Red Clay Consolidated School District Race to The Top Plan

Last modified: 2/24/2012

Red Clay Consolidated School District

District Success Plan 2011–14 (Application for Years 2–4 of Race to the Top Funding) Submitted to the Delaware Department of Education

Mervin B. Daugherty, Ed.D., Superintendent 6/1/2011

Last modified: 2/24/2012 i

Change History Version Date Change

1.0 6/1/2011 Original.

2.0 2/24/2012 Updated with substantive changes and non-substantive changes, including amendments approved by the DDOE on 2/16/2012. (See Appendix A for details.)

Last modified: 2/24/2012 ii

Table of Contents Part 1: Introduction and Summary _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Vision ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Needs Assessment __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2

Overview _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

Stakeholder Engagement to Develop Your Plan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5

Common Measures and Targets _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 6

Additional LEA Measures____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11

Part 2: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Activities_______________________________________________________________________ 19

Goal 1: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with rigorous standards, curriculum, and assessments _________________ 20 Objective 1: Implement college and career ready standards and assessments ____________________________________________________________________ 20

Strategy 1: Support the development of new standards, align curriculum, and conduct assessments (Activities 1–2) _________________________________ 20 Strategy 2: Build a culture of college- and career-readiness in schools (Activities 3–14) _________________________________________________________ 22

Goal 2: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with sophisticated data systems and practices _______________________ 39 Objective 2: Improve access to and use of data systems ______________________________________________________________________________________ 39

Strategy 3: Implement and support improvement of the state longitudinal data system (Activities 15–17) _________________________________________ 39 Objective 3: Build the capacity to use data ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 45

Strategy 4: Ensure implementation of instructional improvement systems (Activities 18–19) ____________________________________________________ 45

Goal 3: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with effective teachers and leaders ________________________________ 53 Objective 4: Improve the effectiveness of educators based on performance _____________________________________________________________________ 53

Strategy 5: Use evaluations as a primary factor in educator development, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal (Activities 20–26) ___________ 53 Strategy 6: Establish new educator career paths linked to evaluation (Activities 27–29) ________________________________________________________ 56

Objective 5: Ensure equitable distribution of effective educators ______________________________________________________________________________ 61 Strategy 7: Increase the concentration of highly effective teachers and leaders in high-need schools (Activities 30–33) _______________________________ 61

Objective 6: Ensure that educators are effectively prepared __________________________________________________________________________________ 65 Strategy 8: Target recruiting and hiring to the most effective preparation programs (Activities 34–36) ____________________________________________ 65

Objective 7: Provide effective support to educators _________________________________________________________________________________________ 69 Strategy 9: Adopt a coherent approach to professional development (Activities 37–40) ________________________________________________________ 69 Strategy 10: Accelerate the development of instructional leaders (Activities 41–42) ___________________________________________________________ 71

Last modified: 2/24/2012 iii

Goal 4: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with deep support for the lowest-achieving schools ___________________ 79 Objective 8: Provide deep support to the lowest-achieving schools_____________________________________________________________________________ 79

Strategy 12: Provide support to turn around low-achieving schools (Activities 43–45) __________________________________________________________ 79

Goal 5: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with active involvement of families and communities _________________ 89 Objective 9: Engage families and communities effectively in supporting students’ academic success __________________________________________________ 89

Strategy 13: Provide ongoing services and opportunities to support and engage students and their families and communities in the educational process (Activities 46–51) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 89

Part 3: Activities to Remove, Success Factors, Communications, and Resources Needed _________________________________________ 99

Activities to Remove _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 99

Success Factors and Possible Risks ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 100

Communications and Stakeholder Engagement ________________________________________________________________________________ 102

Resources and/or Support Needed ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 103

Appendixes Appendix A: Summary of Changes to the Success Plan

Appendix B: Needs Assessment

Appendix C: Budget Summary: Year 1 RTTT

Appendix D: Curriculum Council Decision Making Flowchart

Appendix E: RTTT Position Descriptions E-1: Position Description for Pre-school Teacher E-2: Position Description for Academic Dean (Elementary) E-3: Position Description for Academic Dean (Secondary) E-4: Position Description for Academic Dean for PLCs E-5: Position Description for Manager of RTTT

Appendix F: RFP for Educational Consultants

Appendix G: RTTT Organizational Chart

Appendix H: Glossary of Abbreviations

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Vision

Last modified: 2/24/2012 1

Part 1: Introduction and Summary Vision: How will your LEA be different in 2014? How will student outcomes be different? What will this mean for students, teachers and administrators? By 2014, all Red Clay students and families will be served by highly effective educators in every classroom with necessary interventions and services provided in the least restrictive environment. In partnership with our parents and community, Red Clay staff is committed to providing a high-quality education where success is possible for all students. Our vision is that every Red Clay student will receive the respect, support, and opportunities necessary to develop the knowledge and skills to be positive contributors to our global society. The district will be better positioned to serve the diverse educational needs of all students. Special Education and ELL students will achieve at a rate of success on state measures at the same level as their peers. An enhanced pre-school program will be operational to serve students in the feeder patterns of our high-need schools. This program will offer students the opportunity for early interventions and instruction which will allow them to enter kindergarten with tools necessary for academic success. In addition, a state-of-the-art pre-k–12 professional development plan will offer all Red Clay educators the opportunity to be highly effective educators. The professional development plan will ensure that all students receive the same education with an aligned curriculum and consistent instructional practices. Teachers will participate in required professional development workshops that focus on the core of instruction, which is standards-based. Administrators will participate in workshops that focus on developing their ability to identify highly effective educators and provide skills to support educators in their improvement efforts. An important component of the professional development plan will be the support provided to teachers and administrators through our School Support Team initiative. Comprised of district-trained administrators, the School Support Team will conduct walkthroughs of buildings to view standards-based education in the classroom. Members of the School Support Team will offer support to the administration in identifying areas of growth for the administrator, the school, and the classroom staff. Finally, a community health model will be implemented in our high-need elementary schools to provide health services that meet the needs of our students. Services will involve both preventive and mental health professionals in order to enhance the quality of life for our students.

With rigorous standards, curriculum, and assessments, sophisticated data systems and practices, effective teachers and leaders, deep support for the lowest-achieving schools, and active involvement of families and communities, the district will accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students. Specifically, student achievement will improve as follows:

• Proficiency in reading, math, science, and social studies will increase dramatically, with 100% of students meeting the standard on DCAS, 55–60% advanced on DCAS, and a 25% increase in DCAS growth.

• Achievement gaps will decrease by as much as 50%, with African American students, Hispanic students, low-income students, Special Education students, and ELLs achieving at a rate much closer to that of their peers.

• Students will be better prepared for post-secondary success, with the district achieving a 90% high school graduation rate, 70% college enrollment rate, 85% college retention rate, and significant increases in SAT performance means (480–500), the number of students taking AP exams (1,125), and the percentage of AP exams scoring a 3 or higher (60%).

• Early learners will be better prepared for academic success, with 95% of students in kindergarten and grade 1 reaching the Benchmark level on DIBELS and a 25% increase in early childhood outcomes.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Needs Assessment


Needs Assessment: Based on your LEA’s data, what are your greatest performance challenges? What are the root causes of those performance challenges? [Note: This can be a narrative, or in the format of “Group Name/Needs/Root Causes/Data” found on the Success Plan website.] The greatest performance challenges for Red Clay are overall reading proficiency (all grades, all subgroups), overall math proficiency (all grades, all subgroups), Special Education (math), and ELL (math). Red Clay conducted a needs analysis (see Appendix B) and identified our performance challenges based on the gap in reading performance on DIBELS as compared to DSTP grades 2 and 3, achievement gaps among subgroups and their reference groups (especially with Special Education and ELL students), flat-line performance on DSTP overall, and poor performance in high-need schools. Similarly, there are significant gaps between the state and the district and between African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students in other key indicators including graduation rates, suspension rates, SAT scores, and AP scores.

The root causes of our performance challenges are multi-faceted, and each one of the RTTT activities is integral to district’s emphasis on increasing the quality of education provided to all of our learners. The district has identified the following factors as contributing to our performance challenges:

• A lack of systemic professional development for all educators. In order to deliver a consistent, research-based education to our students, our educators must be equipped with the tools and knowledge necessary to meet the learning needs of all types of learners. With the funding provided by RTTT, the district will implement a systemic professional development plan with training linked to specific skill and role expectations for every educator. The effectiveness of the training will be regularly reviewed and the district will prioritize those offerings that prove to have the highest impact. While we focus on increasing the talent level of our educators through high-impact professional development offerings, we will also utilize the state’s leadership training program for novice school leaders and school leaders at high-need schools.

• Limited educational opportunities and services for our earliest learners. Due to resource constraints, the district has not been able to enhance its programs for pre-school students on a large scale. In SY 2010–11, the district piloted a successful pre-school program at Warner Elementary School. With RTTT funding, the district will expand that program in order to serve a larger population of students throughout Red Clay. In addition, the RTTT grant will allow the district to provide parent sessions specifically for parents of pre-school aged children. Our focus on early childhood literacy will help us to address reading readiness issues (e.g., vocabulary development) apparent among our students.

• A lack of rigorous advanced coursework and targeted support for secondary students. A major emphasis of the district’s RTTT plan is college- and career-readiness for all students. Through tutoring services, an SAT prep program, STEM/IB programs and the middle and high school levels, AP programs, and initiatives like the Red Clay College Fair, the district will provide ongoing support to ensure that all students to graduate high school with the skills necessary to succeed academically and professionally.

• A lack of curriculum alignment and standards-based instruction. A focus on inclusionary practices will support our struggling learners, especially as rigorous instruction aligned to common core standards is implemented for all students. The district will use RTTT funds to focus on alignment of curriculum and instruction with the common core standards, and a continual system to monitor instructional practices in the district. Through the ongoing work of Curriculum Councils, the district’s curriculum will be aligned with the common core standards in accordance with school board policy. Furthermore, with the addition of Academic Deans and SAMs, schools will be able to provide instructional leadership for educators and continual monitoring of instructional practices.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Overview


Overview: What are your priorities, and how do they fit together? How will they impact your identified needs and Common Measures? How do they represent an improvement over what you have done before? In order to reach our goal of increasing student achievement, the district has established several priorities aligned with our guiding principles and our identified performance challenges. As outlined in this plan, the district will examine measures such as student proficiency and growth on state tests, student performance on district assessments, graduation rates, and the number of schools meeting AYP. The district will report on these measures each year.

Research has found five specific district-level leadership responsibilities or initiatives that have a statistically significant correlation with a favorable impact on student achievement.1 The key actions in which district leadership should engage are ensuring collaborative goal setting; establishing non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction; creating school board alignment with and support of district goals; monitoring achievement and instruction goals; and allocating resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction. Based on these findings, the district has defined three guiding principles that will serve as the foundation for all district activity:

• Guiding Principle 1: Prepare for Success in the 21st Century. Several factors necessitate a focus on preparing our students and staff for success in the 21st century: a shift from an economy based on manufacturing to one where service is driven by information, knowledge, and innovation; a demand for skills in communication, collaboration, and management; and a need to close the achievement gap between the United States and international competitors.2 The global economy of the 21st century requires educators and students to be skilled at communicating; solving complex problems; evaluating information; thinking critically as well as creatively; and making innovative use of knowledge, information, and opportunities. By requiring that our district staff members are equipped with 21st century skills, the district will be able to ensure that our students are provided with the educational opportunities they will need to succeed.

• Guiding Principle 2: Collaborate for Continuous Improvement. In order for our students to maintain a competitive edge in the 21st century, the district will commit to promoting a culture of continuous improvement rooted in collaboration at all levels of the organization. Across all areas of district operations, staff will accept ownership for individual roles, solve problems cooperatively, and participate in shared decision making.3 In addition to continually seeking ways to improve their own performance, district staff will collaborate with others to collectively support the district’s efforts to improve student achievement.

• Guiding Principle 3: Build Learning Capacity. Every area of the organization can contribute to and benefit from the district’s commitment to building learning capacity among students and staff. Research shows that improving instruction is the key to top performance in school systems and that it is greatly impacted by strong leadership, clear instructional priorities, and an investment in professional development.1 By building their own learning capacity through ongoing professional development, our staff members will be better able to provide an environment that optimizes students’ potential to learn.

In keeping with these guiding principles, the district has identified priorities with a focus on improving assistance to schools, creating environments of high academic achievement for all students, and investing in professional development. The district has created several initiatives to support each of the identified priorities. For example, in keeping with the district’s philosophy that all children can learn, our educators will be fully trained on brain-based learning (Eric Jensen), understanding poverty (Ruby Payne), and standards-based educational practices. Leadership Academies have been implemented to address best practices. To provide academic support focused on vocabulary and comprehension, the district has implemented programs and activities such as Boost-Up at the kindergarten level, a new reading series and intervention plans at the elementary level, Reading Recovery at the elementary and middle school levels, and career pathways and college course programs at the high school level. In addition, a variety of technology initiatives are currently in place at several schools and extra staff members (e.g., Literacy Coaches, IST Facilitators) have been deployed at schools to help close achievement gaps.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Overview


The activities identified by the district in the RTTT application improve upon current district practice. Red Clay has been recognized as an innovative and ambitious district in the development of activities and programs to improve student achievement. The systemic professional development, leadership academies, Academic Deans, and other human capital activities focus the district’s attention to further our implementation of effective, research-based strategies to improve student achievement. Often educators are provided the latest and greatest in educational research without the means to implement the plans or the commitment to see those plans through to achieve the benefits of proven strategies. Red Clay is committed to following through on our vision, goals, and activities to reach our planned deliverables and more importantly to drastically increase the number of students who graduate from our schools college- and career-ready.

The district anticipates a total grant allocation of $7,893,194 (years 1–4, including indirect costs at the current approved indirect cost rate of 7.05%). The district’s application is intended to utilize all monies in order to allow us to move forward in addressing our priorities. Expenditures appropriated in this document include RTTT, other district allocations, and DDOE (cost-share). The district anticipates a year-end balance of year 1 (2010–11) RTTT funds of $974,136 (estimated June 30 balance as of May 26, 2011; see Appendix C). The district intends to roll over the balance and allocate the projected balance to various RTTT activities (see Question A.1 in the RTTT Grant section of ESPES for explanation of carryover). The budgeted amounts listed in this plan are estimates (with indirect costs included); see the RTTT Grant section of ESPES for exact costs.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Stakeholder Engagement


Stakeholder Engagement to Develop Your Plan: How did you engage stakeholders in the process of developing this plan? Transparency, collaboration across stakeholder groups, strong communication protocols, and fidelity of implementation are necessary to ensure success in the district’s priorities. Representatives from all stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, administrators, parents, school board members) worked collaboratively to develop the district’s RTTT application. (Stakeholder input was also solicited during the district’s strategic planning efforts, which began in 2009 and which serve as the basis for much of this plan.) Initiatives were reviewed and priorities determined. Subcommittees were formed and each was represented by all stakeholder groups. Subcommittees then presented to the entire committee the goals, objectives, strategies, and activities for the area they were assigned.

The district’s RTTT project management plan includes strategies to disseminate information, receive feedback and input, and report progress. The Manager of RTTT, who oversees compliance of the grant, meets with each leader assigned to a priority area at least once a month and collects information from meetings and presentations. Following these monthly meetings, the Manager of RTTT updates the district’s monitoring scorecard (available on the district website), which is designed to help all constituents stay informed of our progress on RTTT initiatives.

The Manager of RTTT will continue to give progress reports at school board meetings, and quarterly community meetings will be held to provide updates to stakeholders. Bi-annual presentations will be given to the Red Clay Parent Advisory Council and the Red Clay Community Financial Review Committee. The RTTT section of the district website contains a monitoring scorecard, relevant presentations, and any additional RTTT information for the community. Periodic meetings with union representatives will be held to ensure that any questions concerning the RTTT grant are answered and initiatives are reviewed and discussed. Through continual collaboration and communication, the district will strive to mitigate potential challenges to the success of this plan.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Common Measures and Targets


Common Measures and Targets: The state has defined fourteen Common Measures with corresponding state targets. Please specify your LEA’s targets for each of these common measures.

Common Measuresi LEA Baseline (cite date)

LEA Targets Relevant State Target 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

% meets standard on DCASii Reading (All students, All grades)

DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES

70% 85% 100% 100% by 2013–14

% meets standard on DCASii Mathematics (All students, All grades)

DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%

100% 100% by 2013–14

% meets standard on DCASii Science (Grades 5, 8, 10) (Baseline starts in 2011 for Grades 5, 10)

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

70% 85% 100% 100% by 2013–14

i % meets standard = DCAS 3 or 4; % advance = DCAS 4; unless otherwise indicated % meets standards is for All Students. ii With the change in testing programs and accommodations, districts have been told to expect a decrease in % of students meeting the standard; as students acclimate to the new system, the district expects to see increased performance. Actual targets will be based on DCAS baseline to be established in June 2011.





