“Lowering standards doesn’t raise students’ self

“Lowering standards doesn’t raise students’ self-esteem.

But neither does raising standards without giving students

ways of reaching them.”

Carol S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success

The McRel leadership study determined

that superintendents must focus on:1. Collaborative goal setting

2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction

3. Use of resources to support achievement and instruction

4. Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction

5. Having a defined autonomy and relationship with the schools

Effective Superintendents.doc

The Anatomy of InequalityWhat Creates the Opportunity Gap?

Dysfunctional Schools

Unequal access

To curriculum

Inequitable distribution of

well-qualified educators

Unequal school funding

Poverty & Segregation

Anatomy of Inequality.PDF

Non-negotiable Goals for AchievementAn accountability system that measures student gain

(growth model). The goal should be reaching a standard for

how much growth we expect during a school year in any

particular subject.

Non-negotiable Goals for Achievement• Reconstitute Standards as Measurement or Reporting Topics

• Common Core Standards as Measurement or Reporting Topics

• Each topic at each grade level is articulated in the form of a rubric or scale

• Track Student Progress on Measurement Topics

• Teacher developed and District developed common assessments

• Data is collected at the classroom, building, and district level that allows for identification

of knowledge gain at the individual student level

• Provide Support for Individual Students

• Student learning is being tracked and individual students are provided evidenced based

interventions

• Progress monitoring takes place

• Redesign Report Card

• Standards based report card

• Monitored for integrity

nonnegotiables for achievement book study 5 24 12.doc

Instructional Framework“Districts should have an explicit goal regarding the continuous

improvement of pedagogical skills among teachers in the District.

An instructional model should not be construed as an attempt to

constrain teachers to one particular approach to teaching: it

should be interpreted as a necessary vehicle for communication

between teachers regarding the art and science of teaching. The

model should be specific enough to provide guidance for

teachers, but flexible enough to allow for different teaching styles.

It is recommended that districts provide a written document

describing their model.”

(Marzano and Waters, 2009)

Instructional Framework.doc

InstructionalFramework

to fit all disciplines

Achievement Framework.pptx – Slide 2

Suggested times Component Structure & Focus Materials/ ResourcesInstructional

Resources

10

min

.

K &

1st

on

ly

Whole group Guided instruction

Wo

rd S

tud

y: p

ho

nic

s, s

pel

ling

& v

oca

bu

lary

(W

ord

s Th

eir

Way

)

Teacher guides students through phonemic awareness routine

Heggerty Curriculum

Phonemic Awareness: Playing w/ sounds,

Phonemic Awareness in Young Children

15

-20

m

inu

tes

O

ne

or

the

oth

er d

epen

den

t u

po

n

less

on

ob

ject

ives Read Aloud

Teacher exposes students to multiple genres while modeling strategic

thinking, & fluent readingGood Habits, Making

Meaning, Science or SS books, Author studies, choice

based on student interest, Magnet theme resource

Comprehension Keystones, The Daily

Five, The Café, Strategies That Work, Reading with

MeaningShared Reading

Teacher provides strategy instruction (Predicting, Summarizing, Connecting,

Questioning, Inferring, Imaging)

70

-7

5

min

ute

s

B

oth

hap

pen

ing

at o

nce Guided

Instruction

Targeted small group instruction. Teacher provides strategy or targetted skill instruction. Students make

application with teacher feedback.

Good Habits, Science or Social Studies books, themed

books, book box books, project resource books, Quick

Reads, WTW, Word Notebooks, poems,

decodable books

The Daily Five, The Next Step in Guided Reading, Guided Reading by F&P,

Guiding Readers and Writers by F&P, Fountas and Pinnell Prompting

GuideIndependent Reading

Students apply skills learned, build fluency, increase reading stamina and

respond in writing to text.

Framework for Literacy Instruction

Framework Color Version w-writing.xlsx – Sheet 1

Formative assessments

Will help teachers understand that

instructional decisions can

improve student learning

Curriculum

A Strong written curriculum using UbD

with Standards Identified

Instruction

A common way to deliver meaningful,

differentiated instruction

GRR

Grades

will communicate the level of

mastery as it relates to standards

SBG

Mid-Level Achievement

Framework.

Our Solar System

UbD Stage 1 UbD Stage 2 UbD Stage 3Curriculum Assessment Instruction

Classroom

level

Each topic at each grade level is articulated in the

form of a rubric or scale. All courses have rubrics specifying common levels

of proficiency developed for each performance

indicator

Assessments are used to identify individual student levels

and gains through instruction

Teachers collaborate to ensure inter-rater reliability on

using assessment specific rubrics and to check

assessment quality

All teachers use summative assessment specific rubrics

Teachers, students and families collaborate to develop

individualized student learning goals

Evidence: The middle level will identify when/where authentic,

formative assessments will occur for each content area.

Summative Assessments should also be evident as they

are in some courses like math.

