SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #1

Strategic Planning – Planning Review

Agenda

1. 2011-2014 Plan Review2. 2011-2012 Year in Review

1. Planning Basis2. Accomplishments3. Balanced Scorecard4. Student Performance5. Olweus Data

3. Plan Additions/Revisions4. Adjourn

Continuous Improvement

Analyze Data The Board reviewed data prior to

the 2010-2011 school year in preparation for developing the Strategic Plan

Set Goals Strategic Plan adopted during

2010-2011 school year. Plan

Administrative Action Plan developed and approved by the Board during the 2010-2011 School Year.

Implement The Administrative Action Plan

was implemented by the District. Evaluate

The Board’s role tonight. Analyze Data

Also the Board’s role tonight. Begin the cycle again.

Our Direction for Strategic Planning AdvancED Contracted by the WDE to conduct district

accreditation visits. Accreditation Standards:

Vision and Purpose Governance and Leadership Teaching and Learning Documenting and Using Results Resources and Support Systems Stakeholder Communication and Relationships Commitment to Continuous Improvement

AdvancED has stated that these seven standards will be condensed to five in the near future.

Our strategic plan is aligned to the AdvancED standards to facilitate the accreditation process.

Our Research Basis for Planning WSBA – Board Leadership Governance McREL - School Leadership that Works McREL – What Works in Schools McREL – Classroom Instruction that

Works

Our Research Basis for Planning WSBA – Board Leadership Governance

Board Governance Leadership Policy Manual Ongoing WSBA and NSBA training

McREL - School Leadership that Works 21 Leadership Responsibilities

McREL Principal Evaluation Balanced Leadership Training (2012-2013)

McREL – What Works in Schools McREL – Classroom Instruction that Works

Our Research Basis for Planning McREL – What Works in Schools

Five School Level Factors Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback Parent and Community Involvement Safe and Orderly Environment Collegiality and Professionalism

Our Research Basis for Planning McREL – Classroom Instruction that Works (McREL

Teacher Evaluation and McREL Power Walkthroughs) Nine categories of instructional strategies that

maximize student learning for all students. Identifying Similarities and Differences Summarizing and Note Taking Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition Homework and Practice Nonlinguistic Representation Cooperative Learning Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback Generating and Testing Hypotheses Cues, Questions, and Advanced Organizers

2011-2014 Plan Review

2011-2014 Plan Review

2011-2014 Plan Review

2011-2014 Plan Review

2011-2014 Plan Review

Accomplishments

Opening of Pinedale Elementary School

Three-Year Strategic Plan Autism Camp Mentoring and Induction Program New Teacher Evaluation System Board Docs McREL Power Walkthroughs

Accomplishments

Increased Communication from the District Office (Blog / Radio Show)

Distance Education Handbook Realignment of Technology

Department Shuttle Bus Between Campuses

(now also stopping at the library) 360 Degree Appraisals for

Administrators

Accomplishments

Public Participation Guidelines/Forms for Board Meetings

New Attendance Policy New Behavior and Discipline

Code Alignment of Student Handbooks Renaissance Program at High

School Board Governance Policy Manual

Accomplishments

Decrease the number of teacher absences due to Staff Development, School Business and Activities by 14.6%

Million Minutes Reading Facilities Master Plan Tax District 102 Use of Balance Scorecard and Quality

Dashboard

Balanced Scorecard

The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning mechanism to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improve internal and external communications, and monitor organization performance against strategic goals.

Balanced Scorecard

Balanced Scorecard

Balanced Scorecard

Specific Board Goals

MAP Performance:

Increase the % of students meeting MAP growth target in Reading and Math.

The percentage of students meeting their MAP target scores in Reading and Math in each classroom will be 60%.

MAP Performance Levels Review Student Performance Levels based on

MAP Scores as defined by NWEA, the providers of the MAP Test: Low student growth, as measured by a

percentage of students meeting or exceeding their RIT score, will be below 40%.  

Typical student growth will be between 40% - 59.9%.

High student growth will be between 60% - 69.9%.