% meets standard on DCASii Social Studies (Grades 4, 7) (Baseline starts in 2011 for Grade 7)

DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

70% 85% 100% 100% by 2013–14

% advanced on DCASii 4th Grade Mathematics DSTP Sp 2010: PL 4–5: 34.4%

Source: DSTP OR

30%

Actual: PL 4: 15%

Source: DCAS OR

40% 50% 60% 60% proficient on NAEP by 2015

% advanced on DCASii 4th Grade Reading DSTP Sp 2010: PL 4–5: 28.2%

Source: DSTP OR

25%

Actual: PL 4: 25.1%

Source: DCAS OR



Source: DSTP OR

35%

Actual: PL 4: 29.6%

Source: DCAS OR



Source: DSTP OR

20%

Actual: PL 4: 38.7%

Source: DCAS OR






% reduction in Black-White achievement gaps on DCAS (since 2008–09)

DSTP Sp 2010: Math (B: 48.4%, W: 83.2%) Gap: 34.8% pt

DSTP Sp 2010: Reading (B: 53.5%, W: 85.5%) Gap: 32.0% pt

Source: DSTP OR

30% pt gap (2.0–4.8% pt reduction)

Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR

25% pt gap (5% pt reduction)



50% reduction on NAEP by 2015

% reduction in Hispanic-White achievement gaps on DCAS (since 2008–09)

DSTP Sp 2010: Math (H: 59.0%, W: 83.2%) Gap: 24.2% pt

DSTP Sp 2010: Reading (H: 59.5%, W: 85.5%) Gap: 26.0% pt

Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR









% reduction in low-income–non low-income achievement gaps on DCAS (since 2008–09)

DSTP Sp 2010: Math (LI: 54.5%, Non: 83.8%) Gap: 29.3% pt

DSTP Sp 2010: Reading (LI: 56.8%, Non: 86.0%) Gap: 29.1% pt

Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (LI:38%, Non: 77%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR





NCLB graduation rate NCLB 2009:

With charters: 87.0%

Without charters: 82.5%

Source: DDOE School Profiles

With charters: 88%

Without charters: 84%

Actual:


Source: AYP


Source: DWPR

With charters: 89%


With charters: 90%


With charters: 90%


90% by 2013–14

College enrollment rate 2008–09: 58.6%

Source: National Student Clearinghouse

60%

Actual: 2009–10: 52%


63% 67% 70% 70% by 2013–14





College retention rate 2008–09: 80.0%


81%

Actual: 2009–10: 79%


82% 83% 85% 85% by 2013–14

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 1 | Additional LEA Measures


Additional LEA Measures: You may also define additional measures and targets of your own. These may include measures from the Department’s “pre-defined measures” list, which is available on the Success Planning website.

Additional LEA Measures LEA Baseline (cite date)


SAT Performance: Mean (As participation increases, mean scores are expected to decrease; as participation rate stabilizes, it will be a goal for mean scores to increase)

2009–10: Reading: 483 Math: 484 Writing: 465

Source: College Board

Reading: 460 Math: 460 Writing: 440

Actual:



Reading:480 Math: 480 Writing: 460



N/A

Increase in the number of AP exam takers 2009–10: 1,017


1,050

Actual: 955


1,075 1,100 1,125 N/A

% of AP exams scoring 3+ (As participation increases, mean scores are expected to decrease; as participation rate stabilizes, it will be a goal for mean scores to increase)

2009–10: 49.4%


51%

Actual: 48.5%


55% 57% 60% N/A





% reduction in ELL–non ELL achievement gaps on DCAS (since 2008–09)

DSTP Sp 2010: Math (ELL: 52.4%, Non: 71.4%) Gap: 19.1% pt

DSTP Sp 2010: Reading (ELL: 43.5%, Non: 74.6%) Gap: 31.1% pt

Source: DSTP OR

Math: 17% pt gap (2.1% pt reduction)

Reading: 30% pt gap (1.1% pt reduction)

Actual:

Math (ELL:26.9%, Non: 63.5%) Gap: 36.6% pt

Reading (ELL: 9.1%, Non: 59.4%) Gap: 50.4% pt

Source: DCAS OR

Math: 15% pt gap (2% pt reduction)

Reading: 25% pt gap (5% pt reduction)





(To be determined)

% reduction in Special Education–non Special Education achievement gaps on DCAS (since 2008–09)

DSTP Sp 2010: Math (Spec Ed: 23.9%, Non: 77.0%) Gap: 53.1% pt

DSTP Sp 2010: Reading (Spec Ed: 26.9%, Non: 79.1%) Gap: 52.2% pt

Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (Spec Ed: 11%, Non: 63%) Gap: 52% pt

Reading (Spec Ed: 13%, Non: 63%) Gap: 50% pt

Source: DCAS OR




(To be determined)





% of children with IEPs aged 6–21 inside regular class 80%+ of day

2009–10: 37.2%

Source: ESPES

40%

Actual: 42.6%

Source: M. Rush, DDOE Education Specialist, Data Manager

50% 55% 65% (To be determined)

% of CTE Concentrator Graduates in Secondary Placement

2009–10: 47.0%

Source: ESPES

48%

Actual: 48.78%

Source: DWPR

49% 50% 52% (To be determined)

Out-of-school suspension rate 2009–10:

All: 20.5

Source: ESPES

Spec Ed: 23.8 (updated due to state’s change in data source, from ESPES to DWPR)

Source: DWPR

18

Actual:

All: 16.4 Spec Ed: 25.2

Source: DWPR

16 14 12.8 (To be determined)

Attendance rate 2009–10: 93.6%

Source: eSchool

94%

Actual: 93.1%

Source: eSchool Attendance Reports through DSC

94.5% 95% 97% N/A





Mean score on district common exams (e.g., end-of-course exams aligned to standards)

2009–10:

Engl 9: 65% Engl 10: 60.5% US Hist: 59.9% Wld Hist: 57.0% Phys Sci: 51.4% Bio: 56.7% Alg I: 63.9% Alg II: 61.4% Geom: 61.1%

Source: DSC

65%

Actual:

Engl 9: 72.4% Engl 10: 70.1% US Hist: 64.8% Wld Hist: 62.9% Phys Sci: 55% Bio: 65.4% Integ I: 40.7% Alg I: 71% Alg II: 64.1% Geom: 64.4%

Source: DSC/Online Testing/ School Avg Reports

70% 75% 80% N/A

% of teachers who receive a “satisfactory” or “effective” on DPAS II

2010–11: 98%

Source: Principals (2011–12 DPAS II ERS)

Baseline: 98%


5% increase over baseline



N/A

% of administrators who receive a “satisfactory” or “effective” on DPAS II

2010–11: 92%

Source: RCCSD Office of School Operations

Baseline: 92%


100% 100% 100% N/A

% of vacancies filled through the job fair 2010–11: 91%

Source: RCCSD Office of Human Resources

Baseline: 91%


99% 100% 100% N/A





Early childhood outcomes 2010–11:

TOPEL Avg Pre-Test: 93.9 (sd=14.86)

Avg Post-test: 105.6 (sd=9.11)

TEMA Avg Pre-test: 84.6 (sd=12.7)


Source: RCCSD Title I Preschool Staff

Baseline:

TOPEL Avg Pre-Test: 93.9 (sd=14.86) Avg Post-test: 105.6 (sd=9.11)

TEMA Avg Pre-test: 84.6 (sd=12.7) Avg Post-test: 100.6 (sd=10.76)





N/A

DCAS growth (Based on AYP Fall to Spring Growth Table, 300 points total)

2010–11:

Math 194.7 (state AYP target: 147)

Reading 180.3 (state AYP target: 150)

Source: DCAS AYP Reports

Baseline:







(To be determined)

Satisfaction among longitudinal data system users (Baseline to be determined pending state’s implementation of the longitudinal data system)

N/A (Baseline to be determined pending state’s implementation of the longitudinal data system)



N/A





% of students reaching the Benchmark level on DIBELS

2009–10:

K: 84.0% Gr 1: 73.0%

Source: DIBELS Data System & mClass Direct

K: 87% Gr 1: 75%

Actual: K: 87% Gr 1: 76%

Source: DIBELS Data System & mClass Direct 6/6/2011

K: 90% Gr 1: 80%

K: 92% Gr 1: 90%

K: 95% Gr 1: 95%

N/A

Maintain favorable parent satisfaction with their school’s communication practices (effectively communicates across class, language, and cultural differences)

2009–10: Avg 4.13 on 5-pt scale

Source: 2010 RCCSD Parent Involvement Survey

4.0 or higher

Actual: 4.21


4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher N/A

Maintain favorable parent satisfaction with the district’s communication practices related to the RTTT application and success planning

(Baseline to be determined in SY 2011–12)

N/A (Baseline to be determined)


4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher N/A

Increase in return rate of district’s annual parent survey

2009–10: 2,183 total responses


2,200 total responses

Actual: 2,247 total responses





N/A

% of parents utilizing data systems to access student, school, and district data (e.g., HAC)

2010–11: 4.08 (access Home Access Center)


Baseline: 4.08 (access Home Access Center)





N/A





Number of schools meeting or exceeding AYP targetsiii

2009–10: 10 schools

Source: DDOE AYP

12 schools

Actual: 14 schools

Source: DDOE AYP

Increase by 2 schools each year



N/A

Number of teachers completing NBCT 2009–10: 53 teachers

Source: RCCSD Office of Professional Development

73 teachers

Actual: 62 teachers (includes 9 teachers waiting for results in Nov. 2011)


93 113 133 N/A

% of families accessing services in community schools

2010–11: 52%

Source: RCCSD Office of Federal Programs

Baseline: 52%





N/A

% of IB participants who attain the IB diploma (Baseline to be determined in SY 2013–14)

N/A N/A N/A (Baseline to be determined)

N/A

% of teachers utilizing the I-Tracker Pro system Fall 2008: 58%

Source: Fall 2008 RCCSD District Programs Survey

64%

Actual: 71%





N/A

iii With the change in testing programs and accommodations, districts have been told to expect a decrease in % of students meeting the standard; given the increased AYP target each year, the district expects to see an initial decline and then will work for steady improvements in AYP performance.





% of teachers self-reporting that they use student data to identify and address student learning needs

2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%





N/A

% of teachers self-reporting that they collaborate with colleagues on student data

2010–11: 71%


Baseline: 71%





N/A

% of teachers who are proficient at analyzing student data according to principals

2010–11: 70%

Source: Fall 2011 RCCSD District Programs Survey (Admins.)

Baseline: 70%





N/A

% of teachers who are improving practice with analyzing student data according to principals

2010–11: 61%


Baseline: 61%





N/A

% of educators satisfied with data trainings and collaborative data meetings

2010–11: 60%


Baseline: 60%





N/A

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 2 | Goals and Objectives


Part 2: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Activities

Goals: The state has defined four required goals. Please use this space to add any additional LEA goals. Statewide Goals:

1. Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with rigorous standards, curriculum, and assessments 2. Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with sophisticated data systems and practices 3. Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with effective teachers and leaders 4. Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with deep support for the lowest-achieving schools

Additional LEA Goals: • Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with active involvement of families and communities

Objectives: The state has defined nine required objectives that will drive the achievement of the four required goals. Please use this space to add any additional LEA objectives.

Statewide Objectives: 1. Implement college and career ready standards and assessments 2. Improve access to and use of data systems 3. Build the capacity to use data 4. Improve the effectiveness of educators based on performance 5. Ensure equitable distribution of effective educators 6. Ensure that educators are effectively prepared 7. Provide effective support to educators 8. Provide deep support to the lowest-achieving schools 9. Engage families and communities effectively in supporting students’ academic

success

Alignment to Goals: 1. Rigorous standards, curriculum, and assessments 2. Sophisticated data systems and practices 3. Sophisticated data systems and practices 4. Effective teachers and leaders 5. Effective teachers and leaders 6. Effective teachers and leaders 7. Effective teachers and leaders 8. Deep support for the lowest-achieving schools 9. Active involvement of families and communities

Additional LEA Objectives: • N/A

Alignment to Goals (State or LEA): • N/A

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 2 | Goal 1 | Objective 1


Goal 1: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with rigorous standards, curriculum, and assessments

Objective 1: Implement college and career ready standards and assessments

Summary of strategies: Required Strategies

• Support the development of new standards, align curriculum, and conduct assessments (SoW 1) • Build a culture of college- and career-readiness in schools (SoW 2)

Additional LEA Strategies • N/A

Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 1: Support the development of new standards, align curriculum, and conduct assessments (SoW 1) Owner: Dep. Superintendent

for Student Support Services

For the above strategy, indicate each activity, the budgeted amount required for it (with funding sources), and the person who will be responsible for it. Required activities have already been included.

Timeline: Place an “X” in each box that represents a time period in which the activity will be carried out.

Deliverables: List the major deliverable(s) for each activity, and when they will be completed.

Activities Budgeted amount

Person responsible

2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Deliverables F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su

1) Ensure curriculum aligns with standards and is implemented with fidelity

Other district allocations: $10,000/yr 2 $10,000/yr 3 $10,000/yr 4

(EPER)

Deputy Superintendent for Student Support Services

X X X X • Audit of the district’s PD and classroom-based strategies completed to ensure alignment with common core standards and fidelity of implementation (May 2012)

• Annual report of the district’s needs in PD and areas of strength and areas in need of improvement in instructional practice (Jun. 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


2) Utilize Curriculum Councils to make informed decisions and provide PD on development of new standards, alignment of curriculum, and assessments to be conducted

RTTT: $95,939/yr 2 $95,939/yr 3 $95,939/yr 4


(EPER)

Director of School Turnaround

X X X X X X X X X X X X • Meeting minutes containing Curriculum Councils’ textbook adoption recommendations (history and math) (Spring 2012), PD recommendations, and curriculum focus (Monthly, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Teacher participation on the Curriculum Council (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Teacher leaders attend monthly council meetings (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Teacher leaders disseminate information and training to all staff in their buildings (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• PD provided for teacher leaders on research-based practices (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

Budget total RTTT: $287,818

Other district allocations: $172,500



Strategy 2: Build a culture of college- and career-readiness in schools (SoW 2) Owner: Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services





Person responsible


3) Determine rigorous advanced coursework

RTTT: $19,188/yr 2 $6,853/yr 3 $6,853/yr 4


(EPER)

Supervisor of Curriculum & Assessment

X X X • Comprehensive review of the curriculum for all advanced courses (including AP and IB classes) to determine level of rigor (Jun. 2012)

• Follow-up reviews of the curriculum for all advanced courses (including AP and IB classes) to determine level of rigor (Spring 2013, 2014)

4) Provide rigorous advanced coursework

RTTT: $18,621/yr 2 $10,964/yr 3 $10,964/yr 4


(EPER; supplies and materials)


X • Alignment of course objectives to standards for rigor (Sep. 2012)

• Guiding documents created for standards and instructional units (Sep. 2012)

• Item analysis, evaluation, and revision of district and course assessments to identify rigor (Sep. 2012)

• Completion of College Board AP training by all AP teachers (Sep. 2012)




Person responsible


5) Target high-need or low-achieving students for enrollment in advanced coursework

RTTT: $15,847/yr 2 $5,482/yr 3 $5,482/yr 4

Other district allocations: $5,000/yr 2


Manager of RTTT

X X X X X • Identification of high-need or low-achieving students to be targeted for enrollment in advanced coursework through review of grades, PSAT scores, DCAS scores, and scores on common exams, and placement in advanced courses (Annually, Spring 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

• Analysis of past district policies for enrolling students in advanced coursework and the impact of those policies on enrollment of under-represented subgroups (Aug. 2011)

6) Provide a summer enrichment program for students in high-need schools at the elementary school level with an emphasis on Title I schools

Other district allocations: $560,000/yr 1 $560,000/yr 2 $560,000/yr 3 $560,000/yr 4

(salaries and OECs; EPER; supplies and materials)

Director of Elementary Schools

X X X X • Summer enrichment programs provided annually for students in grades pre-k–5 (Summer 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

7) Provide a STEM summer enrichment program for students in high-need schools at the middle school level



Supervisor of Science

X X X X • STEM summer enrichment programs provided annually for students in grades 6–8 (Summer 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


8) Proactively support students in advanced coursework through tutoring

RTTT: $10,064/yr 2 $9,229/yr 3 $9,229/yr 4


(EPER; supplies and materials; travel)

Manager of RTTT

X X X X X X X X X X X X X • Identification and implementation of acceleration strategies for targeted students including technical assistance and one-on-one support in core subject areas (Ongoing, Summer 2011–Summer 2014)

9) Establish an IB program at Dickinson High School



Director of Secondary Schools

X X X X X • IB candidate school status obtained by Dickinson High School (Spring 2011)

• All IB staff fully trained in their respective subject areas (Fall 2011)

• Full IB accreditation obtained by Dickinson High School (Summer 2012)

• IB staff retrained in their respective subject areas as needed (Annually, Fall 2012, 2013)




Person responsible


10) Implement STEM/IB programs at the middle and high school levels

RTTT: $11,435/yr 2 $4,882/yr 3 $5,182/yr 4



Ed. Assoc. for Restructuring

X X X X X X X X X X X X X • Identification and implementation of acceleration strategies for targeted students including technical assistance and one-on-one support in core subject areas (Ongoing, Summer 2011–Summer 2014)

• One recommended program from the STEM coordinating council adopted annually in each middle and high school (Jun. 2012, and annually thereafter)

11) Improve and expand CTE offerings (e.g., robotics, TV) at the high school level



Ed. Assoc. for Restructuring

X X • All facility renovations necessary for CTE courses (August 2012)

• Full program implementation and necessary PD (Summer 2013)

12) Provide an SAT preparation program for high school sophomores and juniors

RTTT: $15,076/yr 2 $15,076/yr 3 $15,076/yr 4

(EPER)


X X X X X X X X X X X X X • All staff recruited, students notified, and PD delivered (Fall 2010)

• SAT prep course offered to all high school sophomores and juniors during school and after school hours (Ongoing, Dec. 2010–Spring 2014)

• SAT data used to inform students’ college and career planning (Jun. 2012, and annually thereafter)




Person responsible


13) Enhance PD offerings in Special Education and ELL instruction for all educators


(EPER)

Asst. Superintendent for Special Services

X X • Audit of current PD offerings in Special Education and ELL instruction to determine areas of strength and areas in need of improvement and identify necessary modifications to existing PD plan (Summer 2011)

• Implementation of a modified PD plan in Special Education and ELL instruction (Spring 2014)

14) Establish an enhanced early childhood education program

RTTT: $398,833/yr 2 $398,833/yr 3 $398,833/yr 4

Other district allocations: $400,000/yr 1 $400,000/yr 2 $400,000/yr 3 $400,000/yr 4


Director of Elementary Schools

X X • Highly effective early childhood educators hired and retained (Summer 2011)

• Implementation of a PD plan in early childhood education (Summer 2014)

Budget total RTTT: $1,392,004

Other district allocations: $4,383,500



Objective 1 Measures: Which measures will this objective impact, how much, and when?