Teachers engage in responsive instruction

Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) instructional

framework used to model and differentiate instruction

Formative assessment used to guide instruction and provide

appropriate and timely feedback and work towards student

learning goals

Identified students receive evidence-based interventions

Based on information gathered from progress monitoring

System level

Common Core and Discipline Specific Standards as

Measurement or Reporting topics

• Stage 1 of Understanding by Design (UbD) templates are

fully developed in all disciplines

• Common core literacy standards are identified and

measured in all courses

• Discipline specific process standards i.e. Habits of mind,

mathematical practices, Social Emotional Learning (SEL) –

are clearly identified and measured

• Gradebooks are set up with standards rather than

assignment types

• All standards, indicators, and rubrics will be published

Evidence:

• The middle level will focus on identifying common core

standards in all disciplines (including literacy standards).

There will be a strong Core Curriculum in each content

area.

Use common assessments Building assessments are used at least once within unit.

Later to be spread across the District

Course alike common assessments used within

Understanding by Design (UbD) units

Progress monitoring

Integrated system collects student achievement data

against each standard from cross district building

assessments

Data is used to revise curriculum, assessments, and

instruction

Data is used to identify students who have additional needs

beyond Tier I instruction

Evidence:

• Middle level instruction and collaborations will be around

assessments –formal and authentic

District provides ongoing, job-embedded PD through coaching

and in-service

Evidence:

The middle level will design a course catalog that will serve as a

reminder and guide for essential professional development in each

core area.

Buildings will work collaboratively to determine when that

professional development occurs, i.e. Team Time, 3rd Mondays, SIP

days, special trainings.

• Training on GRR, Formative Assessments, Historical Thinking

The middle school will agree upon a common RTI model for

identifying and adding layers of academic support for struggling

students.

The middle level will identify common, research-based

interventions and procedures for students in/out of tiers.

Middle Level Achievement Framework Guide

The following achievement framework was

developed to clarify and strengthen the

interrelationships among curriculum, assessment,

and instruction (as well as language we use to

discuss each) in order to monitor and elevate

student achievement. The items should not be

seen as an ordered list of steps; rather they are an

articulation of ongoing, often overlapping

processes.

High School Achievement Framework

UbD Stage 1 UbD Stage 2 UbD Stage 3

Curriculum Assessment Instruction

Classroom

level

Each topic at each grade level is articulated in

the form of a rubric or scale.

All courses have rubrics specifying common

levels of proficiency developed for each

performance indicator

Assessments are used to identify individual

student levels and gains through instruction

Teachers collaborate to ensure inter-rater reliability

on using assessment specific rubrics and to check

assessment quality

All teachers use summative assessment specific

rubrics

Teachers, students and families collaborate to

develop individualized student learning goals

Teachers engage in responsive instruction

Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) instructional

framework used to model and differentiate instruction

Formative assessment used to guide instruction and

provide appropriate and timely feedback and work

towards student learning goals

Identified students receive evidence-based interventions

Based on information gathered from progress monitoring

System

level

Common Core and Discipline Specific

Standards as Measurement or Reporting

topics

Stage 1 of Understanding by Design (UbD)

templates are fully developed in all disciplines

Common core literacy standards are identified

and measured in all courses

Discipline specific process standards i.e. Habits

of mind, mathematical practices, Social

Emotional Learning (SEL) – are clearly identified

and measured

Gradebooks are set up with standards rather

than assignment types

All standards, indicators, and rubrics will be

Use common assessments

Cross district building assessments are used at least

once within every Understanding by Design (UbD)

unit

Course alike common assessments used within

Understanding by Design (UbD) units

Progress monitoring

Integrated system collects student achievement data

against each standard from cross district building

assessments

Data is used to revise curriculum, assessments, and

instruction

District provides ongoing, job-embedded PD through

coaching and inservice

(ongoing processes)

1Achievement Framework.docx

High School Achievement Framework

Fostering High Academic Achievement

The Superintendent will foster high academic achievement,

wellness, and well- being among all learners in a safe, supportive

environment.

Fostering High Academic Achievement Pt. 1Expansion of programming focused on career and technical exploration

Analysis and utilization of data from the graduating senior survey

Develop partnerships with early intervention programs to identify children most at-risk

and provide support for children and families

Establish uniform transitions for students entering Kindergarten, sixth and ninth grade

Establish practices and procedures that support parent advocacy and creates a more

parent/student centered organization

Address the academic achievement trend, including the literacy crisis in the early

elementary levels

Monitor at the building level to ensure practices are consistent with policies in the areas

of discipline and incentives.continued

Fostering High Academic Achievement Pt. 2Develop and monitor the effectiveness of professional development in the area of

culturally relevant education.

Implement Common Core Standards with an emphasis on instructional practices

to support the development of higher order thinking skills.

Develop a plan of action that enhances the capacity of the high schools and

addresses outcomes in the areas of academic achievement (ACT Composite) and

graduation rates for all student performance groups.

