1. Continual Improvement Process Oregon Department of Education April, 2012

2. AGENDA GOAL: This informational session will review requirements for the evaluation of the 2011-12 improvement plans and some principles of Effective Planning for Continual District/School Program Improvement. 1.Review Rubric for evaluation of implementation of Title III Improvement Plans. 2.Lessons Learned  Section A– Planning,  Section B Implementing,  Section C Monitoring. 2

3. SY 2007-08 Parent Notification SY 2008-09 Parent Notification After Two years: Improvement Plan; TA SY 2009-10 Parent Notification After Two years: Improvement Plan; TA SY 2010-11 Parent Notification After four years: Modify Curriculum/ Instruction or Funding? Replacement of Personnel 4 yrs. 2 yrs. TIMELINE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LEAS 3 3 yrs. 1 yr

4. Example of a timeline for Implementing Plans/Provisions Implementation of 2 year plans / 4 year provisions (throughout the year the subgrantee did not meet AMAOs) Development of 2 year plans / 4 year provisions (mid fall) AMAO letters sent to parents (within 30 days) AMAO notifications sent to districts / subgrantees (late summer / early fall) 4

5. 5

6. 6 EVALUATION OF IP PLANS 2011-12 PROCESS: 1.Follow Guidelines in Evaluation Rubric 2.Evaluation will be the first item on the submission of 2012-13 IP Plans 3.Missing items from the evaluation will result in returning the 2012-13 IP Plans for review. 4.Why? The 2012-13 plans are a follow-up of the 2011-12 IPs 5.All plans should be sent to Leslie Casebeer by June 29, 2012.

7. EVALUATION RUBRIC – 3 GUIDELINES 1)Procedures ( A series of actions or steps taken to achieve an end) are provided to monitor to assess the implementation for all activities set forth in the master plan; 2) The formative (short-term) evaluation procedures should seek to determine if the strategy had the expected effect on student achievement; 3) The summative (long-term) evaluation procedures should seek to determine if the goals and objectives (activities) have been attained. Adapted from the Louisiana Department of Education 7

8. EVALUATION RUBRIC 8

9. Guideline II. The formative (short-term) evaluation procedures should seek to determine if the strategy had the expected effect on student achievement. Did the evaluation procedures provide sufficient evidence to evaluate the short-term effects for each strategy on student achievement? Short-term effects may have included student portfolios, comparison of student’s work throughout the year, teacher-made tests, or other similar type evidence. 9

10. EVALUATION RUBRIC Guideline III. The summative (long-term) evaluation procedures should seek to determine if the goals and objectives have been attained.  Did the summative evaluation adequately convey if the school/district is improving?  The summative evaluation should include the applicable testing instruments with descriptions of how they were used to determine if the goals and objectives were attained.  This evaluation should include a comparison and/or analysis of test data but may also include other types of assessment and/or qualitative data. 10

11. QUESTIONS 11

12. SCHOOL/DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT: THE LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING CENTER  Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Planning, Inquiry, SMART Goals 12  Monitoring: Master Plan, Frequency, Measuring Progress, Evaluation  Implementation: Research-based strategies, design of master plan, professional learning, parental engagement

13. COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT PLANNING Assessment Results  Gather and reflect on school/district data: external and internal. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. Comprehensive Needs Assessment Planning Teacher Practices  Focuses conversation on research-based best practices  Educators talk about their practices, share their knowledge and skills and support one another in the specific contexts in which they work. 19

21. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING FOR THE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Leadership Performance: Implementing Innovations:  Develops, articulates, and communicates a shared vision of the intended change.  Investing in professional learning.  Monitoring— Checking on progress.  Providing continual assistance.  Creating a context supportive of change. 21

22. STOP 22

23. QUESTIONS? 23

24. STRENGTHS: THE LEADERSHIP TEAM  Reflect and celebrate program strengths;  Determine what is currently working well and why;  Assist in building program capacity in identifying strengths, areas which require attention to sustain strengths;  Foster introspection, reflection and analysis;  Lead to better planning with precision and intentionality;  Act as a catalyst for collaborative and collegial conversations about sustainability from within. 24

25. AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT: THE LEADERSHIP TEAM  Identify areas in need of improvement;  Identify a “vital few” key areas upon which to focus improvement efforts ;  Acts as a catalyst for collaborative and collegial conversations about improvement from within;  Provides a forum for consensus building around program improvement;  Develops a deeper understanding of the unique improvement needs of schools and facilitates the communication of the improvement goals;  Identify possible cause and effect scenarios. 25

26. SMART Goals Specific and Strategic – Have you articulated precisely what you want to achieve and have priorities been strategically selected based on a comprehensive needs assessment? Measurable- Are you able to assess/ measure your progress? Achievable- Is the goal within your reach and within your control? Are targets ambitious yet attainable? Results-Based – Have established base-line data and targets of where you want to end up? Time-bound- What is the dead-line for completing your goal? 26

27. Specific and Strategic Ask questions such as:  In what area are a significant number of students experiencing difficulty?  What specific aspect of this area of concern would make the biggest impact for students if improvement occurred?  If students could change and do “X” in this area, would they benefit greatly – would it positively impact other areas of their learning?  If our goal was achieved and the specific area identified was significantly improved, what would students be doing? In other words, what would be the indicators? 27

28. Measurable Ask questions such as.....  What tool(s) will best measure if targets have been achieved?  Can the tool(s) be used to establish a baseline?  What is the achievement target for your students? 28

29. Attainable Ask questions such as.....  Is what we are expecting reasonable?  Do we have the capacity to make the desired change? If “yes”, how do we most effectively use our capacity to make the changes? If “no”, how do we prepare ourselves so we have the capacity to make the changes? 29

30. Setting Attainable Targets According to The Leadership and Learning Centre: If student performance is in the: 1 st quartile the percentage increase should be at least 20% 2 nd quartile at least 12% 3 rd quartile – around 7% Top quartile – around 4% (Dr. Douglas Reeves, 2007) 30

31. Results -Oriented Ask these questions...  Why is it important for staff to achieve this goal?  Have ambitious yet attainable targets been set? 31

32. Time Bound Ask questions such as....  What is the timeframe for achieving this goal?  What strategies are in place to keep us on track (monitoring strategies and time) 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. PARENT PARTICIPATION 35

36. .. 36

37. .. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation 40

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43 Title III Contacts Kim A. Miller Education Specialist Education Improvement and Innovation kim.a.miller@state.or.us (503) 947-5712 kim.a.miller@state.or.us Leslie Casebeer Leslie.Casebeer@state.or.us Phone: (503) 947-5648 Fax: (503) 378-5156

44. 44 Title III Contacts Carmen West Program Specialist for Title III, ESL, Bilingual Programs Education Improvement and Innovation carmen.west@state.or.us carmen.west@state.or.us 503-947-5669 44