, sample principal interviews, particularly at the elementary level, indicated that classroom visits constituted a critical tool in their daily routine and overall plan for school improvement. They were supporting teachers, staying in touch with student learn- ing, and connecting classroom strategies to student outcomes. In some schools, supervi- sion could be selective, such as when teachers wanted to work on a particular strategy and receive feedback on how students were responding. Besides principals, teacher leaders and coaches were frequently involved in these observation and feedback loops. In fall 2009, principals articulate the rationale for walkthroughs and the relationship of what they see and the feedback they give to the pacing guides and benchmark assessment data. Walkthroughs are focused and scheduled (often posted on a board in the princi- pal’s office). An example of a summary of walk-through data, collected last spring, that focused on student engagement and classroom learning environment at Solano Middle was not unlike what FCMAT saw in practice at Solano in fall 2009. The engagement rate 38 Pupil Achievement was higher than that observed in middle schools before, and generally, the classrooms had posted standards, objectives, and agendas for the day. 2. In 2004-05, the district developed three memoranda with time lines describing the ele- ments of principal evaluations at elementary, middle, and high schools. These elements were organized according to the State Administrator’s five goals, and supervisors were assigned. The documentation included a sample of a midyear progress report. Principals’ evaluations were tied to student achievement. In fall 2006, the district’s leadership identified the expectations for and the supervision and evaluation of principals as key to success. Sample evaluations demonstrate the consistency of evaluation elements and the individualized feedback that principals received. Principals of at-risk schools received additional support, including coaching by an outside provider. In fall 2009, even with layoffs and personnel changes, all interviewed principals had completed their teacher evaluations for 2008-09 and were meeting the targeted time lines for the current year, even though there was some confused communication from human resources about who was to be evaluated. (Teacher evaluations had been a casualty of the crisis preceding the state takeover.) 3. Documentation in May 2005 showed that elementary school principals received training in data use, in conducting classroom observations, and in data analysis. A principals’ meeting/workshop agenda (Sept. 28, 2005) showed that principals were provided with strategies to refocus teacher evaluation on student achievement goals, including help- ing teachers set objectives linked to district goals and strategies. Principals were also provided with norms for writing objectives and received a sample evaluation plan. The workshop and materials demonstrated how the contract evaluation form based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession was used to support the district’s focus on student achievement (see also Standard 5.7). In fall 2005, principals had received a list of teachers to be evaluated, with time lines. This met a need identified during the original FCMAT review in fall 2004 with a finding that many teacher evaluations were not completed and/or filed during the prior year. Principals also were evaluated during the 2004-05 school year based on the State Admin- istrator’s goals, and found the process very helpful. Principal and teacher leader interviews during two visits in 2006-07 indicated that formal (summative) evaluations of teachers were supported by walkthroughs and ongoing feedback and coaching (formative evaluation). The principals’ own evaluations were sup- ported by a school portfolio and a log of walk-through data. Principals felt accountable for student outcomes and overall school performance, but they liked the partnership with district leaders to address learning issues, solve problems and self-correct during reform initiatives. In fall 2009, DAIT consultants have conducted walkthroughs and provided summaries of findings. Additionally, protocols are provided for walkthroughs in the secondary schools and findings are shared (without teacher names). The best documentation of this standard comes from principals themselves who feel empowered by the process: they know what Pupil Achievement 39 they should look for based on the pacing guides and the student data analyses and are able to give useful feedback to teachers, and can also identify trends and issues across grade levels and subject areas. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 40 Pupil Achievement 3.10 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: Clearly defined discipline practices have been established and communicated among the stu- dents, staff, board, and community. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The district office reorganized and restaffed in 2005 to form the Student Support Services Division with a director and three coordinators, with a focus on assisting all schools with appropriate responses to student attendance, behavior and health issues. This included monitoring and intervening as needed through processes such as the school attendance review board (SARB) and establishing relationships with community agencies that were involved with youth. Board Policy 5000(b), Student Attendance, was in draft form. In May 2006, a semiannual report from the Student Support Services Division provided a list of accomplishments to date and activities in progress. Some significant work had occurred on behalf of students, including but not limited to the design and implementa- tion of a SARB that was aggressive, consistent, and effective; the implementation of the FAST family improvement program in seven elementary schools; collaboration with community agencies to participate in SARB hearings; and coordination of a School Resource Officer program. In fall 2006, the State Administrator unveiled his planned actions for responding to the findings and recommendations of the school climate committee, including (a) select and implement a core schoolwide behavior program designed to create a safe, positive learn- ing environment; (b) provide the training needed to teachers and other staff to ensure the successful implementation of the selected program; (c) provide training and follow-up support to all staff needing or desiring classroom management support; (d) use progres- sive discipline strategies consistently across schools and classrooms; (e) restructure the campus supervision program; (f) build greater understanding among parents regarding student behavior and their role in their child’s success; (g) monitor consistency of adult behaviors at the school and classroom level; and (h) strengthen the use of the district phone system and other avenues of communication. For the 2006-07 academic year, a four-page document outlines the behavioral expecta- tions for students and the role of the school and parents in upholding the expectations. It is clearly written and, although it notes consequences, it is not threatening. Board Policy 5000(a), Student Discipline, was adopted in spring 2007. It is posted on the district Web site. The district adopted the Second Step program to communicate expectations and teach processes for appropriate student behavior, has purchased materials, and has begun to train staff. This cognitive approach to behavior change and life skills has a promis- ing research base. In 22 lessons it targets manners, attitudes toward authority and one another, and teaches communication and negotiation skills. Pupil Achievement 41 In fall 2009, the student services area at the district has undergone a significant change under new district leadership. It has been integrated into the division of Curriculum and Instruction/Student Services (CISS). Conceptually, integration is intended to improve coordination, but coupled with staff reductions and an unclear organizational chart for the new division, there has been little time for formal coordination. In addition, the city of Vallejo is unable to continue the School Resource Officer program, and some other grant funds have contributed to resource limits, further affecting services in this area. Nonetheless, student services staff have held together many complex pieces of the student services area, including the updating and distribution of the Rights and Responsibilities and Parent Notification documents; the maintenance of student attendance records and actions, including SARB and truancy court; the essential legal training for all staff, including training in gender identity and sexual orientation harassment and discrimina- tion; student discipline, due process, and expulsions; and student enrollment and trans- fers. In addition, the student services staff members supervise the elementary after school programs, student health, substance/prevention programs, and homeless youth. 