Develop and implement aggressive programs to elevate tangible measures of

academic achievement at all grade levels and to narrow academic achievement

disparities among all racial, economic and gender groups to the extent feasible.

Academic BenchmarksKindergarten Readiness

3rd 5th 8th Grade Math and Reading

AIMSWeb Spring 2013

Tier 1 DataAll

African

AmericanAsian Latino White ESL SES Spec Ed

Kindergarten 67.8% 60% 85% 65.7% 75.4% 63% 60.8% 40.5%

3rd Grade Reading 49% 35.7% 75% 48% 62% 32% 32.8% 21.32%

3rd Grade Math 55% 32% 88% 36% 71.3% 49% 38% 26%

5th Grade Reading 61% 40.8% 82.8% 56% 72% 41% 49.5% 24.2%

5th Grade Math 42% 23% 73% 34.1% 54% 30.7% 26.6% 22%

Percentage of Students Meeting National Norms

Kindergarten Reading

3rd and 5th Grade Reading and Math

“It is the ability to read well that is the single best indicator of future economic success”

Mike Schmoker, Results Now

InitiativesElementary

Fall Winter Spring Grade %ile Num WRC Num WRC Num WRC Group ROI

3

90

719 / 40570

142 / 143

715 / 40570

161 / 162

719 / 40570

176 / 179 0.94 / 1.00

75 119 / 116 139 / 139 150 / 152 0.86 / 1.00

50 82 / 87 104 / 111 117 / 127 0.97 / 1.11

25 48 / 59 73 / 84 86 / 98 1.06 / 1.08

10 28 / 38 43 / 56 54 / 73 0.72 / 0.97

Mean 84 / 89 104 / 110 117 / 125 0.92 / 1.00

StdDev 45 / 40 45 / 41 46 / 42 0.03 / 0.06

4

90

724 / 37320

167 / 160

726 / 37320

182 / 178

726 / 37320

204 / 196 1.03 / 1.00

75 134 / 134 152 / 152 166 / 168 0.89 / 0.94

50 102 / 107 120 / 125 134 / 139 0.89 / 0.89

25 74 / 84 91 / 101 102 / 112 0.78 / 0.78

10 45 / 61 61 / 78 73 / 90 0.78 / 0.81

Mean 104 / 109 121 / 126 134 / 140 0.83 / 0.86

StdDev 46 / 39 46 / 40 49 / 42 0.08 / 0.08

5

90

705 / 33373

185 / 176

699 / 33373

199 / 192

700 / 33373

215 / 205 0.83 / 0.81

75 159 / 150 174 / 168 191 / 181 0.89 / 0.86

50 124 / 121 143 / 139 154 / 153 0.83 / 0.89

25 93 / 94 108 / 111 118 / 123 0.69 / 0.81

10 68 / 74 84 / 87 90 / 98 0.61 / 0.67

Mean 125 / 122 141 / 139 153 / 152 0.78 / 0.83

StdDev 45 / 40 46 / 41 48 / 42 0.08 / 0.06

2012-2013 Growth Table: 3rd 4th and 5th Grade

K-12 Progress Monitoring

AIMSWeb Spring 2013

Tier 1 DataAll AA Asian Latino White ESL SES Spec Ed

6th Grade Reading 55% 29.3% 72.3% 45.1% 73.5% 22% 40% 9%

6th Grade Math 50.8% 20.5% 86.6% 34% 70.4% 31% 30.3% 18.1%

7th Grade Reading 53% 25.1% 68% 33% 63% 14.7% 32.5% 6.2%

7th Grade Math 64% 33% 83.2% 53.5% 73.8% 44.7% 41% 18%

8th Grade Reading 56.7% 38% 73.2% 51% 71% 4% 44% 12%

8th Grade Math 51% 20.1% 91% 30% 65.7% 22.1% 26% 6.7%

Percentage of Students Meeting National Norms

“The upper reaches of Bloom’s taxonomy could not be reached

without the use of some form of writing. Higher levels of reading and

writing skills don’t come naturally. They are learned. Students need to

have experience reading with a pen in hand.”