Measures LEA Baseline (If applicable)

2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES

70% 85% 100% Measures how well the district and its educators provide rigorous instruction for students.


DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%

100% Measures how well the district and its educators provide rigorous instruction for students.

% meets standard on DCASii Science (Grades 5, 8, 10)

(Baseline starts in 2011 for Grades 5, 10)

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR


% meets standard on DCASii Social Studies (Grades 4, 7)

(Baseline starts in 2011 for Grade 7)

DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


Source: DSTP OR

30%

Actual: PL 4: 15%

Source: DCAS OR



Source: DSTP OR

25%

Actual: PL 4: 25.1%

Source: DCAS OR



Source: DSTP OR

35%

Actual: PL 4: 29.6%

Source: DCAS OR



Source: DSTP OR

20%

Actual: PL 4: 38.7%

Source: DCAS OR





Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR




Measures how well the district and its educators implement inclusive practices and provide rigorous instruction for students with identified needs.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt


Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale

NCLB graduation rate NCLB 2009:



Source: DDOE School Profiles

With charters: 88%


Actual:


Source: AYP


Source: DWPR

With charters: 89%


With charters: 90%


With charters: 90%


Measures how well the district and its educators prepare students for career or college.

College enrollment rate 2008–09: 58.6%


60%

Actual: 2009–10: 52%


63% 67% 70% Measures how well the district and its educators prepare students for college.

College retention rate 2008–09: 80.0%


81%

Actual: 2009–10: 79%


82% 83% 85% Measures how well the district and its educators prepare students for college.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale

SAT Performance: Mean (As participation increases, mean scores are expected to decrease; as participation rate stabilizes, it will be a goal for mean scores to increase)

2009–10: Reading: 483 Math: 484 Writing: 465



Actual:



Reading:480 Math: 480 Writing: 460



Measures how well the district and its educators prepare students for college.

Increase in the number of AP exam takers 2009–10: 1,017


1,050

Actual: 955


1,075 1,100 1,125 Measures the district’s commitment to providing rigorous coursework for high school students.

% of AP exams scoring 3+ (As participation increases, mean scores are expected to decrease; as participation rate stabilizes, it will be a goal for mean scores to increase)

2009–10: 49.4%


51%

Actual: 48.5%


55% 57% 60% Measures how well the district and its educators provide rigorous coursework for high school students.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR



Actual:



Source: DCAS OR











Source: DSTP OR


Actual:



Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2009–10: 37.2%

Source: ESPES

40%

Actual: 42.6%


50% 55% 65% Measures how well the district and its educators implement inclusive practices.

% of CTE Concentrator Graduates in Secondary Placement

2009–10: 47.0%

Source: ESPES

48%

Actual: 48.78%

Source: DWPR

49% 50% 52% Measures how well the district and its educators prepare students for career or college.

Mean score on district common exams (e.g., end-of-course exams aligned to standards)

2009–10:

Engl 9: 65% Engl 10: 60.5% US Hist: 59.9% Wld Hist: 57.0% Phys Sci: 51.4% Bio: 56.7% Alg I: 63.9% Alg II: 61.4% Geom: 61.1%

Source: DSC

65%

Actual:

Engl 9: 72.4% Engl 10: 70.1% US Hist: 64.8% Wld Hist: 62.9% Phys Sci: 55% Bio: 65.4% Integ I: 40.7% Alg I: 71% Alg II: 64.1% Geom: 64.4%

Source: DSC/Online Testing/ School Avg Reports





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale







Baseline:







Measures how well the district and its educators prepare the youngest learners for academic success with rigorous coursework.


2009–10:

K: 84.0% Gr 1: 73.0%


K: 87% Gr 1: 75%

Actual: K: 87% Gr 1: 76%


K: 90% Gr 1: 80%

K: 92% Gr 1: 90%

K: 95% Gr 1: 95%

Measures how well the district and its educators prepare the youngest learners for academic success with rigorous reading instruction.


2009–10: 10 schools

Source: DDOE AYP

12 schools

Actual: 14 schools

Source: DDOE AYP




Measures how well the district and its educators provide rigorous instruction for students.

% of IB participants who attain the IB diploma (Baseline to be determined in SY 2013–14)

N/A N/A N/A (Baseline to be determined)

Measures the success of the district’s IB program and how well the district and its educators prepare students for college.



Objective 1 Narrative: How do your strategies and activities integrate to achieve this objective (as indicated by the measures above)? How will this work impact your identified needs and Common Measures? How will this be an improvement over what you have done before? How will you ensure that this improvement is sustainable once RTTT funds are gone? [Note: You may address each question individually, or in a coherent narrative below.] Talent management is the organizing principle for the district’s approach to fulfilling this objective. The effectiveness of educators accounts for the majority of school-driven improvements in student achievement. In order for educators to be held accountable for the achievement of students, they must be given research-based instructional tools designed to successfully meet the needs of our district. The activities outlined in this objective provide foundational support for the development of a standards-based education. The standards-based education is supported by Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education Policy 7001 (approved in January 2010) and affirmed in a resolution from the school board (SY 2009–10).

An area of particular focus is to enhance the instructional effectiveness of teachers of Special Education students and ELL students through differentiated professional development in all curricular areas, such as differentiated instruction, instructional accommodations and curricular modifications, new models of support, collaborative teaching, multi-level instruction, understanding of English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards and the connection to common core standards, and paraprofessional training.

Curriculum Councils are the foundation of the development of curricular and instructional focus. The Curriculum Councils and Curriculum Cabinet are responsible for the decision making process (see Appendix D) used for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development (CIA-PD). Comprised of teachers and content specialists, the councils ensure that the district’s curriculum is aligned with the common core standards in accordance with school board policy. Councils review initiatives prior to implementation in schools and make recommendations to the superintendent and the school board on initiatives, elimination of instructional practices, and professional development. Curriculum Councils have been established in the following areas: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Multidisciplinary, Art, Guidance, Health/PE, Library, Media, Music, World Language, and Career and Technical Education. Each council has members who represent the best academic interests of all Red Clay students and teachers at all grade levels. Duties of the council members include the following:

• Participate in regularly scheduled meetings to bring classroom- and school-level CIA-PD of district importance to the council.

• Participate in standards-based national or regional training at the request of the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, upon Cabinet recommendation, or upon an approved council request. Members will report back to the council, Cabinet, and/or Director of Curriculum and Instruction.

• Conduct ongoing research and investigation into CIA-PD issues to anticipate current and future opportunities or topics.

• Conduct approved site visits inside or outside of the district to observe and gather information about standards-based programs or materials of interest.

• Prepare proposals for the Curriculum Cabinet regarding CIA-PD in the council’s content area. Proposals will include the following components: objective, rationale with supporting evidence (e.g., syllabus, course outline, instructional materials), research supporting the recommendation, Delaware content standards/common core standards supported, timeframe, cost estimates with possible funding sources, professional development plan, summary, and recommendation(s).

• Establish teams to research selected standards-based issues. The council will define the task of the teams with a timeframe for completion. All teams’ assignments will be conducted within the established council guidelines.

• Prepare and present classroom- and school-level issues to the other council members, and at the same time retain an open mind with respect to the best interests of all students (pre-k–12) and the realities of available funding.



The Curriculum Council structure will ensure the following:

• Underachieving students and underperforming targeted schools are the priority.

• Decisions are based upon student achievement data and research.

• All stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators, parents, community) have voice via public meetings of the council, Cabinet, and school board.

• Job embedded, data-driven professional development is the vehicle for change.

• Fidelity is guaranteed through the coaching model.

• Adjustments are made based upon ever-changing student needs.

Funding for councils pays a stipend for a teacher leader representative from each school for each content area. Teacher leaders attend monthly council meetings and bring data-driven student needs to the council. Teachers are required to disseminate council information and training to all staff in their buildings in order to affect student learning. Funding also pays for training so that members are fully informed of current research. Those who receive training or attend a conference are required to turn around information to the other members (train-the-trainer model).

The implementation of the STEM and IB programs at Dickinson High School, improved rigor in our Career and Technical Education programs at the high school level, and an SAT prep course for all 10th and 11th grade students are acutely focused on the district’s goal of ensuring college- and career-readiness for our students. As part of the SAT prep program, students will be offered access to online SAT tests and training for two years. In addition, the district is focusing professional development on enhancing the ability of educators and school leaders to provide effective instruction in the least restrictive environment for Special Education and ELL students at all levels. Improving achievement for these targeted groups is critical to the district’s success.

The district is initiating an expanded early childhood education program targeted to students in high-need schools. Early intervention will provide these students an opportunity to enter kindergarten on an academic level more closely aligned with their peers. The program will target students who are at-risk, and with the hiring and effective training of educational staff, this initiative will provide dividends for years to come. Research indicates that “high-quality pre-school is an essential part of each state and the nation’s endeavors to produce a highly educated citizenry for the 21st century,” with participation in pre-school programs shown to significantly improve early literacy, language, and math skills.4 Early childhood education is linked to students’ future success; one longitudinal study found that Chicago children who attended a pre-k program were 29% more likely to graduate from high school than their peers who did not have pre-k.5 Early childhood education is especially important for children from poverty, as the average child from a low-income home is exposed to an average of only 3,000 words (compared to the average child from a middle-class home, who hears an average of 20,000 words).6 With the RTTT funding and other district resources, we will expand the pre-school initiative (piloted at Warner Elementary School in 2010) to offer pre-school to all students who are in a Title I feeder pattern. The budgeted amount for this activity will fund staff salaries and professional development for pre-school staff (see Appendix E-1).

The goal of the summer enrichment program is to provide pre-teaching experiences to students in grades pre-k–5 in order to prepare them for success in the upcoming school year. Students are invited to participate in the program based on their RTI tier placement, DCAS scores, and reading assessments (formerly used RTI tier placement, DSTP scores, and MAP data). The emphasis of the summer enrichment program is to strengthen academic skills in reading and math by giving students a



preview of the material they will be expected to learn next fall. Lessons are heavily focused on vocabulary and reading comprehension based on the district’s Scott Foresman reading program. Students also receive targeted math instruction and use math software programs to support lessons.

Last summer, the enrichment program served more than 500 students who volunteered to participate in the program. Feedback from parents and students was very positive and the attendance rate was excellent. Classes were kept small, with an average class size of nine students and a maximum class size of 12 students. Students attended the program for three hours per day, five days per week, and transportation and breakfast and lunch were provided. Daily, targeted instruction consisted of one and a half hours in English Language Arts and one hour in Mathematics. Last year’s program was led by one program coordinator with a staff of 62 teachers, three site coordinators, three office assistants, and three nurses. The district conducted a program analysis to determine the effectiveness of the summer enrichment program. The major findings of the analysis were as follows:

• Overall, over 90% of participants demonstrated an increase in vocabulary (grades 3–5) or reading (grade 6) skills. The mean skill growth was significant.

• Overall, almost 75% of participants demonstrated an increase in mathematical number sense.

• When surveyed, 89% of teachers felt the summer enrichment program had a positive effect on the students who attended.

These findings support the expansion of the summer enrichment program to meet the needs of students throughout the district including those in high-need schools. The district plans to expand the program, which had two locations the first year and three locations the second year, to five locations in the third year.

The purpose of the STEM summer enrichment program is to provide participating students (grades 6–8) the experience of applying STEM principles to solve real-world problems in a carefully structured environment. Participating students will work with technology teachers and/or math or science teachers to design, create, and test a variety of engineering projects (e.g., bridges, mini-robots, CO2 powered dragsters). In addition, students will present their projects in a public forum, explaining in detail the processes used to create the final products. Students in the STEM summer enrichment program will develop team building skills, planning skills, and communication skills as they prepare to meet the rigor of the high school STEM expectations that will challenge them in upcoming years. In the program, classes of 20 students will meet for 16 days during the summer of 2011 at Dickinson High School. During the program, students will create plans to build assigned engineering items, and documentation will explain how students worked together to accomplish their goals. Students will create a bridge from balsawood with pre-determined dimensions, and documentation will confirm that the bridge will support a pre-determined mass. Students will create a robot that will perform a simple task and prepare documentation indicating all technical information and operating instructions. Students will create a CO2 powered dragster meeting pre-determined specifications that will travel a 20-meter track in a pre-determined amount of time; documentation will include plans for the dragster and a detailed explanation of any design modifications made to the body. Lastly, students will prepare a public presentation of one of their completed projects.

The activities outlined in this objective are an improvement over previous district activities. The Curriculum Council system allows for staff and school leader decision making on the instructional strategies and curricular focus in our district. Implementing research-based programs and providing high-level professional development to implement these programs gives educators the tools necessary to help all students improve their academic achievement. By addressing student needs at an early stage and providing young students access to a curriculum-rich learning environment in their pre-school years, the district will be able to give students from at-risk backgrounds a better opportunity to succeed. In addition to supporting the district’s goal to prepare students for college- and career-readiness, the summer enrichment programs are directly related to the Curriculum Council’s process for making recommendations to improve the rigor of coursework for all students. The programs also complement the district’s initiative to implement the STEM program at the middle and high school levels through our RTTT application.



In SY 2012–13, the district will engage in a process of systematically reviewing all activities in this plan and in the district at large. Using a data-based review of our progress, we will prioritize those programs that bring the most value to our students and will allocate resources to ensure their continuance. If during its review the district identifies any activities that fail to bring the desired level of success to our students, those activities will be eliminated or revised with a reduction in funding. The Manager of RTTT will meet monthly with the persons responsible for RTTT activities to monitor their progress and compliance and to resolve any issues that arise.

Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our curriculum, instruction, and professional development activities on proven research-based strategies, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone.

The district allocated a large percentage of RTTT funds to the establishment of the pre-school program. The RTTT investment allows the district to jumpstart an initiative which was in the process of development. The proven benefits of a pre-school program will have a lasting impact on the success of students in Red Clay. The district is committed to identifying the resources necessary to sustain the program after RTTT funds expire. Funding sources such as Title I, IDEA, and local allocations are under review to support and sustain the pre-school program for years to come.



Goal 2: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with sophisticated data systems and practices

Objective 2: Improve access to and use of data systems


• Implement and support improvement of the state longitudinal data system (SoW 3)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 3: Implement and support improvement of the state longitudinal data system (SoW 3) Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


15) Hire, train, and utilize School Data and Test Coordinators and School PLC Leads in all schools

RTTT: $12,335/yr 2 $12,335/yr 3 $12,335/yr 4


(EPER)

Supervisor of Research & Evaluation

X X X X X X X X X X X X • Review completed by SDTCs to ensure DCAS is implemented with fidelity (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Support for BLTs and administrators with data-driven faculty meetings (Fall 2010–Spring 2011)

• Monthly to bi-monthly PD meetings and training provided by the district for SDTCs (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Monthly PD meetings and training provided by DDOE data coaches for School PLC Leads (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2013)

• Facilitation of data discussions and common language and processes (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)




Person responsible


16) Use state data coaches to facilitate collaborative time

RTTT: $111,868/yr 2 $111,868/yr 3

(LEA cost-share for contracted services)

Supervisor of Research & Evaluation

X X X X X X • Common language and processes developed by DDOE data coaches in cooperation with School PLC Leads to facilitate discussions on data during PLC time (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2013)

17) Hire, train, and utilize Building Leadership Teams in all schools


(EPER)

Director/s of Schools

X X X X X X X X X X X X • Critical PD delivered to school-level teams by BLTs and School PLC Leads (supported by SDTCs and DDOE data coaches), with PD needs identified through PLC minutes (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)







2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale

Satisfaction among longitudinal data system users (Baseline to be determined pending state’s implementation of the longitudinal data system)

N/A (Baseline to be determined pending state’s implementation of the longitudinal data system)



Measures how well the state’s longitudinal data system meets the needs of district educators.

% of parents utilizing data systems to access student, school, and district data (e.g., HAC)

2010–11: 4.08 (access Home Access Center)


Baseline: 4.08 (access Home Access Center)





Measures how many parents are accessing resources available to them to further their understanding of student learning needs and academic performance.

% of teachers utilizing the I-Tracker Pro system Fall 2008: 58%


64%

Actual: 71%





Measures how many teachers are accessing resources available to them to further their understanding of student learning needs.