2. The Aeries student information system has been implemented to assist staff in the ongoing monitoring of attendance, suspension, and monthly dropout data. System and report generation training has been provided to principals and office managers. Several principals say they regularly use the reporting mechanism, as well as attendance/truancy letters and parent notifications required by law, which include student behavior standards and basic discipline. Documentation in spring 2006 showed that the AP/VP meetings were dedicated to profes- sional development regarding expulsions, suspensions, and behavioral interventions. Outside expertise was brought in to assist with these sessions. In spring 2007, principals received a review of Education Code Section 48900, with an emphasis from the student services staff on providing due process. In fall 2009, information from the Aeries system is routinely used by principals. A new checklist for monitoring dropouts and for intervening or preventing dropouts is in use, a significant step forward in addressing a serious local issue. The overrepresentation of African American students in suspensions and expulsions is being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights. 3. The district dedicated a staff development buy-back day in August 2006 for staff to learn about and plan for structuring a universal access and intervention block to address the diverse needs of elementary students. Teachers also learned to use the Systematic Instruc- tion in Phoneme Awareness, Phonics and Sight Words (SIPPS) assessment and placement instrument to place students in the three levels of the elementary program. At the secondary level, intervention courses have been identified, including courses that provide curriculum support, CAHSEE support and support for various levels of English language learners. In 2006-07, intervention classes for math, English language assessment (ELA), and Eng- lish language development (ELD) were included in the secondary master schedules for students identified as intensive or strategic, and in support classes for English learners. 42 Pupil Achievement Teachers were provided with training and materials and sometimes with technology to help them work with diverse learners. In fall 2009, the district is engaged in an extended agenda of workshops on gender identi- ty and sexual orientation harassment and discrimination. This training started with admin- istrators and continues on to include teachers and students. Concomitantly, board policy has been developed/revised regarding this population. 4. In fall 2009, there is evidence of a new approach to counseling in the district. AB 1802 provides for a results-based school counseling and student support system, a program based on the use of student data. It aims to close the learning gap for some students and create ways for school counselors to work with school leadership to reach all students, including diverse populations. The board has agreed to the stipulations of the program and training has been provided for counselors and administrators. 5. The student services division monitors student behavior and provides interventions and options and support to school site administration. The spring 2006 semiannual report from student support services showed that routine monitoring of student suspensions and attendance was occurring. The department is also systematizing and monitoring other student processes, such as interdistrict and intradistrict transfers and work permits. For the 2006 opening of school, the State Administrator demonstrated the power of moni- toring data on student behaviors with an analysis of the types of referrals, the character of student absences and the relationship of GPA to absences. From the initial data analysis, it was clear that behavior incidents peaked during the transition years from elementary school to high school, so that grades six and nine are critical periods for preventive behavior programs. In spring 2007, district data were analyzed to determine a baseline for attendance, refer- rals, expulsions, and other factors so that progress could be monitored in schools as behavior support strategies changed with the implementation of the new behavior pro- gram, Second Step. Schools have a report of class referrals by teacher. Student services staff members are working on the dropout rate through independent studies and the sys- tematic use of work permits as an incentive for school attendance. In May 2008, several principals demonstrated their use of the student behavior report for initiating dialogues with students and parents. There was also an indication that schools were using the SARB process to urge parents and students to monitor attendance. Sec- ondary principals, particularly, reported on the helpfulness of legal training on student discipline issues with an attorney provided by the Student Services division. This division also provided for the SB 1626 campus supervisor training throughout the 2007-08 aca- demic year. In fall 2009, SART workers help principals monitor attendance through Aeries and carry out home visits and other actions to keep students attending school. A tighter process for monitoring potential dropouts and actual dropouts is contributing to interventions to keep students in school. Pupil Achievement 43 Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 5 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 44 Pupil Achievement 3.11 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: School class size and teacher assignments support effective learning. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. District staff created and implemented a plan to accurately report and assign students to classes. The staffing and enrollment time line for 2005-06 indicated the activity, due date and person responsible. Principals reported that work on the staffing plan, along with the more effective recruitment and hiring of teachers, contributed to a smooth opening of school and balanced classes in fall 2005. The R-30 and principal interviews indicated that ELD students were placed with appropriately credentialed teachers. In spring 2007, visits to ELA strategic and intensive classes and math support classes in the secondary schools showed that students not only had the advantage of trained teachers and targeted instructional materials, but smaller class sizes. School principals and district staff continue to note the quality work done to accurately project enrollments and staff the schools in a timely manner with qualified teachers, while maintaining class sizes and timely assignments of students to classes. Visits to a sample of classes in spring 2007 also found the following class size and staffing practices that should receive further consideration: (1) the assignment of new or relatively inexperienced teachers to secondary intervention classes; (2) the size of some secondary ELD classes; and (3) the lack of an adult tutor in some secondary ELD classes. In May 2008, a sample of class visits did not find new teachers in the secondary ELA intervention classes. Observations of middle and high math classes found unevenness in math instruction – from outstanding to either underqualified and/or underprepared. Several levels of ELD were combined into one classroom in a few cases without a para- professional or a reduced class size. In fall 2009, the district management plan has been dealt a blow from state budget cuts and related spring layoffs. At this time, the district is recovering teachers, but class sizes are up except in areas where there is additional funding from grants and conditions to retain that funding. K-3 staffing is mostly at 28:1. Visits did not show that classrooms were crowded. 2. Class size reduction in kindergarten, third, and ninth grade English and algebra was implemented for the 2005-06 school year. The district planned to add one counselor to each middle school for the 2007-08 school year, and an additional counselor for Vallejo High School and Bethel High School with categorical funds. In May 2008, it was evident from staff interviews that some of the recaptured staff and staffing ratios were endangered by potential budget cuts. Many staff members received March 15 notices. As noted above, in fall 2009, the district is trying, like all districts in California, to manage state funding cuts, and pupil/teacher ratios are at stake. Pupil Achievement 45 3. During the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 school years, the State Administrator conveyed to the staff and community the nature of the district’s financial issues and the district’s prog- ress in addressing finances while keeping student achievement at the forefront. Principals reported a great deal of trust at the school sites for the state administrative team because of the open communication and for keeping student achievement as the top priority even as the district recovered from financial crisis. This was demonstrated through the reinstatement of class size reduction and the commitment to monitoring teachers’ average class sizes. In fall 2006 the State Administrator also communicated the district’s current fiscal and achievement status to the district’s staff. The fiscal information is also contained on the district’s Web site. In spring 2007, four dates were established for the administration’s district coffee tours, with space for 20 individuals, to showcase the district’s students and schools to parents and residents. In May 2008, the new superintendent and board interacted with the staff and community, sharing elements of their vision, and were open about potential budget reductions. In fall 2009, the district budget information is on the Web site. The most serious issue before the board is a need to consolidate schools, close some campuses, sell surplus property in the face of declining enrollment and revenue shortfalls, and use some surplus property, through sale or lease, to repay the state loan. A committee has been appointed and recently made its first report to the board. That report is on the Web site. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 6 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 46 Pupil Achievement 3.15 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard: Curriculum and instruction for English Language Learners prepares these students to transition to regular class settings and achieve at a high level in all subjects. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. Administration of the EL program, including assessment, has steadily improved since the original review. In May 2005, the district had a stated objective to shorten the waiting time for CELDT reports to no more than two weeks and to revise the structured interview form for secondary students since the wait time for CELDT results, though within the legal limit, might leave students in an inappropriate placement. In fall 2005, these objec- tives were not yet verifiable because of personnel changes in the EL office. In May 2006 the program was undergoing a thorough revision. In fall 2006, a draft of the English learner master plan was comprehensive and profes- sional. The new district categorical department was fully staffed, and staff had received assistance from the state and the county office in building better budgets and training opportunities for CELDT proctors. As a result, the staff were able to distribute CELDT information faster so that timely student placement occurred. In January 2008, the Eng- lish learner master plan was presented to the board for approval; however a board action to approve cannot be documented in fall 2009. Approval is required by law. In fall 2009, the district met its Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) 1 and 2, but not 3, the one for English language arts. The chart below shows the percents of students performing at Below Basic or Far Below Basic compared to state percentages. The divergence between district averages of students performing in the two lower levels of the CST and the state averages widens in grades 9-11. Percentage of Vallejo and State English Learners Below Basic and Far Below Basic, CST English Language Arts, 2009 Grade 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VCUSD Total # 404 278 234 143 157 133 67 156 125 98 Tested VCUSD % 26% 53% 34% 56% 60% 57% 62% 72% 73% 84% BB/FBB CA % BB/ 24% 49% 28% 40% 44% 49% 58% 59% 65% 77% FBB 2. In fall 2005, principals reported that the percentage of teachers with CLAD training was rising and that they were able to staff schools appropriately for English learners. In May 2006, the R-30 reports for each school showed that all teachers providing instruction to Pupil Achievement 47 English learners had appropriate credentials. The Corrective Action Plan (February 2006) required the district to ensure that all core content teachers received CLAD/BCLAD training and the human resources department maintained accurate records of CLAD credentials. In spring 2007, the assessment of the EL program director was that approximately 75% of teachers had CLAD, BCLAD, CTEL or other certification. The percentages were higher at the elementary schools than at secondary schools. One teacher leader indicated there was some difficulty in getting certified middle school staff. The state numbers for 2005-06 indicated that of 880 teachers, 522, or 59.3%, were providing SDAIE or ELD instruction to EL students. The district was still providing classes to help teachers obtain the certification, and interview data showed that the district was closing the gap on these credentials. In May 2008, principals reported that EL classes and interventions were properly staffed, and district staff assessed that the overall credential/certification of its teachers was nearly complete, with good work from personnel. In fall 2009, the assistant director of special projects reports that the district is fully staffed to serve English learners. An elementary and secondary teacher leader have been added, who support schools with placing and supporting English learners with appropri- ate staff. Certification and authorization for all teachers in the district is a major accom- plishment. Only 15 teachers have emergency certification. Because of Williams, the district, especially at Bethel and Hogan High Schools, strongly encouraged certification. 3. In May 2006, a sample collected of programs and CELDT scores for high school students showed that English learners could access the core curriculum. Almost every student had six classes, including English Language Development and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) math. In addition, most students had SDAIE classes in social studies and/or science. Beginning level students had more than one class in ELD and/or English, and English learners participated in district interventions to increase stu- dent success on the CAHSEE. All EL students participated in the core English language arts and math program, as well as in an access period that provided extra English for English learners, support for students below grade level and enrichment for advanced students. The district’s English language teacher leader provided extra support to the six elementary schools with the highest level of need. In May 2008, the district had four teacher leaders who assisted by working with a speci- fied grade or school. They also collaborated with other teacher leaders, adding a more global view of the district’s needs to the school, as well as from the school to the district. At the secondary level, ELD teachers met and completed an inventory of available mate- rials. They were using the electronic assessment of students available through Hampton- Brown. New purchases of the Edge and High Points, which were geared to secondary EL students, were well received by teachers. In fall 2009, the director anticipates that a middle school ELA series will be adopted for English learners. Elementary and secondary teacher leaders support articulation and the 48 Pupil Achievement students and teachers in the schools. The District English Learners Advisory Commit- tee has met. This group is developing a training guide in English and Spanish for the CELDT. 3. Professional development originates from both the district and county office, which provide extensive staff development for teachers and bilingual assistants in strategies for English learners. Secondary master schedules have class sections for English language development and SDAIE. Students observed in SDAIE math classes were engaged in lessons with the same topics as a mainstream class. In 2006-07, the district provided staff development with Charlotte Knox and tools for bilingual tutors. When not working with students, tutors worked on their cumulative fold- ers and similar tasks. In fall 2009, the district lost some Title 3 funds that require a growth of immigrants to be maintained. Schools received funds this year after the bilingual tutors were budgeted. The district has provided English language arts, ELD, and intervention professional develop- ment in the last year. Math support workshops are hosted three times a year by Napa/ Solano county offices of education. This year the Solano County Office of Education held an Administrator Institute for all principals or their representatives and will offer up to five webinars regarding EL issues this year. Oxford University Press will provide profes- sional development for English language teachers. Collaboration time for middle and high schools occurs once monthly and helps with articulation between the English learner program/teachers and the curriculum and instruc- tion work in the middle and high schools. The meeting agendas for 2008-09 demonstrate the group’s ongoing discussion of Edge (Holt) materials implementation, results with ELD students, and areas for improvement. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 49 4.1 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard: The district has developed content and learning standards for all subject areas and grades that are understood and followed by school site staff. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. On April 5, 2006, the district’s governing board adopted BP 6000b, the Core Curriculum policy, verifying the state standards for English language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social science as the district’s core curriculum. On February 6, 2009, the board adopted a revised policy and regulation for graduation (BP 6000f, High School Gradua- tion Standards) that outlines the phase-in of increased academic requirements for gradua- tion based on every student meeting university a-g requirements. The corrective actions and benchmarks in the School Assistance and Intervention Team’s action plans focus on implementing the state standards, including interventions to help the lowest performing students meet the standards. The plans are an adjunct to the dis- trict’s plan, are well understood and are followed by school site staff. In fall 2009, published Essential Standards Maps for K-5 help teachers identify the key learning objectives within each theme and focus on learning objectives linked to the dis- trict’s Essential Standards. Essential Standards are also listed on report cards. 2. There is no published district guide to the standards; however, the district publishes pac- ing guides for English language arts and math and assists school site staff to use the pac- ing guides to implement standards. The district’s instructional plan indicates that common course guides/pacing calendars for high school will be developed by department commit- tees beginning with core and entry level classes, including world languages, in August 2006 and ending with all core subject courses completed in August 2008. Subjects such as art and music are not included in the plan. Job descriptions for the secondary reform coordinators, who will lead the development of common course/pacing guides, state that they will “provide a common, standards-based instructional program for each core course so that all students have access to consistent and rigorous instruction and the support to be successful in meeting the new graduation requirements.” In fall 2009, the Essential Standards Maps publication provides K-5 teachers with infor- mation so they can discriminate among standards and make decisions about priority. Principals report that teachers have responded to the professionalism required to use these maps. Pacing guides are now included for social science and science. There appears to be more published curriculum guidance material for K-5 and middle grades than high school, although secondary teachers are working with Edgenuity to create essential skill maps. 3. The implementation of standards-based texts, pacing guides, benchmark assessments and professional development has resulted in greater understanding through analysis and dis- cussion of the standards in grades K-8. High school English and mathematics teachers are 50 Pupil Achievement also involved in standards implementation, including pacing guides and common forma- tive assessments for English language arts and math. Secondary school master schedules and class visits demonstrate the progress made at the high schools in understanding and committing to standards-based instruction for all stu- dents, including targeted assistance for students who need intervention or extra support. These intervention classes are operating and are part of the master schedule. In fall 2009, work with staff members is ongoing to increase understanding of standards. The FCMAT team observed identification and mapping of essential standards, critical use of the standards-based materials, and continued professional development that is very focused on standards implementation through standards-based texts. 4. Teachers collaborate, analyze assessment results, and plan, which deepens their knowl- edge of the standards and their skill and accountability in teaching standards-based lessons; teachers have parsed the state standards for their essential or critical teaching components. The corrective action plans have helped the schools, particularly secondary schools, clarify what is needed to implement standards for all students. In fall 2009, most district schools show growth on the CST and the API, a clear signal that standards implementation are beginning to reap benefits. From meeting agendas and notes, it is evident that the implementation work continues to press forward and go deeper. The collaboration sessions focus to a great extent on exploring data, with percep- tive analyses of what is needed to improve. The growth at Bethel and Hogan is a hopeful indicator that high school teachers (some of whom have been reluctant) are basing their instruction on standards and using the pacing guides and benchmark assessments to ensure that all relevant standards are addressed. The most likely cause of low student performance on an assessment is that they have not been taught the material on which they are being assessed. Until the standards are fully implemented in the instructional program, it is difficult to isolate other causes so they can be effectively addressed. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 51 4.2 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard: Student achievement is measured and assessed through a variety of measurement tools (e.g., standardized test, portfolios, projects, oral reports). Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. Regularly administered district benchmark assessments and timely communication of information to teachers support the district’s progress monitoring and align with performance on the CST English language arts and math. In addition, the state physical fitness, STAR, CAHSEE and CELDT assessments include a variety of components that are standardized, referenced to criteria, and performance-based. Assessment data, including special education and English language development, are key to determining placement in intervention and support classes. Improvement of the CELDT assessment process has resulted in more timely communication of information to the schools so that English learners are appropriately placed. In 2006-07, curriculum-embedded and diagnostic assessments accompanying the Holt, REACH, and Language! materials for strategic, intensive and support ELA classes were part of the assessment protocol used for placing students in strategic and intensive classes. 2. The district’s assessment plan for 2005-06, testing calendar and schedule for producing, delivering, and collecting common assessments all demonstrated a level of organization and work sufficient to maintain an ambitious program, using a variety of measurement tools. In May 2008, it was clear that regular measurement for student improvement was a district priority. Many teachers were challenged by regular measurement as a method for continuous improvement. Some teachers were engaging students in a goal-setting process based on the standards and benchmark assessments. On the other hand, some believed that the schedule of assessments reduced opportunities for other types of assessments, such as projects. In fall 2009, posted student work and pictures of student performances, learning centers in elementary classrooms, science lab assignments, and student art attest to the fact that measurements other than mandated assessments continue to play a role in classroom instruction and assessment. 52 Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 53 4.3 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard: The assessment tools are clear measures of what is being taught and provide information for the administration and staff to improve learning opportunities for all students. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The district employs the theory that regular formative assessments, professional develop- ment, and collaborative data analysis provide leaders with the tools needed to implement standards and increase achievement. The district’s leadership is implementing a plan of regularly administered common ELA and math assessments that are aligned with the state standards. The Datawise system is used to develop formative assessments from an item bank, assess students and analyze the results. Initial reports provided K-8 teachers with data regarding student strengths and gaps; high school assessments for English and math were introduced in fall 2006. The district leaders monitor the use of data reports and train teacher leaders to coach principals and teachers in grade level collaboration on data analysis and data-based decisions. In May 2006, the district moved aggressively to improve learning opportunities for all students, with interventions for the lowest performers based on assessment data. The impetus and validation for this effort was the corrective action plans for Program Improvement. The plans are very helpful in the secondary schools, leading to master schedule analysis and a more data-based approach to intervention. In 2006-07 the district developed schedules that included intervention and support classes for lower performing students, identified using a protocol based on multiple achievement measures. These classes operated in fall 2006 and spring 2007. Assessments have played a critical role in the proper placement of students in the classes and in the quarterly benchmarks of student progress. In fall 2009, principals note that there have been issues with the district benchmark assessments – errors and changes to a scanning sheet that some interpret as additional work for teachers. Nonetheless, they and most of their teachers believe that the forma- tive assessments are a very powerful tool for improving instruction, and they “just work around the errors.” 