Mike Schmoker, Results now

InitiativesMiddle School

Academic BenchmarksHigh School

2012 ACT Grads Demographic

Black/AA White Hispanic Asian 2 or More No Respond Male Female

ENGLISHDistrict 14.7 23.2 18.7 22.3 19.4 23.3 20.3 20.0

State 16.2 22.6 17.7 23.9 21.1 19.1 20.1 20.8

MATHEMATICSDistrict 16.8 23.1 19.6 26.7 19.6 22.5 21.9 20.3

State 17.3 22.7 18.9 25.5 21.3 19.9 21.6 20.6

READINGDistrict 16.1 23.6 20.2 22.3 20.5 23.0 21.1 20.7

State 17.0 22.6 18.2 23.2 21.5 19.7 20.5 20.9

SCIENCEDistrict 16.6 23.1 19.4 23.6 20.4 22.4 21.5 20.1

State 17.3 22.4 18.7 23.8 21.2 19.7 21.2 20.4

COMPOSITEDistrict 16.2 23.4 19.5 23.9 20.2 22.9 21.3 20.4

State 17.1 22.7 18.5 24.2 21.4 19.7 21.0 20.8

4College-Level Coursework.docx

59

45 48

3228

65

44 47

3025

67

4652

3125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

College English Composition

ACT EnglishBenchmark Score = 18

College Algebra

ACT MathBenchmark Score = 22

College Social Science

ACT ReadingBenchmark Score = 21

College Biology

ACT ScienceBenchmark Score = 24

Students Meeting All 4 ACTBenchmark Scores

District State National

ACT 2012: Percent of Students Ready for College-Level Coursework

PLAN/ACT Growth – Centennial Average ACT Growth (ACT, 2009) Reading – 3.2 Math – 2.1

Composite

Plan Graduation Year ACT Difference

2009 18.0 2012 20.8 +2.8

2010 18.2 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 17.9 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

Reading


2009 17.4 2012 20.9 +3.5

2010 18.1 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 17.4 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

Math


2009 18.3 2012 21.1 +2.8

2010 18.6 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 17.7 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

PLAN/ACT Growth – Central Average ACT Growth (ACT, 2009) Reading – 3.2 Math – 2.1

Composite


2009 17.2 2012 21.0 +3.8

2010 17.2 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 18.0 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

Reading


2009 16.8 2012 21.0 +4.2

2010 16.9 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 17.5 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

Math


2009 17.4 2012 21.2 +3.8

2010 17.7 2013

2011 ----- 2014

2012 18.1 2015

2013 2016

2014 2017

PLAN: CentennialPLAN Class 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

English (15) (16.8) (17.0*) ------ (17.1*)

Math (19) 18.3* 18.6* ------ 17.7*

Reading (17) (17.4*) (18.1*) ------ (17.4*)

Science (21) 18.8* 18.7* ------ 18.7*

Composite 18.0* 18.2* ------ 17.9*

(At or Above) Benchmark

*Above National Average

PLAN Composite Class 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Black/African American 15.3 15.5 ------ 15.4

American Ind/Alaska Native 16.5 16.0 ------ ------

White 19.2 ------ ------ 18.7

Hispanic/Latino * 16.6 ------ 16.0

Asian 19.2 20.0 ------ 17.5

Native Hawaiian/Pac Is. * 19.5 ------ ------

Two or More Races * ------ ------ 17.7

Prefer Not to Respond ------ ------ ------ 19.3

Male 18.2 17.8 ------ 17.7

Female 17.7 18.6 ------ 18.0

*Changed categories

PLAN: CentralPLAN Class 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

English (15) (16.0) 15.9 ------ (17.2*)

Math (19) 17.4 17.7* ------ 18.1*

Reading (17) 16.8 16.9 ------ (17.5*)

Science (21) 18.2 18.0 ------ 18.6*

Composite 17.2 17.2 ------ 18.0*

(At or Above) Benchmark *Above National Average

PLAN Composite Class 2012 2013 2014 2015+ 2016

Black/African American 14.7 14.6 ------ 14.3+

American Ind/Alaska Native 16.0 ------ ------ 20.0+

White 20.1 ------ ------ 19.4+

Hispanic/Latino * 15.1 ------ 14.3+

Asian 18.3 19.6 ------ 17.7+

Native Hawaiian/Pac Is. * 19.3 ------ ------

Two or More Races * ------ ------ 19.0+

Prefer Not to Respond ------ 23.0 ------ ------

Male 17.0 16.8 ------ 17.4+

Female 18.0 17.7 ------ 17.2+

*Changed categories

+Demographics not reported for Nov. 2012 test date – same cohort took plan in April 2012 so these demographic scores are reported

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Graduation Rate (All) 96.5 98.1 94.5 95.6 82.6 82.0

White 98.2 99.5 97.1 96.8 87.3 91.4

African American 89.3 96.1 88.4 95.5 75.4 71.3

Hispanic 100 85.7 100 100 61.9 91.7

Special Education 100 89.7 78.6 68.1 50.7 57.5

Free and Reduced 96.4 89.9 80.3 80.4 66.9 88.2

ACT Composite (All) 22 21.6 21.9 21.8 21.6 20.8

White 23.5 22.9 23.7 23.1 22.8 22.9

African American 16.1 16.6 17.5 17 16.8 16.4

Hispanic 17.7 17.7 19.3 20.9 19.3 19.5

Graduation Rate and ACT Scores: Centennial

Graduation Rate and ACT Scores: Central

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Graduation Rate (All) 95.5 86.8 92.7 95.9 81.0 80.1