% of teachers self-reporting that they use student data to identify and address student learning needs

2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%






% of teachers self-reporting that they collaborate with colleagues on student data

2010–11: 71%


Baseline: 71%









2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale

% of teachers who are proficient at analyzing student data according to principals

2010–11: 70%


Baseline: 70%






% of teachers who are improving practice with analyzing student data according to principals

2010–11: 61%


Baseline: 61%






% of educators satisfied with data trainings and collaborative data meetings

2010–11: 60%


Baseline: 60%








Objective 2 Narrative: How do your strategies and activities integrate to achieve this objective (as indicated by the measures above)? How will this work impact your identified needs and Common Measures? How will this be an improvement over what you have done before? How will you ensure that this improvement is sustainable once RTTT funds are gone? [Note: You may address each question individually, or in a coherent narrative below.] The use of student data to improve academic performance of all students is a critical component of the district’s success. School Data and Test Coordinators, School PLC Leads, and Building Leadership Teams are a core group of instructional leaders who identify the needs of our students, leading the discussion on which needs must be addressed and providing necessary professional development to help district staff meet those needs. Our work in this area will impact our identified needs and Common Measures by first clearly identifying student learning strengths and weaknesses. Once these areas are clearly identified, the School PLC Leads (working in conjunction with the DDOE data coaches) will facilitate the conversations necessary among professional staff to address individual student needs. The data discussed by the School Data and Test Coordinators, School PLC Leads, and school-level PLCs will drive the professional development programs supported by our Curriculum and Instruction Department. Building Leadership Teams are comprised of key educators, such as administrators, Academic Deans, School Data and Test Coordinators, grade-level or department chairs, literacy coaches, IST facilitators, and other teacher leaders, who assist in ensuring the district’s professional development plan is delivered to all educators.

School Data and Test Coordinators not only ensure that state testing programs are implemented securely, but they also support teachers’ efforts to use this data, as well as other student data, in meaningful ways. School PLC Leads function as part of the building administrative team, identifying data for staff to review during PLC collaborative time and guiding analysis. School Data and Test Coordinators attend monthly to bi-monthly professional development meetings and receive training on DCAS, current data systems (Data Service Center), and a data-driven problem solving process. From the DDOE data coaches, School PLC Leads receive monthly training on data systems, inquiry practices, and instructional implications. The Supervisor of Research and Evaluation oversees School Data and Test Coordinators and DDOE data coaches and provides them with training and resources. Once the state data coaching system is implemented, School PLC Leads will be the primary school contact, with support provided by the principal. There are one or two School Data and Test Coordinators per school, and they are recruited by the building principal. Stipends, which are based on student enrollment, cover work done as the test coordinator, attendance at professional development meetings, and planning for PLC collaborative time. School PLC Leads will facilitate PLCs focused on data coaching several times per month.

Building Leadership Teams will be a driving force behind district and school initiatives. They will gain knowledge and expertise through the district’s Leadership Academy and they will be responsible for turning around training to all staff in their buildings, providing for a systemic professional development program in the district. Building Leadership Teams engage in activities and processes that advance the goals and responsibilities of the district, its schools, and the community. Building Leadership Team members provide feedback and facilitate communication among staff. As a result of their participation in the Leadership Academy, Building Leadership Teams will learn, practice, demonstrate, reflect upon, share, and turn around research-based instructional strategies and practices that will improve all students’ literacy and learning in all content areas. Learning and literacy acquisition are active processes requiring student engagement. Building Leadership Teams facilitate the implementation of research-based practices, which ultimately results in improved learning. Building Leadership Teams will establish a framework for student achievement focused on understanding how students learn, with instructional strategies designed to meet the needs of diverse learners. Building Leadership Teams help to create a nurturing learning environment where all staff have common goals and use a common language and where students can achieve to their fullest potential. Building Leadership Teams promote collaboration between team members and department members through PLCs and common planning. Building Leadership Teams use the minutes from PLCs to determine professional development needs.



The district is also committed to communicating student achievement data with parents and community members. Currently, parents can access student data through contact with teachers and school administrators and via the Home Access Center (HAC), an easy-to-use web application designed to help teachers, school officials, and parents share information about student performance. School data is provided in DDOE school profiles, which are available from the DDOE website. (A link to the DDOE school profiles is provided in a prominent spot on the district website, and a hard copy is kept in the main office of each building.) District-wide performance is communicated annually at a meeting of the Board of Education. The district presents information related to student achievement data at additional functions throughout the school year, including meetings with parents, special Board of Education workshops, and episodes of the “Red Clay This Week” TV show. The district also provides resources on its website to help parents and the community get acquainted with the new state testing system and understand how to interpret DCAS scores. Red Clay will continue to promote access to and use of performance data through current and expanded approaches (e.g., newsletters and brochures, local cable access, school kiosks, and public information sessions). The district will monitor the degree to which parents use data systems and the resources provided to them and, at schools that demonstrate the lowest usage rates, strategies will be implemented to educate parents about existing data sources and to encourage them to use available data systems.


Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change long after RTTT funds are gone.

The School Data and Test Coordinators, School PLC Leads, and Building Leadership Teams are district-led initiatives that will incorporate the state’s data coach initiative to promote active and effective PLCs in our schools. Red Clay is prepared to sustain this work after the RTTT funding expires by moving to a system of learning communities that will help accelerate student achievement by facilitating research-based interventions and collaborative teamwork.



Objective 3: Build the capacity to use data


• Ensure implementation of instructional improvement systems (SoW 4)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 4: Ensure implementation of instructional improvement systems (SoW 4) Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


18) Provide 90 minutes of weekly collaborative time

RTTT: $11,885/yr 2 $2,741/yr 3 $2,741/yr 4




X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X • School participation in 90 minutes of weekly collaborative time (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

• Annual plan developed for the implementation of the collaborative time by school-level teams (Jul. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


19) Implement (or enhance) an instructional improvement system




X X X X X X X X X • SST monitoring of instructional practice in the classroom, the use of data to inform decision making, and the allocation of talent and financial resources; formal and informal observations conducted by the SST and recommendations for targeted school-level PD provided by the SST; and participation of the SST in the DPAS II process to ensure that it is implemented in accordance with guidelines and training (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)







2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES



DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%




DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR



DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt


Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR



Actual:



Source: DCAS OR











2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:



Source: DCAS OR






2010–11: 98%


Baseline: 98%





Measures how well the district and its school leaders are increasing the effectiveness of teachers through hiring decisions, development of teachers, and good evaluation processes. Intentionally does not measure changes in teacher evaluation results, so as not to create incentives to inflate ratings.


2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%


100% 100% 100% Measures how well the district increases the effectiveness of its leaders through development and good evaluation processes.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11:




Baseline:







Measures how well the district and its educators contribute to academic growth among all students given a wide variety of readiness for grade-level work. Progress in this area closely tracks the number of additional teachers achieving satisfactory student growth. Progress is not as pronounced as the increase in teachers achieving satisfactory student growth, because a large number of students must gain more than one grade level’s performance in order to meet the standard.


2009–10:

K: 84.0% Gr 1: 73.0%


K: 87% Gr 1: 75%

Actual: K: 87% Gr 1: 76%


K: 90% Gr 1: 80%

K: 92% Gr 1: 90%

K: 95% Gr 1: 95%

Measures how well the district and its educators prepare the youngest learners for academic success with rigorous reading instruction.


2009–10: 10 schools

Source: DDOE AYP

12 schools

Actual: 14 schools

Source: DDOE AYP




Measures how well the district and its educators provide rigorous instruction for students.



Objective 3 Narrative: How do your strategies and activities integrate to achieve this objective (as indicated by the measures above)? How will this work impact your identified needs and Common Measures? How will this be an improvement over what you have done before? How will you ensure that this improvement is sustainable once RTTT funds are gone? [Note: You may address each question individually, or in a coherent narrative below.]

The activities in this objective are designed to provide teacher and school leader collaborative time to discuss instructional interventions for specific students, incorporating professional development activities in the classroom, and to provide a mechanism to support the district’s instructional improvement systems in the schools.

The DDOE data coaches will work collaboratively with the district’s School Data and Test Coordinators and School PLC Leads to develop common language and processes to facilitate discussions around student data and student instructional needs.

The School Support Team is an initiative that provides schools a core group of administrators who are specially trained to work with schools to review the implementation of the instructional improvement system. The School Support Team will focus on four to six schools per year to review the instructional practice in the classroom, the use of data to inform decision making, and the allocation of talent and financial resources. The School Support Team may conduct formal and informal observations to support the school administration and provide recommendations for targeted school-level professional development. This is a new initiative focused on improving the academic success of students and ensuring that the instructional improvement systems are implemented with fidelity. The School Support Team will greatly impact what is happening in our schools. One of the missing pieces in education has been follow-through. Too often the latest initiative or fad replaces what is already known: a highly effective educator and school leader will increase student achievement. The School Support Team will impact our identified needs and Common Measures by ensuring the instructional practices, curriculum alignment, and professional development approved by the Curriculum Council are in place in our district schools. The professional development will be targeted according to needs determined by the School Support Team. The School Support Team will recommend professional development based on specific school needs (e.g., the School Support Team will attend a conference on project-based learning in order to help ensure the effective implementation of the STEM program at Dickinson High School). The budgeted amount will fund professional development for teachers and administrators. The funding will also be used to provide substitutes for teachers to observe highly effective educators in their same subject and/or grade level.


Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our leaders around the effective management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone. The RTTT funds allocated to this objective are intended to provide funding for the initial planning sessions of the district’s PLCs. The majority of this work will occur in SY 2011–12, when funds will be used to pay teachers to collaborate in the planning and development of the PLCs in their buildings. The district invested in the School Support Team, which is a team that will continue its work after RTTT.



Goal 3: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with effective teachers and leaders

Objective 4: Improve the effectiveness of educators based on performance


• Use evaluations as a primary factor in educator development, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal (SoW 5) • Establish new educator career paths linked to evaluation (SoW 6)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 5: Use evaluations as a primary factor in educator development, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal (SoW 5)

Owner: Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services





Person responsible


20) Integrate state development coaches into the district’s plan for educator development, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal

RTTT: $28,361/yr 2 $28,361/yr 3 $28,361/yr 4



X X X X X X X X X • Use of state development coaches (once provided by the state), in conjunction with the district’s educational consultants, in the training of administrators on DPAS II and standards-based education practices (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)

21) Deliver PD offerings that are aligned with improvement plans


(EPER)

Manager of Federal Programs

X X X • Annual review of school-level PD plans (prior to submission to the state) to ensure alignment with district priorities (Spring 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


22) Individual improvement plans for educators are turned into a district administrator and reviewed to ensure PD is aligned appropriately


(EPER)

Director/s of Schools; Manager of Human Resources

X X X X X X X X X • Review of educator-level PD plans to ensure alignment with district priorities and individual educator needs (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)

23) Provide DPAS II PD for all educators

Other district allocations: Cost varies (funds will be allocated based on participation rates as determined by staff need)

(EPER)

Manager of Professional Development

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X • Participation of all educators in state/district DPAS II training (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Summer 2014)

• Yearly report on the participation rate of identified employees (Jun. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

24) Provide support for teachers to participate in the NBCT program

RTTT: $53,525/yr 2 $53,525/yr 3 $53,525/yr 4

(supplies and materials; EPER)


X X X X X X X X X • Up to 20 teachers per year funded to participate in the NBCT program (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)

25) Ensure that schools are scheduling and conducting evaluations in accordance with state regulations

RTTT: $26,763/yr 2


(supplies and materials; EPER)


X X X X X X X X X X X X X • iPads purchased (Summer 2011) • Individual school schedules for

evaluations compiled into a districtwide master calendar (Fall 2011, and revisited annually)

• Quarterly monitoring of school-level progress on the completion of evaluations (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)




Person responsible


26) Conduct a thorough annual audit of evaluation results, with findings and recommendations, and establish a process for tracking growth over time


(EPER)

Director/s of Schools; Manager of Human Resources

X X X X • Process developed to conduct the annual audit (Summer 2011)

• Report on teacher evaluation results, including (1) analysis of consistency for individual educators between their evaluation ratings, informal school leader assessments, and student learning results; (2) district plan of action for addressing concerns identified in the audit; and (3) data collection plan on key measures of teacher quality to be tracked by the district and reported to the school board annually (Summer 2012, 2013, 2014)





Strategy 6: Establish new educator career paths linked to evaluation (SoW 6) Owner: Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services





Person responsible


27) Establish goals for teacher career pathways


(EPER)

Superintendent X • Clear, specific, and easily understood goals defined for all existing and new career pathway programs (Jan. 2012)

28) Define the career ladders already in place


(EPER)

Manager of Human Resources; Director/s of Schools

X • Comprehensive report and plan on career ladders, including goals (see above), assessment of effectiveness of existing career ladders using student learning and DPAS II criteria, and recommendations for new programs and modifications to existing programs (Jan. 2012)

29) Establish and staff a teacher leader position in each high-need school


(salaries and OECs)

Manager of Human Resources; Director/s of Schools

X X X X X X X X X X • A job description written expressly reflecting the district’s goals for career pathways and in accordance with the state’s definition of the role (Spring 2012)

• Top candidates (those rated highly effective) identified and actively recruited by administration (Spring 2012, and ongoing)

• Targeted PD focused on coaching strategies for new teacher leaders and expanding leadership responsibilities for more seasoned teacher leaders (Aug. 2012, and ongoing)

• All high-need schools staffed with teacher leader (Fall 2012)




Person responsible


Budget total RTTT: $0






2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11: 98%


Baseline: 98%







2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%



Number of teachers completing NBCT 2009–10: 53 teachers


73 teachers

Actual: 62 teachers (includes 9 teachers waiting for results in Nov. 2011)


93 113 133 Measures how well the district ensures equitable distribution of qualified and effectively prepared teachers.




Talent management (often described as human capital management) is the organizing principle for the district’s approach to fulfilling this objective. To this end we are planning to institute an annual job fair, build specific compensation structures taking into consideration teacher leadership positions currently in our district, utilize the DDOE DPAS system for the purposes of performance management, and develop training plans and professional development based on both teacher performance and student achievement. Because the effectiveness of staff (specifically, educators) accounts for the majority of school-driven improvements in student achievement, accurately defining criteria for effectiveness in collaboration with labor, assessing effectiveness, and using those assessments to drive personnel decisions is critical for school and district improvement. The strategies outlined here include developing and implementing several foundational elements of a good talent management system:

• Clear and rigorous definitions of educator effectiveness. Using DPAS II as an anchor, we will raise our expectations for what constitutes an effective teacher and an effective school leader through publicized reports, personnel training, and collaboration with the state development coach. We will identify consistent system expectations in collaboration with staffs and the development coach, and ensure that feedback is shared with respective parties in a collective effort to continually improve performance. The district will communicate our measureable goals to staff and will hold all accountable.

• Accurate data about the effectiveness of the existing pool of educators. We will audit our evaluation results this year and each subsequent year to measure how well those results correlate to student achievement results. It will be our primary responsibility to create conditions and provide services that will improve student performance. Clear, specific, and easily understood goals will be defined for all existing and new career pathway programs. (Examples of goals include improving retention of high-performing teachers, improving placement of effective teachers in high-need settings, and creating opportunities for effective teachers to assume more responsibilities while continuing to teach.)

We will also audit our existing career pathway programs and professional development programs and determine whether they are contributing to increased teacher and school leader effectiveness. If they are not, we will discard or modify them. As we conduct these systematic audits, we also recognize that our current system of evaluation does not adequately differentiate among teachers’ performance, nor provide supports for continuous growth based on teachers’ performance. We will provide a systemic professional development plan that will ensure that all teachers receive professional development based on their needs. Existing pathways include all leadership positions (e.g., department chairs, curriculum heads, teacher leaders). Recommendations include an implementation strategy for new programs, elimination of ineffective programs, and system changes to support good programming (e.g., new rubrics and processes for assessing teacher leader performance). The district is also planning to establish teacher leader positions in all of our high-need schools through the reallocation of existing district resources. A job description will be written expressly reflecting the district’s goals for career pathways and in accordance with the state’s definition of the role. Top candidates will be identified and actively recruited by administration. Once all high-need schools are staffed with teacher leaders, the district will provide targeted professional development focused on coaching strategies for new teacher leaders and expanding leadership responsibilities for more seasoned teacher leaders.

Given our urgency to drive to higher levels of teacher effectiveness, we will also use a short-term strategy of informally surveying school leaders on the effectiveness of their staff and assessing how well those informal surveys correlate to formal teacher evaluation results.

• Specific, targeted deployment of personnel. Development coaches will be assigned to school leaders in support of district priorities and in collaboration with the School Support Team. A walkthrough tool, a school dashboard, and school targets will be used to measure improvement in performance.



• Targeted professional development. We will determine common educator learning needs (particularly among those educators who have improvement plans) and deliver professional development and coaching targeted at those needs while eliminating existing professional development programs that are not tied to educator needs or are not clearly enabling educators to attain student achievement goals.

At the same time, we will work aggressively with our staff to determine common needs of those staff who consistently exceed expectations, in an effort to provide quality professional development opportunities for them through the implementation of the systemic professional development plan and the establishment of leadership opportunities for staff. We will cultivate distinguished educators to become our next generation of teacher and school leaders, nurturing their interest in opportunities to take leadership roles that have been identified as priorities for the district to meet its student achievement goals. We intend to highlight the vital role of school leaders in improving the effectiveness of their staff. This focus aligns with emerging research and the practice of high-performing talent management organizations (e.g., NLNS), which suggests that effective school leaders are both good talent managers and good instructional leaders. Here, we outline the steps we will take to ensure that school leaders are effective talent managers. Support that will be offered to school leaders includes the School Support Team, ongoing formative feedback through DPAS, technical assistance, and other specific tools. For individual school leaders, this is primarily making talent management a learning priority and signaling its importance in the evaluation system. In conjunction with this priority, support will be given to schools in the areas of hiring, scheduling, and student placement decisions.

Beyond individual school leaders, we recognize the need to create the conditions for school leaders to be successful talent managers. Two such conditions are paramount: (1) eliminating barriers to school leaders being able to assemble teams of effective staff and (2) ensuring that those personnel directly supervising school leaders are themselves evaluated on their success in supporting school leaders as talent managers. Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results, and increased numbers of effective teachers staying in their schools. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Furthermore, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone. Additionally, the district has committed substantial district resources to ensure the administration is trained in the DPAS II process in alignment with Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education Policy 7001.