2. At the time of the initial FCMAT visit in 2004, there were new reading textbooks from a new adoption. However, there were no accompanying materials, including the embedded assessments, nor had teachers had the available publisher training. These circumstances were addressed quickly under the new administration. In fact, the district made aligned assessments a critical component of the reform agenda. 3. K-8 and high school assessments are aligned with common texts, pacing guides, curriculum-embedded professional development and teacher collaboration, with a focus on providing all students the opportunity to learn essential standards. The student achievement monitoring system is well supported and supervised by district and school 54 Pupil Achievement leadership. Assessment-based placement protocols help ensure consistent placement deci- sions and prevent some of the missteps that can occur when grouping students either in the school or in the classroom. 4. In May 2008, the district focus on assessment information to the schools with training and collaboration had improved assessment practices in many schools. However, the 2006-07 CST results pointed to uneven school-by-school student outcomes on this state assessment, an indication that district administration might need more expertise in data analysis that probes student academic growth and changes for potential causes. In fall 2009, a workshop agenda shows teachers learning to use Datawise to create their own curriculum-embedded assessments from the publisher’s assessments. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 6 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 55 4.4 Assessment Accountability Professional Standard: Teachers and principals are provided assessment data in a timely and accessible format with training to analyze, evaluate, and solve issues of student performance. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. District leaders’ actions include support for assessment events, timely data return, training in data use, and teacher collaboration time for data analysis. Common formative assess- ments, time for analysis, and the expectation that data will guide schoolwide and class- room decisions are critical to the district’s instructional reform plan. Teachers are given state assessment data as well as the formative benchmark assessments administered to ascertain progress. Analyses of these assessments become the content for much of the teacher collaboration time, which interviews indicate is becoming part of the district’s culture; teachers work independently or with a coach and demonstrate account- ability for learning issues in their classrooms and in the school. In 2006-07, the use of assessment data to provide targeted intervention and assistance at all grade levels highlighted the importance of assessment data for many staff members and provided more rationale for the amount of time given to assessment. The district staff and some school staffs have worked to come to agreement about more time for collaboration in the teacher workday to improve participation in collaborative sessions, which are voluntary. In fall 2009, the data reports continue to improve in appearance and readability – more use of color and different formats – which assists in navigating data. This is not a cos- metic effect; it helps users focus quickly and make better use of the limited collaboration and meeting time that is available. Also, an impressive array of analysis tools are used by district and teacher leaders in collaborative sessions and on meeting agendas to guide and assist users. These critical thinking strategies are the best means to “aha” moments. 2. The 2005 STAR and CAHSEE data from the state were broken down by ethnicity, socio- economic status, English learner, disability, and gender. Data were accompanied by ques- tions regarding how to think about the data, relate it to the district’s goals and monitor progress. Teacher leaders and principals were given talking points to use with staff. Meeting agendas show that principals and teachers have had input into the kind of data reports they would like, and they have chosen results over time with a focus on subgroup break- downs, as well as CST item analyses and individual teacher and student reports. Principals reported that they have these data packages as well as sessions regarding how to interpret and use the data. Most interviewees indicated that they have studied the data with their staff. The State Administrator uses achievement data to identify accomplishments and under- achievement issues. The staff also use data for (a) the review of progress, during which 56 Pupil Achievement school teams evaluated progress with reference to assessment data and other evidence; (b) the district leadership team meeting in August where 2006 STAR data were reviewed during discussion of the elements of sustainability; and (c) assessments to determine the need for student intervention and support. Staff members’ success in using student achievement data to address student needs has contributed to a willingness to also use student behavior data (such as attendance, refer- ral and suspension data) more systematically to measure the effects of a new student behavior program to be implemented in the new school year. The ability to interrelate achievement and behavioral data should help the district identify and address issues more effectively. Disaggregated data mean nothing if there is not a plan to address what it reveals. In fall 2009, with successes under the belt, so to speak, it will be important to “cut the data” so that the thornier achievement issues are framed for analysis by school staffs. For exam- ple, Standard 3.1 shows some groups (districtwide) that are overrepresented in the bottom two levels of performance. This also applies to student attendance/discipline data as well. 3. The school packet for the state assessment data included (1) a cumulative summary of the percent of students at each performance level of the CST from 2002 to 2006 by grade level and (2) subgroup reports from the state reports and from the CAHSEE and CAPA, where applicable. In fall 2009, principal fluency with their own data, what it says, and where it takes them speaks volumes for the work the district has done on improving knowledge and skills. Even more so, the continuous practice and dialogues that accompany the data analysis strengthen everyone’s skills. 4. On April 5, 2006, the board adopted BP 6000c, Assessment and Testing, which commits the district to using standards-based assessments to monitor the effectiveness of educa- tional programs and practices, including underperforming subgroups. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 6 May 31, 2006 Rating: 7 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 57 4.6 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard: A process to identify struggling 9-12 students and intervene with additional support necessary to pass the high school exit examination is well developed and communicated to teachers, students, and parents. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. In 2006-07, targeted interventions in middle school and ninth grade ELA and mathemat- ics led to earlier assistance for students who might otherwise struggle to pass the exit exam or succeed in high school coursework. The combined 2007 pass rate for Grade 10 CAHSEE administrations was 67% for mathematics and 69% for ELA. This rate was lower than both the county rate of 75% in math and 76% ELA, as well as the state rate of 76% for math and 77% ELA. In fall 2009, the combined pass rate for the Grade 10 CAHSEE English language arts was 70%; for mathematics, 68%. These are 1% increases over 2007-08. There is evidence that some data were collected to compare passes on the CAHSEE to levels of performance on the CST, but no apparent analysis or action. The educational options area supports a Cyber High School lab for credit recovery; there is a CAHSEE component for those who need it. The identification of essential standards has been very successful; it also might be beneficial to identify the essential CAHSEE standards from the 4th grade up. 2. The district’s redesigned Web site has a place for student assessment and achievement information. The Web site should include CAHSEE information, including sample ques- tions and support services such as a link to the state CAHSEE site. In May 2008, there was still no information or link to information about the CAHSEE on the district Web site. In fall 2009, there continues to be a lack of Web-based information. The testing dates shown on the Web site for 2009 were for the 2007-08 school year and need to be updated. 3. CAHSEE materials are available in the schools and Cyber High lab. Hogan High runs CAHSEE boot camp. 4. The board’s Assessment policy (BP 6000d) and the newly adopted High School Gradua- tion policy (BP 6000f, February 6, 2008) and regulation mention the requirement to pass the CAHSEE to qualify for a diploma. 