White 100.0 93.9 95.4 97.7 88.4 89.8


Hispanic 84.6 93.8 86.7 100.0 96.6 85.2

Special Education 84.6 84.0 100.0 81.3 55.7 65.1

Free and Reduced 89.3 70.1 96.0 97.1 57.7 71.8

ACT Composite (All) 20.6 20.6 20.5 19.5 20.3 21.0

White 23.2 24.0 23.3 23.0 23.7 24.3


Hispanic 17.2 18.2 15.5 18.1 18.6 19.5

8Centennial Reclassification.xlsx

9th Grade Retention RatesYear White A.A. Hispanic Asian Multi Low SES IEP Male Female Total % of Class

2008/09 22 39 6 2 0 39 39 30 69 16.70%

2009/10 11 37 4 1 0 40 30 23 53 16.00%

2010/11 11 43 4 1 0 49 34 27 61 19.40%

2011/12 17 24 0 1 2 37 22 22 44 10.80%

2012/13 8 30 0 2 0 34 9 25 16 41 10.80%


2008/09 10 24 1 0 0 20 21 14 35 9.45%

2009/10 11 15 1 2 1 18 17 13 30 8.55%

2010/11 6 8 0 0 0 12 10 5 15 4.63%

2011/12 2 4 0 0 0 5 4 2 6 2.05%

2012/13 9 6 0 1 1 15 4 13 4 17 4.64%


2008/09 6 12 0 0 0 10 11 7 18 6.06%

2009/10 1 3 2 0 0 3 5 1 6 1.83%

2010/11 2 5 1 0 0 3 4 4 8 2.49%

2011/12 2 5 0 1 0 7 6 2 8 2.73%

2012/13 3 6 0 1 1 10 1 4 7 11 3.96%

Centennial

Reclassification

Summer 2013

(Not Final)

8Centennial Reclassification.xlsx

Central

Reclassification

Summer 2013

(Not Final)

9th Grade Retention RatesYear White A.A. Hispanic Asian Multi Low SES SpEd Male Female Total % of Class

2008/09 6 34 1 2 1 29 15 44 16.00%

2009/10 5 29 1 1 0 22 16 38 10.00%

2010/11 7 26 0 1 0 25 10 35 10.00%

2011/12 10 21 0 1 3 31 19 19 38 12.00%

2012/13 5 19 6 0 1 28 8 17 14 31 8.80%


2008/09 5 23 1 0 0 18 11 29 8.00%

2009/10 4 13 1 0 1 12 7 19 5.00%

2010/11 6 9 0 0 1 8 9 17 6.00%

2011/12 4 7 0 1 0 10 10 3 13 4.00%

2012/13 4 6 4 1 2 12 3 8 9 17 5.40%


2008/09 1 9 1 1 0 5 7 12 4.00%

2009/10 1 9 0 0 0 5 5 10 4.00%

2010/11 3 2 0 0 0 2 3 5 2.00%

2011/12 3 5 0 1 0 7 4 5 9 4.00%

2012/13 1 5 1 0 1 6 3 7 1 8 3.03%

Students Entering Parkland

Fall 2012 5-Year Average

Developmental Courses College Courses Developmental Courses College Courses

Count % Count % Count % Count %

READING

Centennial 44 42.3 60 57.7 185 35.6 335 64.4

Central 29 39.2 45 60.8 145 39.7 220 60.2

WRITING

Centennial 42 41.2 60 58.8 187 36.3 327 63.6

Central 30 40.5 44 59.5 144 39.5 221 60.5

MATH

Centennial 69 73.4 25 26.6 361 74.1 126 25.9

Central 45 65.2 24 34.8 233 67 115 33

AP Trends

Centennial High School

Number of Exams:

2012 = 198

2013 = 247

AP Trends

Central High School

Number of Exams:

2012 = 211

2013 = 239

InitiativesHigh School

2AF Math.xls

Status Codes4 Complete3 In place and needs revision2 Just started1 Nothing

1) Stage 1 of UbD

templatesare fully

developed.

2) Common core literacy

standards are

identified and

measured in all

courses.

3) Discipline

specific process

standards are clearly identified

and measured.

4) Gradebooks are set up

with standards

rather than assignment

types.

5) All standards, indicators, and rubrics

will be published.

6) All courses have rubrics specifying common levels of

proficiency developed

for each performance

indicator.

7) All teachers use summative assessment

specific rubrics.

8) Course alike

common assessments

are frequently

used within UbD units.

9)Cross district

building assessments are used

at least once within every UbD

unit.

10) Discilplinespecific SEL standards are clearly identified.