The district is investing RTTT funds in the DDOE-led initiative to integrate development coaches in Red Clay schools. Although the investment in development coaches will not continue beyond the RTTT funding, the impact of the development coaches should be long-lasting. Development coaches will work with Red Clay administrators to facilitate district-led training on DPAS II and the identification of effective instructional practices. The district participated in a yearlong professional development activity on the effective development of DPAS II evaluations. The professional development received a positive response from administrators in the enhancement of their writing of DPAS II evaluations. A recent teacher survey showed that the training received an extremely favorable response in regard to how DPAS II has been implemented during SY 2010–11. In addition, the School Support Team’s review of DPAS II evaluations showed a significant increase in the quality of feedback provided to teachers in their evaluations. DPAS formatives were reviewed and compared from September/October to February/March. This successful initiative and investment of district funds to support the development of leaders will continue after RTTT.



Objective 5: Ensure equitable distribution of effective educators(SoW 7)


• Increase the concentration of highly effective teachers and leaders in high-need schools (SoW 7 req.)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 7: Increase the concentration of highly effective teachers and leaders in high-need schools (SoW 7 req.) Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


30) Utilize the state’s TLEU to address hard-to-staff, critical need areas in high-need schools as needed

RTTT: $160,575/yr 2 $160,575/yr 3 $160,575/yr 4

(contracted services)

Manager of Human Resources

X X X X X X X X X X X X • Hiring of educators to fill hard-to-staff, critical need areas in high-need schools through the state’s TLEU, as determined by the district (Timeline to be determined, depending on the DDOE)




Person responsible


31) Use succession planning at the school and district levels


(salaries and OECs)


X X X X X X X X X X • Annual review of administrative contracts in compliance with RCCSD Board of Education Policy 3003 (Dec. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

• Annual review of school staffing, and hiring plans for teacher positions (Spring/Summer 2012, 2013, 2014)

• Identification of potential administrative vacancies and development of succession options (Annually, Mar. 2012, 2013, 2014)

32) Fulfill the current Teach for America contract

Other district allocations: Cost paid from yr 1 funds

Superintendent X • Current TFA contract fulfilled (Summer 2011)

33) Conduct evaluations of administrative staff


(salaries and OECs)


X X X X X X X X X X X X • Annual administrative DPAS II evaluations conducted in accordance with DDOE guidelines and RCCSD Board of Education Policy 3003 (Ongoing, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)







2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11: 98%


Baseline: 98%







2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%






To increase the concentration of highly effective teachers and leaders in high-need schools, the district will ensure that highly effective educators currently assigned to high-need schools remain in those schools. Educators want to work in buildings where their contribution is valued and the pre-requisites for student learning are in place. Through the implementation of activities outlined in previous objectives (e.g., systemic professional development, aligned curriculum and instruction, and School Support Team efforts), educators in high-need schools will see a commitment by the district to their success. Educators who are not able to utilize the training and support to be highly effective will be removed in accordance with DPAS guidelines and the negotiated agreement (if applicable).

The district will recruit highly effective educators to work in high-need schools and will utilize the state’s Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit to address hard-to-staff, critical need areas in high-need schools as needed. In addition, the district will engage in a succession planning process at the school level and the district level to identify educator positions of need for the upcoming school year. Early identification of teacher vacancies and a recently agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding with the Red Clay Education Association gives the district an opportunity to hire key staff in spring and early summer. In conjunction with the activities in this objective, the district will hold a job fair in the spring of each year to identify teacher candidates for positions. The job fair will help the district to target highly effective educators and actively pursue them for positions in our high-need schools.


Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone. The RTTT activities in this section will set the foundation for the district to develop and operationalize processes and procedures for identifying highly effective educators. This process will continue annually, for the duration of RTTT-funded programming and beyond.



Objective 6: Ensure that educators are effectively prepared(SoW 9)


• Target recruiting and hiring to the most effective preparation programs (SoW 9 req.)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 8: Target recruiting and hiring to the most effective preparation programs (SoW 9 req.) Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


34) Hold an annual district job fair to target hard-to-fill positions


(salaries and OECs; supplies and materials)


X X X X • Annual job fair held (May 2011) • Future job fairs developed for

each successive spring as vacancies and needs are assessed (Annually, May 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


35) Forecast hiring needs at the school and district levels


(salaries and OECs)

Superintendent X X X X X X X X X X X X • Annual review of administrative contracts in compliance with RCCSD Board of Education Policy 3003 (Dec. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

• Annual review of school staffing, and hiring plans developed for teacher positions (Spring/ Summer 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

• Annual review of teacher contracts (Apr. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

36) Analyze and evaluate pipelines

Other district allocations: Cost is embedded in Activity 35


X X X • Educator pipelines evaluated based on teacher effectiveness and reviewed annually (Spring 2012, 2013, 2014)

• Interview process analyzed (Spring 2012)

Budget total RTTT: $0






2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11: 98%


Baseline: 98%







2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%


100% 100% 100% Measures how well the district increases the effectiveness of its leaders through development and good evaluation process.

% of vacancies filled through the job fair 2010–11: 91%


Baseline: 91%


99% 100% 100% Measures how well the district is able to fill identified vacancies as a result of the job fair.




The district believes that the investment in talent is a critical component to our success in increasing student achievement. One of the most effective ways to ensure we have highly effective educators is to target our recruitment and hiring to the most effective programs. The district will implement a job fair in the spring of each school year. The job fair, which was implemented in 2011 through a current allocation, will utilize data from our succession planning (Objective 5) to target candidates for specific areas of need.

Forecasting areas of need earlier than the traditional timeframe (late summer or after the start of the school year) will allow the district to offer employment to educators sooner. The earlier hiring timeframe also allows for the teacher candidate to begin district-developed professional development in the summer prior to the candidate’s first experience as the practitioner in charge. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Red Clay Education Association, the district has changed the voluntary transfer period to allow for the recruitment and hiring of highly effective educators prior to the end of the current school year.

The district has been fortunate in our ability to attract qualified applicants for positions. In fact, over 300 candidates registered to participate in the 2011 job fair with approximately 50 vacancies posted. The district will explore processes to evaluate which educator pipelines are producing the most highly effective teachers and target recruitment efforts in that direction. We will also analyze our interview processes to ensure the district is vetting candidates appropriately. (In May 2011, the Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education approved a policy which establishes the process for hiring all administrative positions in the district.)


Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, through the earlier prediction and hiring of educators. With the cooperation of the RCEA, the district was able to change the voluntary transfer timeline to allow for the earlier hire of quality educators. The outcome of the collaborative work of the RCEA and the district represents significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone. District leadership, including the RCEA and administrators, is committed to the collaborative process which resulted in the signed MOU on the voluntary transfer process. No RTTT funds are allocated within the objective and the district will maintain these practices based on the review process described above.



Objective 7: Provide effective support to educators


• Adopt a coherent approach to professional development (SoW 10) • Accelerate the development of instructional leaders (SoW 11)


Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 9: Adopt a coherent approach to professional development (SoW 10) Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


37) Link PD to specific skill and role expectations


(EPER)


X X X • Evaluation of the district’s needs in PD and areas of strength and areas in need of improvement in instructional practice (Dec. 2011)

• Alignment of PD and classroom-based strategies (Apr. 2012)

38) Review existing PD to determine if it is high-impact and prioritize participation in high-impact PD offerings

RTTT: Cost is embedded in Activity 2; additional financial support to be provided through other district allocations

(EPER)


X X X X X X X X X • Ongoing systemic review of the district’s PD offerings, conducted by Curriculum Councils and BLTs (Monthly, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)




Person responsible


39) Utilize educational consultants to enhance instructional delivery and curriculum focus

RTTT: $214,100/yr 2 $214,100/yr 3 $214,100/yr 4


(RFP required)


X X X X X X X X • RFP issued and contract awarded (Summer 2011)

• Training on the DPAS II process, provided to administrators by educational consultants (Spring 2012)

• Needs assessment completed by educational consultants to identify PD needs of all educators (Apr. 2012)

• Comprehensive PD plan developed by district with educational consultants (upon completion of the district’s review of PD needs and areas of strength and areas in need of improvement in instructional practice) (Fall 2012)

• PD plan implemented (Ongoing, Spring 2013–Spring 2014)

40) Implement a systemic PD plan for all educators


(EPER)


X • Comprehensive PD plan based on 3- and 5-year tracks of study for all educators (upon completion of the district’s review of PD needs and areas of strength and areas in need of improvement in instructional practice) (Fall 2012)





Strategy 10: Accelerate the development of instructional leaders (SoW 11) Owner: Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services





Person responsible


41) Offer intensive research-based leadership training and ensure novice school leaders and school leaders at high-need schools participate in state instructional leadership training

RTTT: $55,000/yr 2 $25,000/yr 3 $25,000/yr 4



X X X X X X X X X • Principals and those in high-need schools participate in research-based leadership training provided by the state (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)

42) Distribute leadership in schools based on student needs and provide support to high-need schools via the SAMs model

RTTT: $48,173/yr 2 $48,173/yr 3

Other district allocations: $22,000/yr 2 $22,000/yr 3

DDOE: $25,000/yr 2 $25,000/yr 3

(LEA cost-share for salaries)


X X X X X • SAMs implemented (beginning in Spring 2011 and yearly thereafter, dependent on DDOE participation)

• Highly effective administrators assigned to high-need schools (Fall 2011)



DDOE: $50,000





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES



DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%




DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR



DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt


Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR



Actual:



Source: DCAS OR











2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:



Source: DCAS OR






2009–10: 37.2%

Source: ESPES

40%

Actual: 42.6%




2010–11: 98%


Baseline: 98%







2010–11: 92%


Baseline: 92%






2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11:




Baseline:











The effectiveness of educators accounts for the majority of school-driven improvements in student achievement. In order for educators to be held accountable for the achievement of students, they must be given research-based instructional tools designed to successfully meet the needs of our district. The activities outlined in this objective (in line with those activities described in Objective 1) provide the foundational support for the development of a standards-based education. The standards-based education is supported by Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education Policy 7001 (approved in January 2010) and affirmed in a resolution from the school board (SY 2009–10).

The district will deliver professional development linked to the specific skill and role expectations for every educator. To provide a consistent, research-based education for our students, our educators must be given the tools and knowledge necessary to meet the learning needs of our students. The district is currently engaged in a rigorous professional development approach which must be reviewed regularly to determine its impact and prioritize those offerings that have the highest impact. Many initiatives and requirements are placed on educators without a corresponding increase in time or decrease in other tasks to ensure educators are given the optimal opportunity to deliver on student achievement. Simply adding on or repackaging our current professional development offerings is not sufficient and is potentially counterproductive to the district’s goal of increasing student achievement. A systemic professional development plan comprised of high-impact professional development offerings will provide a coherent approach to increasing the talent level of our educational staff and raising expectations to a level which will translate into increased student achievement for all. This focus on professional development to increase the talent level of our educators will be supported by ensuring novice school leaders and school leaders at high-need schools participate in the state’s instructional leadership training program.

Effective principals, who act as instructional leaders, are crucial to improving student achievement. New principals and those in high-need schools face distinct challenges to be successful. The district will use RTTT funds to invest in these principals’ success by offering intensive research-based leadership training. The full cost of this training is estimated to be approximately $15,000 per principal. For principals in high-need schools, training will be provided in the first two years of the grant and the state will pay 50% of the cost of their training. The principal’s school will be responsible for paying the remaining 50% of the training. For novice principals, training will be provided as they are hired and paid for in full by the state.

Educational consultants are working with school leaders to refine their ability to effectively write DPAS II evaluations which provide meaningful input to teachers on areas of professional growth. The district recognizes that all educators must be on a path of continuous improvement in the development of their ability to engage students in meaningful learning. In addition to setting the DPAS II focus for school leaders, the consultants will provide an objective review of the district’s professional development offerings and recommend modifications, additions, or subtractions from the systemic plan (which will be completed by fall 2012; see Appendix F). In addition, targeted schools will participate in the SAMs model to enhance leadership skills and provide time management studies to ensure school leaders are able to maximize their time in the critical areas of talent management, student achievement, and parent engagement. The work of the consultants and effective professional development on DPAS II will assist in the development of educational leaders which will maintain after RTTT funds have expired. The core of our leaders will remain in Red Clay beyond the RTTT funding and maintain the vision and work of the current plan.




Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change after RTTT funds are gone.

The district’s investment in the development of highly effective educators is substantial. The activities in Objective 7 will establish the foundation of the district’s direction for many years to come. Through the use of trained consultants, research-based leadership training, and deep support for schools through the SAMs model (funded via RTTT), Red Clay will enhance the development of school leaders (administrative and teacher) and the systems in which these leaders and educators will be trained. After the RTTT funds expire, the district will have developed a systemic professional development program based on the needs of students and the strategies necessary for all educators to promote student achievement.



Goal 4: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with deep support for the lowest-achieving schools

Objective 8: Provide deep support to the lowest-achieving schools


• [If selected] Follow the process for turning around schools selected for the Partnership Zone (SoW 12) N/A (The district does not have a school identified for inclusion in the partnership zone.)

Additional LEA Strategies • Provide support to turn around low-achieving schools

Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 12: Provide support to turn around low-achieving schools Owner: Dep. Superintendent






Person responsible


43) Deliver targeted PD at low-achieving schools


(EPER)

Asst. Superintendent for Special Services

X X X X • Targeted PD in Special Education and ELL provided to support low-achieving schools and their identified needs as determined through data review (Annually, Summer 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)




Person responsible


44) Hire and assign Academic Deans at Dickinson High, McKean High, H.B. Middle, Skyline Middle, A.I. Middle, Stanton Middle, Shortlidge Elementary, Lewis Elementary, Highlands Elementary, Warner Elementary, and District Office

RTTT: $940,294/yr 2 $862,294/yr 3 $862,294/yr 4

(salaries and OECs for 7 positions)


(salaries and OECs for 4 positions)


X X X X • Schools in need of Academic Deans for the next school year identified, and Academic Deans assigned to the identified schools where they will focus on instruction and evaluation of teachers (Annually, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

• Academic Dean for PLCs assigned to District Office to manage school PLCs (Fall 2011)

45) Utilize a Manager of RTTT to effectively support low-achieving schools

RTTT: $165,705/yr 2 $165,705/yr 3 $165,705/yr 4

(salaries and OECs)

Superintendent X X X X X X • Design and implementation of the community service and support in schools activity (Fall 2011)

• Instructional support provided to low-achieving schools through periodic DPAS II evaluations and walkthroughs (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Fall 2013)

• Expenses continually monitored to ensure budgeted amounts are aligned to activities (Annually, Summer 2012, 2013, 2014)

Budget total RTTT: $3,161,997

Other district allocations: $1,641,012





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES



DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%




DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR



DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt


Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR



Actual:



Source: DCAS OR











2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:



Source: DCAS OR






2009–10: 37.2%

Source: ESPES

40%

Actual: 42.6%




All: 20.5

Source: ESPES


Source: DWPR

18

Actual:

All: 16.4 Spec Ed: 25.2

Source: DWPR

16 14 12.8 Measures how well the district and its educators promote an orderly, safe environment for students. Monitors disproportional suspensions of students with identified needs.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


Source: eSchool

94%

Actual: 93.1%


94.5% 95% 97% Measures how well the district and its educators promote regular attendance as an important factor for students related to school success.


2010–11:




Baseline:








Maintain favorable parent satisfaction with the district’s communication practices related to the RTTT application and success planning

(Baseline to be determined in SY 2011–12)

N/A (Baseline to be determined)


4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher Measures how well the district and its staff communicate district goals and priorities to families.










Measures how well the district is able to gather parent feedback through the parent survey tool.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


2010–11: 52%


Baseline: 52%





Measures how well the district and its educators engage families and the community in supporting students’ academic success.




The effectiveness of educators accounts for the majority of school-driven improvements in student achievement. In order for educators to be held accountable for the achievement of students, they must be given research-based instructional tools designed to successfully meet the needs of our district. The activities outlined in this objective (in line with those activities described in Objective 1) provide the foundational support for the development of a standards-based education. The standards-based education is supported by Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education Policy 7001 (approved in January 2010) and affirmed in a resolution from the school board (SY 2009–10).

The implementation of the STEM program and related professional development at the middle and high school levels will impact our identified needs and Common Measures by providing a research-based approach to educating our students. This program is an improvement over previous district activities by ensuring a systemic approach to the instructional activities for these targeted schools. The approach will ensure that our schools with the greatest identified needs are serves by a school leader freed from operational duties and afforded the time to provide in depth instructional support.

The assignment of Academic Deans at district schools will complement an initiative that started in 2010 (when Academic Deans were assigned to Dickinson High School, McKean High School, and Warner Elementary School) to increase the focus and support for instructional practice. Beginning in 2011, the initiative will expand, with Academic Deans assigned to additional schools where they will be utilized to set the instructional focus of the school, monitor professional development needs, evaluate teacher performance, and target students who are identified as at risk of academic failure (see Appendix E-2 and Appendix E-3). The Academic Deans will be sustainable after the RTTT funding expires through attrition and a change in the culture of school operations. Academic Deans will become a mainstay in all schools with at least two administrators. The district will allocate the earned units to fund the continuance of the Academic Dean positions. It is important to maintain the academic focus in our schools and continue to provide support to educators and students.