District MAP Performance Goals 2010-2011: 60.0% 2011-2012 62.5% 2012-2013 65.0% 2013-2014 67.5% 2014-2015 70.0%

While the final MAP performance goal will be 70%, all performance in the 60%-70% band should be considered excellent based on the NWEA normative study.

If NWEA changes the performance bands as a result of new normative studies, we will adjust our performance goals to match.

MAP Performance

Pinedale Elementary School - Reading

5.05% Increase

High Student Growth

100% of PES Teachers Met Goal of 60% Reading Performance Level

MAP Performance

Pinedale Elementary School - Math

7.55% Increase

High Student Growth

100% of PES Teachers Met Goal of 60% Math Performance Level

MAP Performance

Pinedale Middle School - Reading

7.77% Increase

High Student Growth

100% of PMS Teachers Met Goal of 60% Reading Performance Level

MAP Performance

Pinedale Middle School - Math

1.63% Decrease*

High Student Growth

5/6 (83)% of PMS Teachers Met Goal of 60% Math Performance Level

MAP Performance

Pinedale High School - Reading

9.00% Increase

Typical Student Growth

½ (50%) of PHS Teachers Met Goal of 60% Reading Performance Level

MAP Performance

Pinedale High School - Math

1.01% Decrease

High Student Growth

2/3 (67%) of PMS Teachers Met Goal of 60% Reading Performance Level*

*Maternity Leave

MAP Performance

District Average Performance in Reading:75.55% (High Student Growth)All Grades but 9th (47.10%) Met Target for High

Student Growth

District Average Performance in Mathematics:77.20% (High Student Growth) All Grades but 10th (46.80%) Met Target for High

Student Growth

Teachers Meeting MAP Mathematics Target Performance Goals

31/33 - 94%

Teachers Meeting MAP Reading Target Performance Goals 30/31 - 97%

Specific Board Goals

PAWS Performance: Increase the % of students achieving proficient/advanced on PAWS Reading and Math assessments.

PAWS Performance

1.Performance Matters - Cohort Comparison

2.Performance Matters – District Rankings

3.Performance Matters – 3rd Grade Lexile

PAWS Mathematics Performance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201160.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

70.88%

80.74%

78.41% 78.44%

75.87%

83.91%

AVERAGE PAWS TEST PERFORMANCEMathematics - All Grades

PAWS Reading Performance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

74.61%78.91%

72.33%69.76%

63.14%

78.74%

AVERAGE PAWS TEST PERFORMANCEReading - All Grades

PAWS Writing Performance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

54.04%

72.00%

53.31%

66.46%

79.17% 78.85%

AVERAGE PAWS TEST PERFORMANCEWriting - All Grades

PAWS Science Performance

2008 2009 2010 201148.00%

49.00%

50.00%

51.00%

52.00%

53.00%

54.00%

55.00%

56.00%

57.00%

58.00%57.47%

51.29%

51.93%

56.42%

AVERAGE PAWS TEST PERFORMANCEScience - All Grades

PAWS Performance vs. State - Reading

PAWS Performance vs. State - Math

PAWS Performance vs. State - Writing

PAWS Performance vs. State - Science

PAWS Summary

Highest average Mathematics score for all grades since 2006 (earliest recorded PAWS scores).

Second highest average Reading score for all grades (-0.17%) since 2006.

Second highest average Writing score for all grades (-0.32%).

Second highest average Science score for all grades (-1.5%) since 2008 (inception of PAWS Science test).

While we experienced improvement in many areas, we still have significant room for improvement. The transition of PAWS to CCSS will be extremely important.

The Future of PAWS

Transition to CCSS 2011-2012 – Current WDE standards 2012-2013 – Current WDE standards (may pilot some CCSS) 2013-2014 – PAWS/CCSS Standards 2014-2015 – CCSS Standards

Significant questions whether Wyoming will join a national consortium for CCSS testing or go on their own with a contractor (Pearson, etc.).

State BOE and legislators have not come to a consensus on CCSS.