Course Name Status*Target

DateStatus

*Target Date

Status*Target

DateStatus

*Target Date

Status*Target

DateStatus

*Target Date

Status*Target

DateStatus

*Target Date

StatusTarget Date

StatusTarget Date

334 Algebra I 4 Spring13 2 Spring13 5 Spring13 4 Spring13 3 Spring13 Spring13 4 Spring13 4Summer1

32

Summer13

434 Geometry 4 Spring13 2 Spring13 3 Spring13 3 Spring13 2 Spring13 Summer13 3 Summer13 3Summer1

32

Summer13

435 Accelerated

Geometry

4 Spring13 2 Spring13 3 Spring13 4 Spring13 3 Spring13 Summer13 3 Summer13 4Summer1

32

Summer13

534 Algebra II 3 Spring13 2 Spring13 3 Spring13 3 Spring13 3 Spring13 Summer13 3 Summer13 4Summer1

32

Summer13

Achievement Framework: Math

Climate and Culture Benchmarks

Suspensions by Grade Level

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Suspensions 1,611 1,442 1,300 1,322 1,132

Elementary 352 344 473 445 485

Middle 525 395 266 265 289

High 734 625 480 533 312

READY/Alt.Placements 4 78 81 89 46

Highlights:

Total Suspensions: 200 fewer suspensions of 15%

decrease

High Schools: 41% decrease in total suspensions

Number of Students Receiving Suspensions

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Zero suspensions 8,169 8,381 8,497 8,368 9,193

One suspension 603 516 517 522 496

Two suspensions 189 188 174 174 147

Three or more

suspensions

157 124 115 118 89

Highlights:

93% of students have never been suspended

Less than 1% of students have been suspended more

than three times

The 89 students with three or more suspensions

accounted for 342 or 30% of total suspensions

Suspensions by Gender

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Male 1,058 947 895 886 779

Female 553 495 405 436 353

Suspensions by Ethnicity2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

White 221 213 190 171 171

African American 1,308 1,166 1,001 1,028 818

Hispanic 57 45 55 76 72

Asian 23 15 11 8 10

Native American 2 3 2 1 2

Multi-Racial N/A N/A 41 38 59Highlights:

African American Suspensions:

o 210 fewer or 20% decrease

o SY12: 77% from AA students

o SY13: 72% from AA students

Risk Analysis:

o African American students are 6.71 or 7x more likely to be suspended

than other ethnicities

Suspensions: Special Education students2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Total Suspensions 479 375 339 392 294

# of Students 276 223 181 216 163

Highlights:

98 fewer suspensions or 33% decrease

53 fewer students for 25% decrease

Suspensions: Top 10 Incidents2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Physical confrontations w/student 646 632 591 578 527Verbal abuse to staff 201 131 162 149 83

Physical confrontation w/staff 69 57 67 78 73Disruptive behavior 139 103 105 77 112

Disobedience 168 118 51 74 40Weapons 34 37 29 54 24

Harass/Sexual Harass/Hazing 30 25 33 42 29Threats to staff 43 45 31 36 35

Theft 28 23 18 36 22Drug-related 67 56 37 35 58

Highlights:

Verbal abuse to staff: 66 fewer incidents or 44% decrease

Weapons: 30 fewer incidents or 56 % decrease

Physical Confrontations: 51 fewer incidents for 9% decrease

EOY 2013 Summary.doc

Suspensions: Total Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity

Highlights:

- All Students: 864 fewer or 10% decrease

- African American Students: 994 fewer or 16% decrease

Risk Analysis:

- African American students are 5.28 or 5x more likely to receive a discipline referral than other

ethnicities

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

White 1,469 1,629 1,421 1,416

African American 7,823 6,763 6,278 5,284

Hispanic 323 351 441 440

Asian 96 79 70 66

Native American 2 1

American Indian 36 24 20 25

Pacific Islander 4 1 1

Multi-Racial N/A 301 261 396

Total Referrals 9,747 9,159 8,492 7,628


District Attendance Rates: Elementary2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

White 94.8% 94.8% 95.5% 95.0%

African American 92.5% 92.8% 93.9% 93.2%

Hispanic 93.7% 94.5% 95.1% 94.8%

Asian 95.9% 96.1% 96.5% 96.1%

Native American/

American Indian 97.3% 95.9% 96.3% 95.0%

Pacific Islander 68.9% 89.2% 87.9% 86.9%

Multi-Racial 93.1% 94.2% 94.3% 94.3%

Overall 93.9% 94.2% 94.9% 94.4


District Attendance Rates: Middle School2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

White 92.7% 93.9% 93.9% 93.2%


Hispanic 94.0% 94.0% 93.9% 92.8%

Asian 96.1% 96.4% 96.9% 96.5%

Native American/

American Indian 93.1% 92.5% 96.0% 91.1%

Pacific Islander 77.1% 81.8% 87.3%

Multi-Racial 92.6% 93.7% 94.7% 92.8%

Overall 92.7% 93.6% 93.9% 93.1%


District Attendance Rates: High School2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

White 90.2% 91.4% 91.3% 91.8%


Hispanic 88.1% 90.3% 89.9% 91.2%

Asian 94.5% 95.4% 94.3% 95.2%

Native American/

American Indian 73.4% 93.9% 94.2% 91.7%


Multi-Racial 88.8% 89.1% 89.9% 89.7%

Overall 87.8% 89.9% 89.9% 90.9%


District Attendance Rates: Overall2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

White 92.7% 93.5% 93.7% 93.5%


Hispanic 92.5% 93.4% 93.6% 93.6%

Asian 95.6% 95.9% 96.1% 95.9%

Native American/

American Indian 89.4% 94.6% 95.7% 93.0%


Multi-Racial 92.1% 92.9% 93.5% 93.2%

Overall 91.8% 92.8% 93.3% 93.1%

Initiatives• PBIS

• PBF

Future Data Points• Five Essentials Survey Results

(Students and Staff)

• Entrance and Exit survey data

Access and Opportunity

The Superintendent will leverage the strength of the

District’s diverse population to create a rich academic and

social environment in each of the District’s schools.