The addition of the Academic Deans will help to improve the overall school culture by shifting the emphasis from principals being managers to instructional leaders. Academic Deans will also help to establish a pipeline of future school and district leaders in Red Clay. The role of the Academic Dean will exist for the duration of the RTTT application. Then, Academic Deans will assume administrative positions within the district with the expectation that select responsibilities will be redistributed to teacher leaders identified in Objective 3. The district will actively recruit educators who have demonstrated success in their classrooms or their building leadership assignment, through quantified student growth.

In addition to hiring Academic Deans at the school level, the district will establish an Academic Dean for PLCs position at the district level (see Appendix E-4). The Academic Dean for PLCs will provide critical support to turn around low-achieving schools by managing schools’ PLCs. The district will conduct a year-end review to determine the value of this position in regard to the success of PLCs.

The Manager of RTTT will be utilized to ensure effective support to low-achieving schools (see Appendix E-5). The Manager of RTTT will support schools by ensuring that funding is properly aligned with the corresponding activity, completing DPAS II evaluations and walkthroughs, and working closely with the Manager of Federal Programs to design and implement the community service and support in schools activity.




Success with these strategies will result in a substantially more effective teaching force, with significant numbers of teachers improving their student growth results. In and of themselves, these results represent significant improvement for our district. Further, because our investments are fundamentally about (1) making data readily available to support strong inquiry and (2) organizing our leaders around the management of talent, we are creating the conditions for sustainable change long after RTTT funds are gone.



Goal 5: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with active involvement of families and communities

Objective 9: Engage families and communities effectively in supporting students’ academic success(SoW 8)


1. (None)

Additional LEA Strategies • Provide ongoing services and opportunities to support and engage students and their families and communities in the educational process

Activity plan by strategy: Strategy 13: Provide ongoing services and opportunities to support and engage students and their families and communities in the educational process

Owner: Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services





Person responsible


46) Institute monthly parent workshops focused on parents of students in high-need schools


(supplies and materials)


X X X X X X X X X X X X • Monthly meetings with parent leadership groups (Monthly, Fall 2010–Spring 2014)

47) Provide quarterly parent sessions focused on parents of students in high-need schools, and two sessions per year specifically targeted to parents of students enrolled in the pre-school program



Manager of Federal Programs; Manager of RTTT

X X X • Identify vendors to provide parent sessions (Summer 2011)

• Hold one session each quarter for parents of students in high-need schools, and two sessions per year for parents of students enrolled in the pre-school program, at different school sites (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)




Person responsible


48) Implement a parent communication center at all schools

RTTT: $13,114/yr 2



Asst. Superintendent for District Operations

X X X • Purchase of equipment and materials (Spring 2012)

• Centers implemented (Fall 2012)

49) Hold an annual Red Clay Family Resource Fair



Ed. Assoc. for Federal Programs

X X X X • Annual family resource fair (Nov. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

50) Develop community service and support in schools




X X X X X X X X X • Access to preventive and mental health resources offered to families in all high-need schools (Fall 2011)

• Services provided (Ongoing, Fall 2011–Spring 2014)

51) Hold an annual Red Clay College Fair



Director of Secondary Schools

X X X X • Annual college fair open to middle and high school students to provide students and parents an opportunity to review and discuss post- high school options (Jan./Feb. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)







2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


DSTP Sp 2010: 71.8%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 56%

Source: ESPES



DSTP Sp 2010: 69.6%

Source: ESPES

55%

Actual: 55%

Source: ESPES

70% 85%




DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 57.0%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR

Gr 8: 55%

Actual: Gr 8: 50.1%

Baseline: Gr 5: 39.5% Gr 10: 37.7%

Source: DCAS OR



DSTP F 2009: Gr 4: 58.3%

DSTP Sp 2010: Gr 8: 56.8%

Source: DSTP OR

DCAS Sp 2011: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR

55%

Actual: Gr 4: 53.7%

Baseline: Gr 7: 56%

Source: DCAS OR





2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (B: 33%, W: 72%) Gap: 39% pt

Reading (B: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (H: 37%, W: 72%) Gap: 35% pt

Reading (H: 34%, W: 73%) Gap: 39% pt

Source: DCAS OR








2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:

Math (LI: 37%, Non: 76%) Gap: 39% pt


Source: DCAS OR








Source: DSTP OR



Actual:



Source: DCAS OR











2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale




Source: DSTP OR


Actual:



Source: DCAS OR






2009–10: 37.2%

Source: ESPES

40%

Actual: 42.6%




All: 20.5

Source: ESPES


Source: DWPR

18

Actual:

All: 16.4 Spec Ed: 25.2

Source: DWPR

16 14 12.8 Measures how well the district and its educators promote an orderly, safe environment for students. Monitors disproportional suspensions of students with identified needs.




2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale


Source: eSchool

94%

Actual: 93.1%


94.5% 95% 97% Measures how well the district and its educators promote regular attendance as an important factor for students related to school success.







Baseline:







Measures how well the district and its educators prepare the youngest learners for academic success with rigorous coursework.


2010–11:




Baseline:











2010–11 (End of SY)

2011–12 (End of SY)

2012–13 (End of SY)

2013–14 (End of SY)

Rationale

Maintain favorable parent satisfaction with their school’s communication practices (effectively communicates across class, language, and cultural differences)

2009–10: Avg 4.13 on 5-pt scale


4.0 or higher

Actual: 4.21


4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher 4.0 or higher Measures how well the district and its educators engage families in supporting students’ academic success.










Measures how well the district is able to gather parent feedback through the parent survey tool.


2010–11: 52%


Baseline: 52%





Measures how well the district and its educators engage families and the community in supporting students’ academic success.



Objective 9 Narrative: How do your strategies and activities integrate to achieve this objective (as indicated by the measures above)? How will this work impact your identified needs and Common Measures? How will this be an improvement over what you have done before? How will you ensure that this improvement is sustainable once RTTT funds are gone? [Note: You may address each question individually, or in a coherent narrative below.] As established in Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education Policy 9002, the district recognizes that the engagement of parents and families in the educational process has a strong impact on student achievement. In addition, many students do not have access to medical interventions that assist in a student’s readiness for learning. Parent workshops, parent sessions, family communication centers at all schools, the Red Clay Family Resource Fair, and the Red Clay College Fair will provide parents and families with access to information and resources that will help them support their students’ educational pursuits. The activities outlined in this objective are designed to engage parents in the learning process, provide access to community resources on college- and career-readiness, and offer information and resources to support students in the educational process.

Research has found that students do better in school when they are physically and emotionally healthy. Further, when they feel closely connected and valued by adults, they exhibit more positive behavior, values, and social attitudes.7 In addition, research suggests that fidelity to the community school strategy benefits students, families, and community. Students show significant gains in academic achievement and in key areas of nonacademic development, and that community schools enjoy stronger parent-teacher relationships, increased teacher satisfaction, a more positive school environment, and greater community support and the model promotes more efficient use of school buildings.8 Community service and support in schools will give students, parents, and families access to vision, dental, preventive, and mental health resources for a population that is too often unable to access these resources. In order for educators to be able to increase student achievement to a level of all students achieving success in school, the district will provide access to these necessary life amenities.

Helping parents be co-producers of good outcomes for their children and giving them the tools to help them develop socially, educationally, and emotionally will assist our students and the district over time. Addressing family-related stressors and working together to develop school readiness are crucial to literacy success9 and are key elements in helping the district address its literacy needs. The district is focused on building and sustaining parent leaders, especially since there is evidence that parent leadership activities directly influence parental knowledge, skills, and action and show statistically significant increases in community leadership skills. Red Clay also plans to provide parent education services to help parents facilitate their children’s development by working collaboratively with families in targeted schools to develop programs aimed at improving parent leadership and participation in school reform efforts. When this is accomplished, we can sustain and increase their involvement in their children’s education and encourage a systems-based approach to reform efforts.10

The district developed the framework for community conversations in the fall of 2009 and continued during SY 2010–11. The superintendent held community coffee meetings to discuss the district’s strategic planning efforts and solicit the community’s input. The district newsletter, the Red Clay Record, features important district information and is mailed to all residents. The district’s TV show, “Red Clay This Week,” is a parent education and information program presented twice weekly on Comcast and is broadcast throughout New Castle County (estimated population: 534,63411). The district also reaches directly into neighborhoods and the home, making home visits within targeted school populations to address student attendance and family needs. In addition, the district transported its school staff through the feeder neighborhoods of the students so that the staff can witness the diverse lives and experiences of our children and families outside of school. As we focused on targeted schools, local educational partners Pritchett & Associates convened multiple meetings with elected officials and community leaders representing the community school pilot neighborhoods in Wilmington, Delaware, to foster communication and collaboration around neighborhood and school issues. Our ongoing



work with community social services agencies, such as Hilltop Lutheran Neighborhood Center, Latin American Community Center, Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League, Parents As Teachers, Nemours Health Partners, Communities In Schools, and Learning Link of Delaware, as well as our connections with local services agencies and elected officials, enhance our foundation of open dialogue to address social issues for students attending targeted schools and incorporate families as partners in improving educational outcomes.

Research indicates that parents who become leaders are better able to support their children’s learning, both through their active presence at the school and through the skills and contacts they gain in their leadership activities. Furthermore, studies show that families of all income and education levels, and from all ethnic and cultural groups, are involved at home.12 The district’s current vehicle for parent representation and leadership, the Red Clay Parent Advisory Council (RCPAC), serves as a starting point for the expansion of recruiting parent leaders from targeted schools and neighborhoods; the district not only plans with this group, but presents key information and listens to the needs of school communities. The focus will be on identifying the key stakeholders then addressing the needs through designed strategies, thinking first about “who” and then about “what,” with the “what” being parental and community initiatives and work designed to impact district goals related to literacy, ELLs, and students with special needs. Collaborating with school leaders, our community partners, and RCPAC parent representatives will help us implement a plan to recruit parents from targeted schools to participate in parent leadership training focused on assisting schools in meeting educational outcomes and education sessions.

We will use our communications to listen to families and articulate the needs as they relate to our goals in order to work together to see clearly what steps must be taken to build momentum. By engaging external partners, we seek to build on existing community assets and ensure that the actions are aligned with our goals to develop purposeful partnerships.13 The district will continue to utilize its ELL Office and ELL Assessment Center to provide interpretation of information during parent meetings, to translate materials into the desired home language(s), and to expand the two years of collaborative work with the Federal Programs Office in implementing research-based parent education opportunities for families whose home language is not English. In doing this, we will continue to share responsibility for parent education and school improvement.14 The district also has the distinct advantage of communicating and, where appropriate, replicating the successful practices of Mote Elementary, which was named a 2011 winner of the annual Excellence in Parental Involvement Award by Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn.

By identifying citizens and families who sit at the center of existing social networks, and equipping them with the resources they need in order to inform and engage others, Red Clay will communicate with the broader population through a range of current and expanded approaches, including newsletters and brochures, technologies (local cable access and school kiosks), public information sessions, and announcements through community institutions.13


Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 3 | Activities to Remove


Part 3: Activities to Remove, Success Factors, Communications, and Resources Needed Activities to Remove: Given the strategies and activities that you have identified above—and the need to focus on them—what are some current activities in your LEA that you can stop, delegate, or de-emphasize? Please identify as many activities as possible, with a brief description of how each will be removed, and indicate if you need DDOE support or permission in order to remove them.

Activity to remove How (stop/delegate/ de-emphasize)

By when Person responsible Support/permission needed from DDOE

RTTT long-term substitutes Stop Aug. 2011 Director of Curriculum & Instruction

N/A

After-school programs (e.g., Legos, robotics)

De-emphasize Jun. 2011 Director of School Operations N/A

All stand-alone professional development (not linked to standards, not part of district plan, etc.)

Stop. The district will announce the RTTT initiative and development process of the systemic PD system and the use of PLCs to facilitate professional development.

Announce as soon as possible; end in Aug. 2011

Manager of Professional Development (working closely with the Director of Curriculum & Instruction)

N/A

Alignment of school success plans with the district success plan

Delegate Jul. 1, 2011 Manager of RTTT Approval of the district’s RTTT application

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 3 | Success Factors and Possible Risks


Success Factors and Possible Risks: What systems, people, and processes will you deploy to ensure your plan’s success? What are possible risks, and how will you mitigate them? How will you monitor effectiveness and course correct if needed? The district will engage in a process of continuous improvement which will utilize all district educators, uniquely qualified educational consultants, and community resources to ensure the success of our plan. The development of this plan’s activities, measures, and deliverables was only an initial phase. The next and most in-depth phase is the development of the “how.” The district will engage educators and the community to develop a delivery model that will be orchestrated to identify key district departments, important benchmarks, and additional resources necessary to meet the high expectations established in our plan. The district has committed to the development of one document which has set the action plan necessary to increase student achievement. This plan will serve as the document by which district and school decisions are made. During the course of the next several years, a collaborative district team will meet three times a year to review benchmarks in our delivery model, discuss captured data, and modify the delivery plans as needed to meet the needs of our students and educators.

Risk is inherent in the implementation of our plan. Student achievement will increase with the implementation of our plan. This plan was developed as a comprehensive approach to address the needs of our district. Resources currently allocated in the district (local, state, and federal) are in the process of being re-purposed to support the activities and subsequent delivery plans.

We know that bold action requires taking some risk, and this plan is no different. There are risks to our work. The primary ones are as follows:

1. While we have done our best to predict what impact our actions will have, we might not be right and there will be a need for consistent review. As such the district RTTT team will meet quarterly to review data and assess progress in achieving our stated objectives. The school board, district administration, and RCEA have demonstrated the ability to engage in meaningful and productive dialogue centered on the best interest of student. In SY 2012–13, the district will engage in a process of systematically reviewing all activities in this plan and in the district at large. Using a data-based review of our progress, we will prioritize those programs that bring the most value to our students and will allocate resources to ensure their continuance. If during its review the district identifies any activities that fail to bring the desired level of success to our students, those activities will be eliminated or revised with a reduction in funding. The Manager of RTTT will meet monthly with the persons responsible for RTTT activities to monitor their progress and compliance and to resolve any issues that arise.

2. This plan requires hard work; as a result, we might lose staff (at all levels) we want to keep. The Manager of RTTT will meet with new administrators to communicate the goals, activities, and strategies developed in our application. Building-level administrators will communicate with their staff the importance of the RTTT plan.

3. These are short-term financial investments by definition. While we have done our best to contemplate the “funding cliff” once the funds are gone, it is difficult to predict what other funding cuts we might have to make and how that will impact our work overall. The district is committed to the development of highly effective educators to move student achievement forward. All discussions and decisions will be based on the premise of how this will improve student achievement.

We have done our best to address these risks. Specifically:

1. We have built into our plan a monthly routine at the district cabinet level specifically to look at the plan, evaluate progress, identify those areas where we are not making the progress we anticipated, and address the issues at our quarterly RTTT team meeting. As part of that process we will be evaluating student achievement data as it is available to track student performance and note any trends—positive or negative—and adjust accordingly.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 3 | Success Factors and Possible Risks


2. The reality is that this is a time of extraordinary work in public education, and it is a challenging but exciting time to be an educator. As a result, some staff may choose to leave. As part of our pipeline development process, we are doing our best to predict attrition and develop a comprehensive approach to filling jobs quickly with high-caliber teachers and leaders. The district hired a Manager of RTTT to assist in the implementation and monitoring of the district’s RTTT application. In addition, we added a Director of Elementary Schools to provide guidance and serve as a resource to the elementary schools in the implementation of RTTT initiatives and daily operations of the schools.

3. Wherever possible we have identified funding sources outside of RTTT money that we will be able to use to fund ongoing expenses related to our plan. For example, we will be using IDEA allocations to fund for our Special Education- and ELL-focused professional development. Additionally, in as many places as possible we are using our funds to build the capacity of our team at the district and school levels, rather than paying for partners to perform services for us. We believe that by building our own capacity, we will be able to continue the work once our funds to pay partners are gone. The Academic Dean initiative in particular is focused on developing the capacity of building-level administrators to focus on the instructional needs in our classrooms.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 3 | Communications and Stakeholder Engagement


Communications and Stakeholder Engagement: What stakeholders will you need to engage in your implementation efforts? What mechanisms will you use to effectively engage with them on an ongoing basis? What are the key messages that will need to be delivered, and how do these differ by stakeholder?

Owner: Superintendent

Where there is a collaborative spirit focused on continuous improvement toward lofty goals, much can be accomplished. The district office has been reorganized in order to meet these priorities. Other priorities include promoting efficient operations and ensuring effective communication with school staff, district office staff, school board members, parents, legislators, and the community at large. The superintendent has distributed a bi-weekly memo to all employees and school board members to highlight important information, school events, and recognitions of staff and school accomplishments. In addition, the district has organized regularly scheduled workshops on topics such as standards-based education, curriculum and instruction, and assessments. Constructive dialogue with the Delaware State Education Association and the Red Clay Education Association will be ongoing. The superintendent has created a Parent Council (consisting of a representative from each school), which discusses district plans and initiatives. Title I Resource Outreach presents regular workshops on various topics including parenting, wellness, reading assistance, and special services. District office administrators have adopted schools which they visit for several hours per month as an instructional support. The superintendent will continue to meet with legislators and community leaders to collect feedback and document concerns. The district will continue to communicate with representatives from the various stakeholder groups that were involved in the development of the RTTT application. The district will devote in-service days to inform staff of success plan activities. In addition, the district will disseminate success plan and RTTT information to families via the Red Clay Record (district newsletter), the “Red Clay This Week” television program, and letters from the superintendent. Finally, the district will provide regular updates to the community to report progress on RTTT initiatives.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Part 3 | Resources and/or Support Needed


Resources and/or Support Needed: In addition to the resources and support budgeted for each activity, are there additional resources and/or support that you need from the DDOE (e.g., technical assistance, guidance) in order for your plan to be successful? The district is appreciative of the direction provided by the DDOE during the development of this plan. Continued conversation on the district’s ideas and delivery plans is necessary to help us continue on our identified path toward increasing student achievement. In order for our plan to be successful, the district requests more information from the state regarding the DDOE delivery model template and timelines for the start of the DDOE data coaches and development coaches at the district level. In addition, the district asks that the DDOE provide guidance or suggestions as to how to best integrate these activities into current practice in Red Clay.