58 Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 3 November 30, 2005 Rating: 4 May 31, 2006 Rating: 5 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 7 June 30, 2008 Rating: 7 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 59 5.1 Professional Development Professional Standard: Staff development demonstrates a clear understanding of purpose, written goals, and appropriate evaluations. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The district’s instructional plan includes staff development goals for teachers and principals that focus on the district’s priorities. District workshops demonstrate clearly stated purposes and objectives. Rationales connect the workshops to the district’s goals, and evaluations are carried out to gauge the workshops’ effectiveness. The intent of BP 4131.6, Professional Development, is being met; however, the district should consider revising this policy to align with new district goals and practices. Just as the district’s reform methods focus on standards implementation and alignment with textbooks, pacing guides, and common assessments, the staff development plan focuses on providing aligned training to support the implementation. AB 466 training for teachers and AB 75 training for principals has been used to move the staff forward in standards implementation in less than two years. Special education teachers and English learner teachers have been included in this professional development. Regular education teachers have also been provided with staff development regarding language acquisition and response to intervention (RtI). In fall 2009, principals and teachers recognize the importance of focused professional development (as opposed to the previous cafeteria model). A significant portion of teacher professional development is conducted by outside agencies with expertise in California standards, assessments, and adopted materials as well as effective instructional strategies. Over the summer, for example, over 100 elementary teachers and even a greater number of secondary language teachers, teacher leaders, English learner teachers, and special education teachers participated in summer workshops – some for advanced implementa- tion of reading materials, others for beginning implementation of newly adopted texts. 2. The district’s instructional plan includes staff development goals for teachers and princi- pals that focus on the district’s priorities. District workshops demonstrate clearly stated purposes and objectives. Rationales connect the workshops to the district’s goals, and evaluations are carried out to gauge the workshops’ effectiveness. As stated before, the intent of BP 4131.6, Professional Development, is being met; however, the district should consider revising this policy to align with new district goals and practices. The district also maximizes professional development resources by structuring and moni- toring collaboration time, buy-back days and routine meeting agendas so that staff time is used effectively to support standards implementation. A matrix has been developed to demonstrate how unrestricted general funds, as well as categorical funds, are coordinated at the district level to support key district initiatives, including professional development. 60 Pupil Achievement In fall 2009, much of the professional development in the district is designed for collabo- ration on issues of student learning. It maximizes the use of valuable professional exper- tise while also stretching professionals to learn from one another and from the available data. There are agendas, materials, and opportunities to provide feedback on the session. The outcomes of collaborative sessions are agreed on and written up for all to see. County professional development opportunities for teachers include certification training and strategies for the English learners, as well as some webinars. 3. One of the more compelling elements of the reform is the thought that goes into planning and evaluating professional development. Because the district is aware that staff time is limited and that professional development time is critical to reform, there is stewardship of teacher and principal collaboration time, meeting agendas and available buy-back days so that they focus on significant work. Agendas are planned and debriefed, and the rationale is clearly stated and based on student needs. Agendas for middle school and secondary school teacher leaders in 2006-07 show the planning for collaborative meetings, including expected outcomes, ongoing review of progress, opportunities to think about how an action might play out, and stewardship of time. Successes were also analyzed to help teacher leaders understand what is and is not effective. The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) represents the commit- ment of the district and master teachers to the induction of new teachers into the profes- sion. It is seminar-based, but also one on one and works through five standards. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 61 5.2 Professional Development Professional Standard: Staff development provides the staff (e.g., principals, teachers, and instructional aides) with the knowledge and the skills to improve instruction and the curriculum. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. From fall 2004 through fall 2006, district, school and teacher leaders moved steadily to provide teachers and principals with the knowledge and skills to improve student perfor- mance on the state standards. The plan of action included aligned materials for reading and mathematics, pacing guides, benchmark assessments, collaboration time, adequate instructional minutes for reading, interventions and support based on data, and teacher and principal professional development with an outside provider. Teacher leaders and reform coordinators were trained to support and extend the new skills and knowledge of teaching staff and principals. The district’s corrective action plan supports implementa- tion of the essential components of a standards-based instructional program, one of which is aligned staff development. In 2007, an ongoing training schedule tracked AB 466 training and intervention/differen- tiation training for teachers, resource specialists, ELD teachers and bilingual assistants. Mathematics department staff development was linked to two grants, one of which used lesson study for improvement and another that linked to computer-assisted curriculum. There was more evidence that staff development was tightly linked to key district strategies aimed at addressing the district’s more difficult learning issues. There was a willingness to use outside professional development resources when they best met teacher, student, and/or program needs. Instructional leaders showed purposeful planning for staff development, including collaboration time and leadership meetings, and fidelity to the selected program. Minutes of leadership meetings indicated that some of this work was difficult and that difficult issues were discussed. A critical component of providing staff with knowledge and skills is the ongoing monitoring and troubleshooting that was evident in the minutes. In May 2008, some principals said they needed “advanced AB 466.” Also, it was widely observed that each school had to “invent time” for grade level collaboration so there was inconsistency across the district. On the plus side, principals and district staff noted the positive response to training for campus supervisors and assistant principals from the student services division. In fall 2009, agendas show that professional development for administrators addresses both general leadership (including a three-day summer conference) and role-specific learning, such as legal requirements, use of district systems, and teacher evaluation pro- cedures. Also, principals have participated with teachers in AB 420 and AB 466 training. Principals are particularly focused on learning quality instruction in their schools and are very articulate about the issues and the methods, a benefit of the professional develop- ment. 62 Pupil Achievement 2. Although the state assessments are important, the reform has focused on the benchmark assessments, which are frequent and more accessible. The district provides assessments and progress reports every six to eight weeks. During teacher collaboration time, teacher leaders provide support in the use of data to plan instruction and interventions. Data analysis and use is also a routine part of principals’ meetings. 3. In June 2008, principal interviews found that assessment, data analysis, and professional collaboration were linked in bringing about positive professional change: more “unpack- ing” of and greater focus on standards. In some schools there was openness to using these similar methodologies to improve student behaviors and interact with parents to improve student learning. While assessment, data analysis, and professional development were occurring in the high schools, they seemed process-oriented. Overall, there was more “shared accountability.” 4. In fall 2009, principals have good news about the state assessments; however, they con- tinue to attribute improvements to the benchmark assessments and the collaborative pro- fessional work that goes with them. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 4 November 30, 2005 Rating: 5 May 31, 2006 Rating: 6 January 25, 2007 Rating: 6 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 63 5.7 Professional Development Professional Standard: Evaluations provide constructive feedback for improving job performance. Professional develop- ment is provided to support employees with less than satisfactory evaluations. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan: 1. The teacher contract outlines the standards and procedures for evaluation. Principals reported in September 2005 that they had received the names of teachers in their school to be evaluated and were accountable for completing employee evaluations (as opposed to September 2004 when many evaluations were not completed). Principals were pro- vided with training regarding teacher evaluation standards, procedures, and forms to help focus teacher evaluation on student achievement goals. Principals were also provided with norms and sample objectives. The norms for objectives: (1) link to current district, school, grade-level, or department strategies for the standards; (2) describe what a teacher will do; and (3) are measurable or observable. The evaluation sessions were intended to align evaluation with the instructional agenda and lead to evaluations that better reflect the strategies that teachers should master to be successful. The contract provides a peer assistance and review program for teachers who receive an overall rating of unsatisfac- tory or who ask for assistance. The human resources department instituted a system for monitoring the teacher evalua- tion cycle and ascertaining that evaluations are completed and returned. In June 2008, administrative interviews indicated that informal supervision, especially in the K-8 schools, provided ongoing feedback on classroom instruction as well as opportu- nities for teachers to ask for feedback on specific instructional methodologies. In fall 2009, interviewed principals stayed on course with teacher evaluations through the spring leadership changes. A district supervisor evaluated elementary principals, but sec- ondary principal evaluations seem to have been a casualty of the district leadership changes and turnover in CISS and human resources, as they were before state takeover in 2004. 2. The district revised the administrator evaluation for 2004-05 to align with the five district goals. In September 2005, principals reported that they were evaluated and that the pro- cess, which included visits, walkthroughs and narrative feedback, was helpful. In 2006-07, there was a portfolio-based (School Change Portfolio) evaluation of prin- cipals. A narrative evaluation of each principal provided feedback regarding program implementation, interventions, progress monitoring, climate, resource allocation, and building sustainability. The district also contracted with an outside provider to assist/ mentor principals in at-risk schools. In fall 2009, there is some confusion about administrative evaluations. A draft of a new management appraisal system does not appear to have been finalized nor supported with implementation training. There are time lines, but they are not always followed. Some 64 Pupil Achievement district administrators appear to be giving a “do as I say, not as I do” message on evalua- tions. Evaluations are an important function and contribute to the overall growth and sat- isfaction of personnel and to results for students. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 May 1, 2005 Rating: 5 November 30, 2005 Rating: 6 May 31, 2006 Rating: 7 January 25, 2007 Rating: 7 July 2, 2007 Rating: 8 June 30, 2008 Rating: 8 November 18, 2009 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 65 66 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 1.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PLANNING PROCESSES A common vision of what 2 3 5 6 7 8 8 8 all students should know and be able to do exists and is put into practice. 1.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PLANNING PROCESSES The administrative struc- 2 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 ture of the district pro- motes student achieve- ment. 1.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PLANNING PROCESSES The district has long-term goals and performance 0 2 5 6 7 8 8 8 standards to support and improve student achieve- ment. 1.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PLANNING PROCESSES The district directs its 5 resources fairly and con- sistently to accomplish its objectives. 1.5 LEGAL STANDARD - PLAN- NING PROCESSES Categorical and compensa- tory program funds supple- 4 ment and do not supplant services and materials to be provided by the district. 1.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PLANNING PROCESSES The district’s planning 3 3 5 6 7 8 8 8 process focuses on sup- porting increased student performance. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 67 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 2.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM The district, through its adopted policies, provides a 0 clear operational framework for management of the cur- riculum. 2.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM Policies regarding cur- 3 riculum and instruction are reviewed and approved by the Governing Board. 2.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM The district has clear and 2 3 5 6 7 8 8 8 valid objectives for stu- dents, including the core curriculum content. 2.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM A process is in place 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 to maintain alignment among standards, prac- tices and assessments. 2.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM The Governing Board has adopted and the district is 4 implementing the California state standards and assess- ments. 2.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM Sufficient instructional 8 materials are available for students to learn. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 68 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 2.7 LEGAL STANDARD - CUR- RICULUM In subject areas for which the state has adopted standards, sufficient 6 instructional materials are available to students that are aligned with the state standards. 2.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM Students in K-8 have ac- cess to standards-based materials; students in 9-12 6 have access to standards- based materials through an adopted process outlined in board policy and regula- tion. 2.9 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM Teachers in K-8 are pro- vided with professional development in reading and mathematics by a 0 2 5 6 7 8 8 8 state-approved provider; teachers in 9-12 are provided with defined professional development in implementing content standards. 2.10 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM The district has adopted a plan for integrating tech- 5 nology into curriculum and instruction at all grade levels. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 69 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 2.11 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CURRICULUM The district optimizes state 6 and federal funding to install technology in its schools. 2.12 LEGAL STANDARD - CUR- RICULUM HIV prevention instruction occurs at least once in ju- nior high or middle school 8 and once in high school and is consistent with the CDE’s Health Framework (EC 51201.5). 3.1 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The district provides equal access to educa- tional opportunities to 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 all students regardless of race, gender, socioeco- nomic standing, and other factors (EC 51007). 3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES Challenging learning goals 3 4 5 6 6 8 8 8 and instructional plans and programs for all stu- dents are evident. 3.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Every elementary school has embraced the most 0 recent California School Recognition Program Stan- dards. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 70 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES Students are engaged in 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 learning, and they are able to demonstrate and apply their knowledge and skills. 3.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES The district and school 2 2 5 6 6 7 7 7 staffs promote and com- municate high expecta- tions for the learning and behavior of all students. 3.6 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The district and school sites actively encourage 3 parental involvement in their children’s education (examples of programs EC 51100-51143). 3.7 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Each school has a school site council or leadership team, comprised of teach- 4 ers, parents, principal and students, that is actively engaged in school planning (EC 52010-52039). The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 71 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES Principals make formal and informal classroom 2 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 visits. Based on these visits, principals provide constructive feedback and assistance to teachers. 