Access and OpportunityMonitor the access and outcomes of historically underserved student population in

self-contained gifted, honors and Advanced Placement and dual credit

Monitor attendance and graduation rates of historically underserved student

populations and address gaps in outcomes

Implement and monitor athletic and extra-curricular programs to ensure equal

opportunity and access for all student groups.

Recommend policy and procedures that reflect the outcomes from the social justice

committee

Continue implementation of the recommendations received from 2009 Climate Survey

Gifted Program EnrollmentAsian Black Hispanic Multi-racial White Enrollment Year

100 32 19 18 103 272 2011-12

123 29 16 20 121 309 2012-13

113 30 12 9 139 303 2013-14

Enrichment Program EnrollmentAmerican Indian Asian Black Hispanic Multi-racial White Enrollment Year

2 57 129 44 36 305 573 2011-12

2 91 121 42 50 364 670 2012-13

Middle School Honors Math EnrollmentAsian Black Hispanic White

2012 145 191 66 521

2013 156 176 74 493

Middle School Honors Reading Enrollment

Asian Black Hispanic White

2012 115 218 63 524

2013 132 209 77 498

10AP Honors Enrollment Trend Data.xlsx

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Low SES in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 1048 (11.7%) 1301 (14.7%) 1676 (18.9%) 2020 (21.9%) 2399 (24.0%) 2518 (25.4%) 3063 (27.7%)

Unique Students 301 (16.7%) 357 (20.8%) 420 (25.0%) 520 (29.7%) 536 (31.2%) 583 (33.7%) 657 (35.6%)

African American Students in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 1353 (15.0%) 1348 (15.3%) 1482 (16.7%) 1543 (16.7%) 1559 (15.6%) 1557 (15.7%) 1879 (17.0%)

Unique Students 371 (20.6%) 352 (20.5%) 364 (21.7%) 383 (21.9%) 377 (21.9%) 367 (21.2%) 409 (22.1%)

Multiracial Students in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 421 (4.2%) 394 (4.0%) 470 (4.3%)

Unique Students 72 (4.2%) 63 (3.6%) 75 (4.1%)

Hispanic Students in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 234 (2.6%) 256 (2.9%) 365 (4.1%) 505 (5.5%) 532 (5.3%) 518 (5.2%) 580 (5.3%)

Unique Students 62 (3.4%) 64 (3.7%) 88 (5.2%) 113 (6.5%) 110 (6.4%) 119 (6.9%) 127 (6.9%)

White Students in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 6310 (70.2%) 6066 (68.8%) 5886 (66.3%) 5713 (61.9%) 5969 (59.7%) 5946 (60.1%) 6562 (59.4%)

Unique Students 1184 (65.8%) 1101 (64.2%) 1032 (61.5%) 1009 (57.7%) 952 (55.3%) 966 (55.8%) 1023 (55.4%)

Students in All Honors Classestotal Semesters 8995 (100.0%) 8821 (100.0%) 8878 (100.0%) 9228 (100.0%) 9998 (100.0%) 9894 (100.0%) 11045 (100.0%)

Unique Students 1800 (100.0%) 1715 (100.0%) 1679 (100.0%) 1748 (100.0%) 1720 (100.0%) 1731 (100.0%) 1848 (100.0%)

Low SES in All AP Classestotal Semesters 52 (5.5%) 56 (6.7%) 67 (6.1%) 164 (14.6%) 215 (17.2%) 182 (14.2%) 178 (13.2%)

Unique Students 18 (6.0%) 22 (7.8%) 28 (8.2%) 66 (18.6%) 74 (19.8%) 65 (17.9%) 55 (15.1%)

African American Students in All AP Classestotal Semesters 50 (5.3%) 73 (8.7%) 64 (5.8%) 118 (10.5%) 115 (9.2%) 58 (4.5%) 91 (6.7%)

Unique Students 20 (6.6%) 25 (8.8%) 27 (7.9%) 51 (14.4%) 48 (12.8%) 28 (7.7%) 29 (8.0%)

Multiracial Students in All AP Classestotal Semesters 50 (4.0%) 59 (4.6%) 52 (3.8%)

Unique Students 12 (3.2%) 15 (4.1%) 14 (3.8%)

Hispanic Students in All AP Classestotal Semesters 14 (1.5%) 5 (0.6%) 13 (1.2%) 26 (2.3%) 87 (7.0%) 75 (5.9%) 46 (3.4%)