1 Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. 2 Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Tucson, AZ: Author. 3 Kohm, B., & Nance, B. (2009, October). Creating collaborative cultures. Educational Leadership, 67 (2), 67–72. 4 Wat, A. (2010). Pew Center on the States. The case for pre-k in education reform: A summary of program evaluation findings. Washington, DC: Pre-K Now. 5 Wolk, R. A. (2011). Wasting minds: Why our education system is failing and what we can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 6 Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995), as cited in Wolk, R. A. (2011). Wasting minds: Why our education system is failing and what we can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 7 ASCD. (2009). Making the case for educating the whole child. Alexandria, VA: Author. 8 Coalition for Community Schools. (2010, May). Community schools: Results that turn around failing schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/ 9 Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kids Count Special Report. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 10 Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (2008, February 22). Knowledge is empowering: Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership Fellows’ involvement and influence after training. Lexington, KY: Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership. 11 U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). 12 Henderson, A., Jacob, B., Kernan-Schloss, A., & Raimondo, B. (2004, January). The case for parent leadership. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. 13 Howard, D., & Menezes, R. (2010, October). Planning a promise neighborhood. Promise Neighborhood Institute at PolicyLink. Retrieved from http://www.promiseneighborhoodsinstitute.org/ 14 Center for the Future of Arizona. (2006, October). Why some schools with Latino children beat the odds…and others don’t. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/

http://www.communityschools.org/

http://www.promiseneighborhoodsinstitute.org/

http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix A

Last modified: 2/24/2012 Page 1 of 2

Summary of Changes to the Success Plan Below is a summary of changes made to the Success Plan (since Version 1.0).

Substantive Changes The following substantive changes to the Success Plan were made as part of the district’s first formal amendment request, which was approved by the DDOE on February 16, 2012:

1. Modified Activity 15 (“Hire, train, and utilize School Data and Test Coordinators in all schools”) in order to more accurately reflect the roles, responsibilities, and activities of SDTCs, School PLC Leads, and DDOE data coaches.

2. Reallocated a portion of the original annual budget for Activity 24 (“Provide support for teachers to participate in the NBCT program”) from Supplies and Materials to Salaries in order to pay for stipends for NBCT participants in addition to NBCT program membership costs.

3. Transferred the budgeted item for Activity 42 (“Distribute leadership in schools based on student needs and provide support to high-need schools via the SAMs model”) from Contracted Services to Salaries in order to pay for the position associated with the activity.

4. Modified Activity 44 (“Hire and assign Academic Deans at Dickinson High, McKean High, H.B. Middle, Skyline Middle, A.I. Middle, Stanton Middle, Shortlidge Elementary, Lewis Elementary, Highlands Elementary, and Warner Elementary”) to include an additional position, the Academic Dean for PLCs, and applied available 2010–11 RTTT rollover funds to the activity’s budget to pay for the position.

Non-Substantive Changes The following non-substantive changes to the Success Plan were made for the purposes of updating, correcting, or clarifying the original contents of the Success Plan document:

1. Updated measures to include baseline data (where it was not previously available or specified), actual performance data (if available), and data sources.

2. Updated position titles and persons responsible for Success Plan activities as needed to reflect current position titles and changes in the administrative table of organization.

3. Numbered (or renumbered and relabeled) all Success Plan strategies and activities to align with the numbering system used internally by the district to manage Success Plan implementation.

4. Added a new section to the beginning of the Success Plan document to allow for version control/change history and added a new appendix to document changes to the Success Plan.

5. Deleted outdated, non-essential information pertaining to anticipated 1003g funding (which was deemed no longer relevant as the district’s application for 1003g funding was not approved).

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix A


6. Removed redundancy related to the frequency with which the monitoring scorecard will be updated.

7. Reformatted tables in Part 2 to match formatting of tables in Part 1 (previously, related measures were consolidated into a single row).

8. Reordered measures in Part 2 to align with the order of measures in Part 1.

9. Converted in-text citations to footnotes and endnotes.

10. Added a placeholder in the footer to record the date when the Success Plan was last modified.

11. Clarified that the Manager of RTTT will participate in periodic DPAS II evaluations and walkthroughs.

12. Updated the Glossary of Abbreviations appendix to include terms that were added to the Success Plan as a result of changes described above.

13. Standardized the formatting, layout, and file naming conventions of all appendixes.

14. Reformatted and expanded the Table of Contents to include strategies and activities.

15. Expanded the RTTT Position Descriptions appendix into individually numbered appendixes.

16. Updated the RTTT Organizational Chart appendix as needed to reflect changes to position titles.

17. Corrected miscellaneous typographical errors and inconsistencies in style and formatting.

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix B




•The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) graduation rate is reported. The NCLB graduation rate is based on students who started 9th grade and graduated 4 years later with a high school diploma. Students who transfer to an adult education program are counted as “drop-outs.”•The NCLB graduation rate target changes each year. The 2008 target was 81%. The 2009 target was 82.5%. (The 2010 target was 84%).•Red Clay is rated based on performance with charters included. The figure without charters is provided for district planning purposes.•Our graduation rate without charters increased over 5% points from 2008 to 2009.•Our graduation rate without charters was about 7% points lower than with charters in 2008 and about 5% points lower in 2009.



•The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) graduation rate is reported. The NCLB graduation rate is based on students who started 9th grade and graduated 4 years later with a high school diploma. Students who transfer to an adult education program are counted as “drop-outs.”•The NCLB graduation rate target changes each year. The 2008 target was 81%. The 2009 target was 82.5%. (The 2010 target was 84%).•Red Clay experienced increases in all sub-groups with the exception of Special Education from 2008 to 2009.



•The SAT is a widely-used college admissions test, developed by the College Board.•The district performed comparably to the state mean (slightly higher in all three subjects) but lower than the national mean.•The highest possible subject score is 800 (2400 for the entire test).



•The full range of possible scores is 200-800. The purpose of this slide is to see the trend line for each subject. •As participation increases, scores are expected to decrease. Overall participation has declined from 517 students in 2006 to 481 students in 2010. All 11th graders will be taking the SAT in the spring of 2011.•Participation of African American students has grown from 57 to 88 across the five-year time period. Over this time period, scores among African American students have improved in Reading (+9 points) and Mathematics (+6 points) but not in Writing (-9 points).•Participation of Hispanic students has grown from 29 to 43 across the five-year time period. Over this time period, scores among Hispanic students have improved in Reading (+16 points), Mathematics (+14 points), and Writing (+17 points).•From 2006 to 2009, Red Clay’s performance in each subject area declined. •Reading scores have remained relatively flat, Mathematics scores had declined but improved last year, and Writing scores have generally declined.•There was an upward trend from 2009 to 2010 in each subject area, less so in Writing. There is still great room for improvement toward the full possible score of 800.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 3-10 received a Performance Levels (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting standard. (Grade 2 received PL ranging from 2 to 4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard). •The three-year trend lines show flat performance across most sub-groups with the exception of a decline in the ELL sub-group. Students may be counted in multiple sub-groups.•The achievement gap, defined as the difference between sub-groups, remains greatest for Special Education, African-American, and ELL students.•Elementary school performance (grades 3-5) in Math over a five-year span has remained relatively consistent (+/- 2% points) in all sub-groups except for a decline in African- American and Special Education performance and an improvement in ELL performance.•Middle school performance (grades 6-8) in Math over a five-year span has improved in all sub-groups with the exception of Special Education.•High school performance (grade 10) in Math over a five-year span has remained relatively consistent (+/- 2% points) in Special Education and Hispanic sub-groups, with all other sub-groups showing improvement.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in Grades 3-10 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. ((Grade 2 received PL ranging from 2 to 4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard). •The three-year trend lines show flat performance across several sub-groups, with declines in ELL, Special Education*, and African-American sub-groups. Students may be counted in multiple sub-groups.•The achievement gap, defined as the difference between sub-groups, remains greatest for Special Education, African-American, and ELL students.•Elementary school performance (grades 3-5) in Reading over a five-year span has remained relatively consistent (+/- 2% points) in White and ELL sub-groups, with all other sub-groups experiencing a decline.•Middle school performance (grades 6-8) in Reading over a five-year span has remained relatively consistent (+/- 2% points) in White and Low Income sub-groups, improved in All Student, Hispanic, and ELL sub-groups; and declined in African-American and Special Education sub-groups.•High school performance (grade 10) in Reading over a five-year span has remained relatively consistent (+/- 2% points) in the Hispanic sub-group, improved in All, African-American, and White sub-groups, and declined in ELL, Special Education and Low Income sub-groups.*The dramatic reduction among Special Education was attributed to the reduction of accommodations.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 3-5 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. (Grade 2 received PL ranging from 2 to 4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard). •The graph shows the impact of special education scores.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 6-8 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. •The graph shows the impact of special education scores.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 9 and 10 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. •The graph shows the impact of Red Clay charter school and special education scores.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 3-5 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. (Grade 2 received PL ranging from 2 to 4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard). •The graph shows the impact of special education scores.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in Grades 6-8 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting the standard. •The graph shows the impact of special education scores.



•The DSTP (Delaware Student Testing Program) was the state test used for accountability until 2010. •Students in grades 9 and 10 received a Performance Level (PL) ranging from 1-5, with a PL 3 meeting standard. •The graph shows the impact of Red Clay charter schools and special education scores.



•DCAS (Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System) is the state test for accountability beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. In addition to scaled scores, student receive Performance Levels (PL) ranging from 1-4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard.•Students in grades 3-10 are testing in the fall, winter, and spring on grade-level standards, with portions of the test allowing below or above grade level questions. Grade 2 students test in the spring.•Cut scores for meeting the standard were raised by the State Board of Education in the fall of 2010. •Scaled scores (not reported here) will be used to measure growth over the year. •In Math, the district had a greater percentage of students reaching the spring proficiency target than the state in grades 6, 7, and 8.•The district needs much improvement to reach the target across all grades with the most improvement needed in elementary grades.



•DCAS (Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System) is the state test for accountability beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. In addition to scaled scores, student receive Performance Levels (PL) ranging from 1-4, with a PL 3 meeting the standard.•Students in grades 3-10 are testing in the fall, winter, and spring on grade-level standards, with portions of the test allowing below or above grade level questions. Grade 2 students test in the spring.•Cut scores for meeting the standard were raised by the State Board of Education in the fall of 2010. •Scaled scores (not reported here) will be used to measure growth over the year. •In Reading, the district had a greater percentage of students reaching the spring proficiency target than the state in grades 6 and 8.•The district needs much improvement to reach the target across all grades with the most improvement needed in elementary grades and grade 9.



•DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is used in early elementary grades as a measure of Reading readiness. •DIBELS is given three times per year to students in kindergarten and grade 1 as a screener to identify academically needy students. DIBELS is also used to monitor progress of academically needy students throughout the year.•One score, Instructional Recommendation, categorizes students into three instructional levels: Intensive, Strategic, and Benchmark. Benchmark indicates students are performing at an established goal for that grade level.•Consistently, kindergarten students reached benchmark at a higher level than grade 1 students.



•DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is used in early elementary grades as a measure of Reading readiness. •DIBELS is given three times per year to students in kindergarten and grade 1 as a screener to identify academically needy students. DIBELS is also used to monitor progress of academically needy students throughout the year.•One score, Instructional Recommendation, categorizes students into three instructional levels: Intensive, Strategic, and Benchmark. Benchmark indicates students are performing at an established goal for that grade level.•The percentages from fall 2010 in kindergarten and grade 1 are comparable (+/-2% points) to last year.



•The attendance rate is calculated by dividing the average daily attendance by the average daily membership (enrollment).•The target of 90% was taken from DDOE’s Accountability Transitional Design Overview draft for 2011.•Red Clay’s attendance rate has remained stabled over the three-year time period and exceeds the target.



•The out-of-school suspension rate is calculated by dividing the number of students suspended by the number of students enrolled.•The target of 12.8% is taken from DDOE’s Education and Success Planning common measures.•The district’s suspension rate has increased among all students over a three-year time period. •In 2010 the suspension rate among Special Educations students was about 50% higher than among all students (down from about 75% higher in 2008).



RTTT Year 1 (2010‐11) Budget Report (as of 05‐26‐2011)

Budget Year 1 Payroll Expenditures Encumberances Balance Anticipated June Payroll

Estimated June 30 Balance

Program Goal: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with exemplar standards and assessments (SW Goal 1)Program Objective: Implement rigorous college and career readiness standards and high‐quality formative and summative assessmentsSoW 1: Support the development of new standards, curriculum, and assessments (SW Objective 1 / Strategy 1) 178,000.00 3,749.93 35,826.50 3,583.46 134,840.11 150,000.00 (15,159.89) SoW 2: Build a culture of college and career readiness in schools byremoving obstacles and actively support student engagement and achievement (SW Objective 1 / Strategy 2) 375,000.00 19,271.64 205,622.58 31,132.53 118,973.25 ‐ 118,973.25 Total 553,000.00 23,021.57 241,449.08 34,715.99 253,813.36 150,000.00 103,813.36

Program Goal: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students by accessing and using student dataProgram Objective: Improving access to and use of the state's robust longitudinal systemSoW 3: Implement and support improvement of the state longitudinal data system (SW Objective 2 / Strategy 1) 241,000.00 70,606.95 3,480.00 740.00 166,173.05 85,000.00 81,173.05 SoW 4: Ensure implementation of instructional improvement systems and integrate state data coaches into instructional improvement systems (SW Objective 3 / Strategy 1) 412,000.00 335,215.26 ‐ ‐ 76,784.74 42,000.00 34,784.74 Total 653,000.00 405,822.21 3,480.00 740.00 242,957.79 127,000.00 115,957.79

Program Goal: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students with great teachers and leadersProgram Objective: Improve teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

SoW 5: Conduct evaluations, integrate state development coaches, and use state educator evaluations as a primary factor in teacher and principal development plans, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal (SW Objective 4 / Strategy 1) 62,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 62,000.00 ‐ 62,000.00 SoW 6: Establish new educator career paths linked to evaluation (SW Objective 4 / Strategy 2) 244,000.00 ‐ 13,523.60 42,530.00 187,946.40 ‐ 187,946.40 Total 306,000.00 ‐ 13,523.60 42,530.00 249,946.40 ‐ 249,946.40 Program Objective: Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and principalsSoW 7: Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (SW Objective 5 / Strategy 1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Program Objective: Implement strategies to engage families and communitiesSoW 8: Implement strategies to engage families and communities effectively in supporting the academic success of students (SW Objective 9) 300,000.00 155.83 5,550.34 11,914.65 282,379.18 ‐ 282,379.18 Total 300,000.00 155.83 5,550.34 11,914.65 282,379.18 ‐ 282,379.18

1

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix C


RTTT Year 1 (2010‐11) Budget Report (as of 05‐26‐2011)

Budget Year 1 Payroll Expenditures Encumberances Balance Anticipated June Payroll

Estimated June 30 Balance

Program Objective: Improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programsSoW 9: Ensure that all teachers and principals are effectively prepared(SW Objective 6 / Strategy 1) 10,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,000.00 ‐ 10,000.00 SoW 10: Adopt a state‐identified model for professional development and prioritize the highest impact for professional development (SW Objective 7 / Strategy 1) 42,500.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 42,500.00 ‐ 42,500.00 SoW 11: Accelerate the development of instructional leaders (SW Objective 7 / Strategy 2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 52,500.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,500.00 ‐ 52,500.00

Program Goal: Accelerate achievement and improve outcomes for all students by turning around low‐achieving schoolsProgram Objective: Turn around low‐achieving schools

SoW 12: Follow the process for turning around schools selected for the Partnership Zone in accordance with state regulations and provide support to low‐achieving schools (SW Objective N/A) 350,000.00 11,116.39 167,213.49 2,131.34 169,538.78 ‐ 169,538.78 Total 350,000.00 11,116.39 167,213.49 2,131.34 169,538.78 ‐ 169,538.78

Grand total 2,214,500.00 440,116.00 431,216.51 92,031.98 1,251,135.51 277,000.00 974,135.51

2

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix C


Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix D


Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix E-1


Position Description for Pre-school Teacher

Job Title: Pre-school Teacher Position Type: Full-time

Funding Source: RTTT, other district allocations Location: Pre-school program

Position Summary

Role and Responsibilities

The primary performance responsibilities of the Pre-school Teacher are as follows:

• Plan a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students.

• Create a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interest of the students.

• Assess the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provide programs reports as required. • Take all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. • Maintain accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulations. • Supervise children until pick up by parent/guardian. • Assist the administration in implementing all policies and rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the

classroom, develop reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintain order in the classroom in a fair and just manner.

• Make provision for being available to students and parents for education-related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms.

• Plan and supervise purposeful assignments for teacher aide(s) and volunteer(s) and, cooperatively with department heads, evaluate their job performance.

• Strive to maintain and improve professional competence. • Attend staff meetings and serve on staff committees as required.