It will be difficult to align our curriculum to the standards during the transition. The board can expect erratic scores. MAP scores become increasing important during the transition phase.

Olweus Data

The District is using six indicators from the Olweus survey to gauge bullying behavior in our schools. The following questions are being used as indicators. Percentage of students who have been bullied "2-3 times per

month" or more in the past couple of months. Percentage of students who have been bullied "2-3 times per

month" or more in the past couple of months who have told someone about the bullying.

Percentage of students who report that teachers or other adults at school try to put a stop to it when a student is bullied at school.

Percentage of students who report that other students at school try to put a stop to it when a student is bullied at school.

Percentage of students who report that they are "never or seldom" afraid of being bullied at school.

Percentage of students who report that their teachers have done "a good deal or much" to cut down on bullying in the classroom in the past couple of months.

Olweus Data

Question PES 08 PES 10 % Change PMS 08 PMS 10 % Change 2008 AVG 2010 AVG % Change4 23.4% 23.9% -0.5% 16.5% 17.8% -1.3% 20.0% 20.9% -0.9000%

19 63.6% 69.7% 6.1% 44.7% 67.6% 22.9% 54.2% 68.7% 14.5000%20 44.5% 67.5% 23.0% 48.9% 41.3% -7.6% 46.7% 54.4% 7.7000%21 32.0% 47.9% 15.9% 22.8% 15.5% -7.3% 27.4% 31.7% 4.3000%38 56.8% 63.5% 6.7% 74.2% 75.4% 1.2% 65.5% 69.5% 3.9500%39 57.2% 82.8% 25.6% 31.4% 46.8% 15.4% 44.3% 64.8% 20.5000%

Olweus Data

1 2 3 4 5 6

20.0%

54.2%

46.7%

27.4%

65.5%

44.3%

20.8%

68.7%

54.4%

31.7%

69.5%64.8%

-0.9%

14.5%

7.7%4.3% 4.0%

20.5%

District Olweus Bullying Data

2008 AVG 2010 AVG % Change

1. Percentage of students who have been bullied "2-3 times per month" or more in the past couple of months.

2. Percentage of students who have been bullied "2-3 times per month" or more in the past couple of months who have told someone about the bullying.

3. Percentage of students who report that teachers or other adults at school try to put a stop to it when a student is bullied at school.

4. Percentage of students who report that other students at school try to put a stop to it when a student is bullied at school.

5. Percentage of students who report that they are "never or seldom" afraid of being bullied at school.6. Percentage of students who report that their teachers have done "a good deal or much" to cut

down on bullying in the classroom in the past couple of months.

Olweus Data

Synopsis:

Although the number of students reporting that they have been bullied “2-3 times per month” has not decreased, there are a number of areas related to bullying in the schools that have shown significant improvement. This is especially true at the elementary level. The data tells us that students are less afraid of being bullied at school, are more likely to inform a teacher or other adult at the school when bullying occurs, and that teachers are doing more to prevent bullying.

Plan Additions / Revisions

Parameters: Maintain/Reduce the Size/Scope of the

Strategic Plan The District is undertaking the adoption of the

Common Core State Standards, a new teacher/principal evaluation system and moving forward with our 1:1 initiative. We need to minimize new initiatives until these highly critical components are finished.

Follow-Up on Successes Move from implementing Board Governance

Leadership and Strategic Planning to monitoring Board Governance Leadership.

Action Steps – Plan Revision

Two Teams Team A

Four Board Members: Legerski, Makelky, McAdams

Team B – Four Members Three Board Members Leiseth, Turcato, Fluckiger, Halllam

Team A Vision and Purpose Governance and Leadership Teaching and Learning

Team B Documenting and Using Results Resources and Support Systems Stakeholder Communication Continuous Commitment to Improvement

Action Steps – Plan Revision

Team Tasks:1. Review all current items.2. Draft proposed revisions / additions.3. Discuss potential performance measures.

Whole Group Tasks1. Present proposed revisions to whole group

for discussion and review.2. Finalize additions to plan.