Unique Students 3 (1.0%) 3 (1.1%) 5 (1.5%) 13 (3.7%) 27 (7.2%) 19 (5.2%) 19 (5.2%)

White Students in All AP Classestotal Semesters 666 (70.3%) 579 (69.0%) 841 (76.7%) 702 (62.6%) 668 (53.4%) 771 (60.2%) 775 (57.4%)

Unique Students 213 (70.8%) 201 (71.0%) 263 (76.7%) 219 (61.9%) 214 (57.2%) 223 (61.3%) 219 (60.2%)

Students in All AP Classestotal Semesters 947 (100.0%) 839 (100.0%) 1097 (100.0%) 1122 (100.0%) 1250 (100.0%) 1280 (100.0%) 1351 (100.0%)

Unique Students 301 (100.0%) 283 (100.0%) 343 (100.0%) 354 (100.0%) 374 (100.0%) 364 (100.0%) 364 (100.0%)

Total AP Honors Enrollment

Initiatives• Social Justice Framework

• Culturally Relevant Education

• Magnet Schools

• AVID

Retain Highly Qualified Staff

The Superintendent will retain, hire, and support highly

qualified faculty and staff that will best serve the District’s

diverse student population.

Development of a plan to hire and retain high quality principals,

faculty, and staff who reflect the racial and ethnic composition of the

available workforce, with an emphasis on strong building leadership,

through incentives including, but not limited to, competitive pay, good

working conditions, excellent professional development, mentoring,

performance bonuses, and opportunities for advancement.

Partner with the University of Illinois and other institutions of higher

education to strengthen professional development and continuing

education.


Benchmarks• AAEEO

• Minority Teacher Recruitment and Retention Rate

• Exit Surveys

• Teacher Retention Rate

• Champaign Framework for Teaching

• Grow Your Own

• Minority Teacher Networking

• New Teacher Mentor Program

• Recruiting Trips

• Developing Future Leaders

Initiatives

Community Partnerships

The Superintendent will effectively and efficiently engage

parents and other community stakeholders resulting in

strong partnerships.

Reaching out to all stakeholders

Regular meetings with media and other organizations to build awareness of the

quality of the education provided by the District

Continued review and assessment of the student assignment process to improve

all stakeholders understanding of the process

Provide a consistent and viable presence in the community with parents and non -

parents

Provide in-service for staff in the areas of effective communication and customer

service for a diverse community

Improve the quality of service to our parents and students that use the District’s

bus service


Choice: Kindergarten Assignment 2013-2014

Assignment # of Students %

Total Choice Applications 720Total Who Received Choice 678 94.2Total Unassigned 42 5.81st Choice 612 852nd Choice 29 43rd Choice 18 2.54th Choice 8 1.15th Choice 11 1.5

Nine were assigned to their 1st Choice School immediately after the results were

received and reviewed

Twenty-one additional students have received an assignment to their 1st Choice

School (total of 30)

Three of the families made only one choice

Five families have chosen to not accept an alternative assignment to a school with

open seats

Three of the five families have opted for private school while remaining on the Wait

List

Choice Assignments

Kindergarten Assignment 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11

# of Students % # of Students % # of Students %

Total Choice Applications 768 693 691

Total Who Received Choice 733 95 661 95 636 92

Total Unassigned 35 4.6 32 4.6 55 8

1st Choice 684 89 592 85 541 78

2nd Choice 24 3.1 49 7.1 68 9.8

3rd Choice 11 1.4 9 1.3 27 3.9

4th Choice 8 1 5 0.7 n/a n/a

5th Choice 6 0.8 6 0.9 n/a n/a

Choice: Historical Data

• Customer Service

• Center for Culturally Responsive Evaluation & Assessment

• Parent Advocacy & Transitions Ad Hoc Committees

Initiatives

Fiscal Responsibility

The Superintendent will align the District’s priorities and resources

through a community-involved planning process implemented

through focused action plans with regular progress reports.

Develop a new strategic plan for the District through a collaborative process

with significant community involvement.

Continue exercise of principles of financial responsibility

Stabilize and build the finance and business office

Actively support the facilities referendum process

Submit to the Board a long-term facility plan that addresses needs at all levels

with a financial plan that supports recommendations

Review current structure of the Promises Made, Promises Kept Committee, and

submit to the Board a plan regarding the future composition of the committee


Equitable Facilities

The Superintendent will revitalize, build, and maintain facilities that

are safe, sustainable and allow equitable access to programming

services across the District.

Existing facility revitalization and/or new facilities

Establish energy efficiency as a priority in all renovation and new construction

projects

Commit to ensuring all facilities have equitable access to and incorporation of

technology as appropriate to support student achievement

Develop partnerships with community stakeholders to secure land for future

school location based on projected community growth

Continue review and revision of the District Capital Improvement Plan with a

yearly report to the Board of Education


In Summary

Academic Achievement

Access and Opportunity





Documents

“Lowering standards doesn’t raise students’ self