Position Description for Academic Dean (Elementary)

Job Title: Academic Dean – Elementary (4) Position Type: Full-time

Funding Source: RTTT, other district allocations Location: Highlands Elementary, Lewis Elementary, Shortlidge Elementary, Warner Elementary

Position Summary


The primary role of the Academic Dean is to provide leadership in the strategic planning of instructional programs that support teacher effectiveness and enhance student learning. The Academic Dean supports the mission of the district and demonstrates school leadership in the following ways:

• Communicate to the school community initiatives related to the district’s Race to the Top plan.

• Communicate the school mission and foster a school culture that emphasizes academic achievement for all students. • Support the school community in its efforts to increase parental involvement. • Plan school-wide events for students and parents that support college- and career-readiness. • Develop a master schedule that supports differentiated learning experiences, maximizes instructional time, and

is aligned to the instructional needs of students. • Plan and provide professional development experiences during the school day and after school for teachers and staff. • Model best instructional practices through classroom coaching experiences and informal classroom

observations. • Recommend instructional support materials, strategies, and interventions during RTI review sessions and IST

case manager meetings based upon I-Tracker Pro data. • Initiate longitudinal studies to track students over time. • Lead team meetings with respect to decision making regarding student case management, educational

evaluation, and psychological evaluation. • Analyze assessment data to drive decision making regarding effective instruction and student progress. • Examine information for factors impacting the social, emotional, and physical development of students and

collaborate with the school counselor, psychologist, educational diagnostician, IST facilitator, and behavioral interventionist regarding case management decisions for students.

• Use formal observations and DPAS II procedures to provide feedback to teachers regarding their performance in the classroom.

• Use the DPAS II protocol to document ineffective teacher performance and provide this documentation to the Office of Human Resources.

• Collaborate with the building lead mentor to plan agendas for building-level new teacher mentor meetings. • Schedule peer coaching experiences for new teachers. • Schedule peer coaching experiences for teachers working under the guidelines of an Improvement Plan. • Establish small learning communities across grade levels. • Coordinate community partnerships to sustain student mentoring programs within the school. • Monitor student engagement and persistence during classroom instruction.



Position Description for Academic Dean (Secondary)

Job Title: Academic Dean – Secondary (6) Position Type: Full-time

Funding Source: RTTT, other district allocations Location: A.I. Middle, H.B. Middle, Skyline Middle, Stanton Middle, Dickinson High, McKean High

Position Summary


The primary role of the Academic Dean is to provide leadership in the strategic planning of instructional programs that support teacher effectiveness and enhance student learning. The most important element of the Academic Dean’s role is to provide a reliable path to improved academic instruction to the staff and students of the assigned school. The Academic Dean must take personal responsibility for the instruction that is provided in each classroom in the targeted school. This includes monitoring the continuous improvement process of instructional staff that is mandated by Delaware Code and captured in the DPAS II system. The Academic Dean supports the mission of the district and demonstrates school leadership in the following ways:

• Communicate the school mission and foster a school culture that emphasizes academic achievement for all students.

• Promote instructional innovation that influences and improves the entire school from within. • Analyze assessment data to drive decision making regarding effective instruction and student progress. • Lead teachers in making a classroom and school-wide culture that honors incremental progress while

demanding and rewarding effort and discipline. • Manage self and others in a manner that creates a healthy environment where staff members feel challenged,

as well as fully supported and valued. • Steer professional development in response to staff needs. • Manage walkthrough observation data. • Plan and provide professional development experiences during the school day and after school for teachers and staff. • Model best instructional practices through classroom coaching experiences and informal classroom observations. • Develop a comprehensive individualized professional development plan that facilitates continuous

improvement of instructional staff. • Design, implement, and evaluate a professional development program that ensures that all staff members have

the capacity to provide students with multiple pathways to success. • Establish small learning communities across grade levels.

• Regularly facilitate staff, department, and 1:1 meetings to support school-wide and individual teacher goals. • Supervise the core curricular areas and the World Language Department. • Manage instructional resources. • Develop a master schedule that supports differentiated learning experiences, maximizes instructional time, and

is aligned to the instructional needs of students. • Lead the observation/appraisal process of instructional staff within the target school. • Use formal observations and DPAS II procedures to provide feedback to teachers regarding their performance in

the classroom. • Use the DPAS II protocol to document ineffective teacher performance and provide this documentation to the

Office of Human Resources.



• Manage the DPAS II process and provide each teacher with additional observations beyond the minimum required. • Monitor student engagement and persistence during classroom instruction.

• Ensure that teachers have the necessary tools to provide students with multiple paths to success.

• Recommend instructional support materials, strategies, and interventions. • Manage the Cycle of Inquiry in the school building including creation, analysis, and reporting of Common

Formative Assessments and Common Quarterly Assessments. • Consistently guide school culture where students, educators, and members of the school community

demonstrate values, beliefs, and behaviors that lead to increased academic achievement. • Lead and evaluate the ongoing delivery of curricula to build a clear path to grade-level proficiency for all students. • Lead teachers in the use of the school’s detailed data analysis tools to drive instructional practices, re-teaching

strategies, and interventions. This includes extensive use of DCAS data. • Design and continually refine the school’s academic program (e.g., core curricula, interventions, electives, co-

curricular offerings) to successfully propel academic achievement through high-quality instruction.



Position Description for Academic Dean for PLCs

Job Title: Academic Dean for PLCs Position Type: Full-time

Funding Source: RTTT Location: District Office

Position Summary


The primary role of the Academic Dean for PLCs (professional learning communities) is to provide leadership in the strategic planning of instructional programs that support leadership and teacher effectiveness and enhance student learning. The Academic Dean for PLCs supports the mission of the district and demonstrates district leadership in the following ways:

• Communicate to the district community initiatives related to the district’s Race to the Top plan, PLCs, and professional development.

• Communicate the district mission and foster a district culture that emphasizes academic achievement for all students.

• Collaborate with the district’s Office of Curriculum and Instruction to provide strategic professional development to improve distributive leadership, instructional practices, and student achievement.

• Plan and provide district-level professional development experiences for administrators and teachers. • Develop a professional learning structure that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students and

that occurs within learning communities committed to continuous improvement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.

• Establish school-level PLCs throughout the district. • Design PLCs that increase educator effectiveness and improve results for all students by integrating research

and models of human learning. • Recommend instructional support materials, strategies, and interventions during district review of DCAS test

sessions (Fall, Winter, Spring). • Develop educators by enhancing their knowledge and skills and, in turn, the quality of student learning.

• Observe PLCs in action and provide support to further enhance the development of highly effective PLCs. • Support the district community in its efforts to increase parental involvement. • Analyze assessment data to drive decision making regarding effective instruction and student progress. • Collaborate with district departments and schools to enhance the district’s professional development delivery

model to provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development for staff that is aligned with students’ specific needs.

• Provide ongoing coaching to school-level Academic Deans to support the facilitation and implementation of PLCs. • Assist schools in developing master schedules that support differentiated learning experiences for staff and

students, maximize instructional time, and align with the instructional needs of students. • Support school-level Academic Deans in providing feedback to teachers regarding their performance in the

classroom. • Assist school-level Academic Deans in developing their instructional knowledge to support teachers during PLC

meetings.



Position Description for Manager of RTTT

Job Title: Manager of RTTT Position Type: Full-time

Funding Source: RTTT Location: District Office

Position Summary


The primary role of the Manager of RTTT is to manage the Race to the Top (RTTT) application for the Red Clay Consolidated School District. The performance responsibilities of the Manager of RTTT as are follows:

• Serve as a district liaison with the Delaware Department of Education as it pertains to RTTT. • Monitor compliance of all activities in the RTTT application by holding monthly meetings with the individuals

responsible for RTTT activities. • Oversee the district’s efforts to target high-need or low-achieving students for enrollment in advanced

coursework and to proactively support students in advanced coursework through tutoring. • Serve on the district’s School Support Team in order to help ensure the implementation of instructional

improvement systems and integration of State data coaches, by 1) monitoring instructional practice in the classroom, use of data to inform decision making, and allocation of talent and financial resources; 2) conducting formal and informal observations and providing recommendations for targeted school-level professional development; and 3) participating in the DPAS II process to ensure that it is implemented in accordance with guidelines and training.

• Help improve teacher and principal effectiveness by serving as an evaluator on the School Support Team. • As a member of the School Support Team, help ensure effective preparation of teachers and principals and

accelerate the development of instructional leaders by assisting administrators at assigned high-need schools in completing DPAS II evaluations.

• Help monitor schools under improvement and the turnaround of low-performing schools through involvement in the School Support Team, DPAS II evaluations, and community service and support.

• Implement strategies to engage families and communities in effectively supporting the academic success of students by focusing on high-need schools and high-need student populations (including First State School) and by providing parent sessions focused on parents of students in high-need schools and parent sessions targeted to parents of students enrolled in the pre-school program.

• Serve as the district-level contact for school nurses by managing nurses’ attendance, planning and providing PD for nurses, initiating or facilitating partnerships with community-based health providers, advising school administrators on matters related to school nursing, and completing an annual health accounting report and required documentation in order to maintain compliance with state requirements.

• Serve as a liaison to school-based wellness centers with school administrators, nurses, and vendors. • Serve as Principal to the First State School acting as a liaison with medical staff, teachers, administrators, and

community partners. • Collaborate with the Supervisor of Finance to monitor compliance and fidelity to programming and budget of

the RTTT grant. • Maintain the RTTT section of the district website. • Prepare and provide monthly updates related to RTTT (via the monitoring scorecard) for the Red Clay community.

1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2-11-63 Educational Consultative Services for Programming

in the Red Clay Consolidated School District Scope of Work The Red Clay Consolidated School District is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to provide educational consultative services (regular and special education) for all grade levels in the school district. The proposal will contain information to provide professional development for all new instructional administrators and continuous improvement professional development for all new and experienced instructional administrators on DPAS II. The successful vendor will provide consultative services to the School Support Team in the form of professional development related to standards-based instruction, instructional leadership and curriculum alignment. The successful vendor will work with the Superintendent or designee and the Board of Education to create a long-range plan that addresses the vision of the Superintendent and Board of Education to include: early childhood education, systemic professional development and educator effectiveness. Vendor Responsibilities

o Provide a mini-series of DPAS II professional development for all new instructional administrators. A two-day workshop in August 2011. Develop and deliver a series of trainings that will provide training for new

instructional leaders (building- and district- levels) aligned with the district’s professional development training from the 2010-11 school year.

o Provide a series of professional development workshops for all instructional administrators focused on continuous improvement related to DPAS II. Four training sessions offered during the 2011-12 school year. Deliver feedback to administrators on the writing of DPAS II evaluations

with a focus on providing meaningful and specific recommendations. Provide feedback on written DPAS II documents including the formative,

summative and improvement plan processes.

o Deliver job-embedded professional development with all instructional administrators based on the district’s walk-through document. Work with up to five schools providing one on-site training session per month during September through May (9 sessions per school) of the 2011-12 school year. Collaborate with district-level administrators to provide feedback to

building-level administrators on DPAS II.

o Provide a series of professional development workshops for teachers focused on sharing with teachers what administrators are looking for in the evaluation process. The workshops will provide teachers with information on the training

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix F


2

given to district- and building-level administrators in regard to DPAS II. Four training sessions offered during the 2011-12 school year.

o Provide professional development to the School Support Team and participate in School Support Team meetings and on-site visits. Work with the School Support Team in consultation with the Superintendent or designee (up to 10 sessions during the 2011-12 school year).

o Work with the Superintendent and the Board of Education to create a long-range

plan that addresses the district’s vision in the provision of services to all Red Clay students. Research effective plans and strategies. Create a framework for the development of the district’s plan. Collaborate with district staff and the Board of Education to develop

specific, measurable actions that accelerate progress toward the district’s goal of increasing student achievement, with a particular focus on the following areas:

Early childhood education initiative Systemic professional development Educator effectiveness Other areas of need determined by the Superintendent and the

Board of Education necessary to meet the goals of the district. General Information The district plans to award the contract to one successful bidder for a period of two years. The contract is performance-based and requires the successful bidder to achieve the goals described above. The district reserves the right to monitor, inspect, and evaluate the performance of the vendor and its staff on an on-going basis. The district may revise or terminate the contract if the vendor fails to provide the services or remediate deficiencies after receiving notice of such by the district. Questions Any questions related to this RFP may be directed to Dr. Hugh Broomall, Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services, at (302) 552-3706. Proposals Bidders must submit a narrative plan explaining how they will provide the services or address the responsibilities listed in this RFP. The narrative plan should clearly identify and describe the following: the staff providing the service, the expertise and/or experience of the staff, and the relationship that the staff will have with district employees in providing the service.



3

All proposals must include a budget for the following categories:

Administrative costs Staff (salaries and other costs) Transportation Materials and supplies Professional development Service contracts Profit Final cost to district

Copies Six (6) copies of your proposal must be submitted. A failure to do so may cause for a rejection of your proposal. Documentation The following documentation/information must be included with the proposal:

Detailed job description and resume of the supervisor/administrator identifying experience in the vendor responsibilities described

Resumes of all staff members Signed Proposal Form (attached)

The following documentation will be required of the successful bidder:

Criminal background check for all employees Documentation of PPD test (within five years) Child Protection Registry clearance Appropriate Department of Education certifications for all employees Certificate of Liability Insurance

Criteria for Award Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Demonstrated ability to provide required services 50% Experience of vendor 30% Cost to the district 20%

Bid Bond The district hereby waives the requirement for a Bid Deposit in the amount of 10% of the bid.



4

Performance Bond The district hereby waives the requirement that the successful bidder execute a 100% Performance Bond. Contract Period This contract shall be in effect for a two-year period, August 1, 2011 through July 31, 2013. This contract may be extended, upon mutual agreement, to include additional time periods. Increase in fees, if accepted as part of a contract extension, shall not exceed the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W, Phila. Region) for the latest 12-month period at the time of acceptance. Interviews/Samples Upon request, bidders must submit samples of previous completed assignments and also be available, within 48 hours notice, for interviews conducted by district personnel. Early Termination The district may terminate this contract at any time. There will be no early termination charges and the district must provide a 30-day written notice to implement early termination. Non-Performance In the event the contractor does not fulfill its obligations under the terms and conditions of this contract, the district may purchase equivalent service. Any difference in cost between the contract prices herein and the price of open market service shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Under no circumstances shall monies be due the contractor in the event open market product can be obtained below contract cost. Any monies charged to the contractor may be deducted from an open invoice.



5

PROPOSAL FORM

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2-11-63 Educational Consultative Services for Programming

in the Red Clay Consolidated School District

The above costs are submitted in accordance with the General Instructions to bidders, and the Specifications. Any exceptions to these are to be listed below; otherwise, I agree to complete the contract as per the General Instructions and Specifications: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

NAME OF COMPANY SUBMITTING PROPOSAL ______________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS

______________________________________________________________________ THE UNDERSIGNED BIDDER CERTIFIES THAT NEITHER HE NOR ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS COMPANY HAS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT, PARTICIPATED IN ANY COLLUSION, OR OTHERWISE TAKEN ANY ACTION IN RESTRAINT OF FREE COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROPOSAL. _______________________________________________ _________________________ SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DATE ____________________________________________ _____________________ NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE (PRINT) FEDERAL E.I. NUMBER ______________________________________ _______ _____________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER (TOLL FREE IF AVAILABLE) FAX NUMBER RFP OPENING: June 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM PROPOSALS NOT RECEIVED BY THIS TIME WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE.



Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix G


RTTT Organizational Chart

Superintendent

Dep. Superintendent for Student Support Services

Manager of RTTT Directors of Schools

Principals

Academic Deans

Building Leadership Teams

School and Data Test Coordinators

School Support Team

Board of Education

Data Coaches

Development Coaches

Educational Consultants

Red Clay Consolidated School District Success Plan 2011–14 Appendix H


Glossary of Abbreviations AP: Advanced Placement. AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress. BLT: Building Leadership Team. CIA-PD: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and

Professional Development. CTE: Career and Technical Education. DCAS: Delaware Comprehensive Assessment

System. DCAS OR: DCAS Online Reports. DDOE: Delaware Department of Education. DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

Skills. DPAS II: Delaware Performance Appraisal System II. DPAS II ERS: DPAS II Evaluation Reporting System. DSTP: Delaware Student Testing Program. DSTP OR: DSTP Online Reports. DWPR: Data Warehouse Public Reports. ELA: English Language Arts. ELL: English Language Learner. ELP: English Language Proficiency. EPER: Extra Pay for Extra Responsibilities. ESPES: Education Success Planning and Evaluation

System. HAC: Home Access Center. IB: International Baccalaureate. IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IEP: Individualized Education Program. IST: Instructional Support Team. MAP: Measures of Academic Progress. MOU: Memorandum of Understanding. NAEP: National Assessment of Educational

Progress. NBCT: National Board Certified Teacher. NCLB: No Child Left Behind. NLNS: New Leaders for New Schools. OECs: other employment costs. PD: professional development. PLC: professional learning community.

PSAT (PSAT/NMSQT): Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test.

RCCSD: Red Clay Consolidated School District. RCEA: Red Clay Education Association. RCPAC: Red Clay Parent Advisory Council. RTI: Response to Intervention. RTTT: Race to the Top. SAMs: School Administration Managers. SDTC: School Data and Test Coordinator. SoW: Scope of Work. SST: School Support Team. STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics. SW: statewide. SY: school year. TEMA: Test of Early Mathematics Ability. TLEU: Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit. TOPEL: Test of Preschool Early Literacy.

Documents

Red Clay Consolidated School District Race to The Top Plan