3.9 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Class time is protected 3 for student learning (EC 32212). 3.10 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES Clearly defined disci- pline practices have been 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 8 established and commu- nicated among the stu- dents, staff, board, and community. 3.11 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES School class size and 3 4 6 6 6 7 7 7 teacher assignments sup- port effective student learning. 3.12 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and resources that address their 3 students’ diverse needs and modify and adjust their instructional plans appro- priately. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 72 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.13 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES All teachers are provided with professional develop- ment on special needs, 3 language acquisition, timely interventions for un- derperformers and culturally responsive teaching. 3.14 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The identification and placement of English-lan- 4 guage learners into appro- priate courses is conducted in a timely and effective manner. 3.15 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATE- GIES Curriculum and instruc- tion for English-language 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 learners prepares these students to transition to regular class settings and achieve at a high level in all subject areas. 3.16 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Programs for English-lan- guage learners comply with state and federal regula- 4 tions and meet the quality criteria set forth by the California Department of Education. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 73 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The identification and placement of special educa- 5 tion students into appropri- ate courses is conducted in a timely and effective manner. 3.18 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Individual education plans 5 are reviewed and updated on time. 3.19 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Curriculum and instruc- tion for special education 5 students is rigorous and appropriate to meet special education students’ learn- ing needs. 3.20 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Programs for special edu- cation students meet the least restrictive environ- 5 ment provision of the law and the quality criteria and goals set forth by the California Department of Education. 3.21 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The criteria for GATE identi- 3 fication is documented and understood by school site staff. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 74 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.22 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Students are regularly as- 4 sessed or reassessed for GATE participation. 3.23 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES All incoming kindergar- ten students are admitted following board-approved 4 policies and administrative regulations (EC 48000-48002, 48010, 48011). 3.24 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The district provides ac- cess and encourages stu- 5 dent enrollment in UC and CSU required courses (A-G requirement). 3.25 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Students are prepared for, and may access, advanced 3 placement or other rigor- ous courses in core subject areas at all comprehensive high schools. 3.26 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES High school guidance coun- selors are knowledgeable about individual student 3 academic needs and work to create challenging and meaningful course sched- ules. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 75 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 3.27 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES High school students have 4 access to career and college guidance counseling prior to the 12th grade. 3.28 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The district has plans for the provision of extended 5 day programs at its re- spective school sites (EC 17264). 3.29 LEGAL STANDARD - IN- STRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The general instructional 4 program adheres to all re- quirements put forth in EC 51000-52950. 4.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND AC- COUNTABILITY The district has devel- oped content and learning 2 3 5 6 7 7 7 7 standards for all subject areas and grades that are understood and followed by school site staff. 4.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND AC- COUNTABILITY Student achievement is measured and as- 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 sessed through a variety of measurement tools (e.g., standardized tests, portfolios, projects, oral reports). The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 76 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 4.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND AC- COUNTABILITY The assessment tools are clear measures of what is 3 4 6 6 7 8 8 8 being taught and provide information for the ad- ministration and staff to improve learning opportu- nities for all students. 4.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND AC- COUNTABILITY Teachers and principals are provided with assess- ment data in a timely and 3 4 6 7 7 8 8 8 accessible format, and training in order for them to analyze, evaluate and solve issues of student performance. 4.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNT- ABILITY The board has adopted and the district is imple- menting a K-8 policy that 8 outlines clearly for teach- ers, students and parents the benchmarks to be used for intervention, promotion and retention of struggling learners. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 77 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 4.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND AC- COUNTABILITY A process to identify struggling 9-12 students and intervene with ad- 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 ditional support neces- sary to pass the high school exit examination is well-developed and com- municated to teachers, students and parents. 4.7 LEGAL STANDARD - ASSESS- MENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY The district informs par- ents of the test scores of 8 their children and provides a general explanation of these scores (EC 60720, 60722). 4.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNT- ABILITY The district has a pro- cess to notify high school 2 students and their parents regarding high school profi- ciency examination require- ments and scores. 4.9 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNT- ABILITY Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/or in schools under 3 mandated improvement programs are provided spe- cial training and support by the district; improvement plans are monitored. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 78 Pupil Achievement Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 4.10 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNT- ABILITY The board and district understand the elements of 3 state and federal account- ability programs and com- municate the availability of options and special services to parents and students. 5.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT Staff development dem- 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 onstrates a clear under- standing of purpose, writ- ten goals, and appropriate evaluations. 5.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT Staff development pro- vides the staff (e.g., 3 4 5 6 6 8 8 8 principals, teachers, and instructional aides) with the knowledge and the skills to improve instruc- tion and the curriculum. 5.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT The standards developed by 6 the California Standards for the Teaching Professions are present and supported. 5.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT 5 Teachers are provided time and encouraged to meet with other teachers. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. Pupil Achievement 79 Nov. May Nov. May Jan. July June Nov. Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 5.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT Collaboration exists among higher education, district, professional associations, and the community in 0 providing professional de- velopment. The district has formed partnerships with state colleges and universi- ties to provide appropriate courses accessible to all teachers. 5.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT Administrative support and coaching are provided to all 5 teachers, and new teachers and principals are provided with training and support opportunities. 5.7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT Evaluations provide con- structive feedback for im- 3 5 6 7 7 8 8 7 proving job performance. Professional development is provided to support employees with less than satisfactory evaluations. The identified subset of standards appears in bold print. 80 Pupil Achievement