“Creating Conditions for Learning by Design, Not By Chance” Local District 7 Principals’ Conference September 13, 2006

Expectations 1. Operate for the good of students and the community we serve. 2. Promote equity and respect among all members of the school community. 3. Shape a culture in which high expectations are the norm for each student and every adult. 4. Be accountable and responsible for your actions and for the actions of the people who work with you.

Goals 1. All schools are implementing the District’s Literacy and Mathematics Plan that addresses the needs of all learners including EL, SEL, Special Education and Gifted students. 2. All schools demonstrate a commitment to the Superintendent’s Theory of Action 3. All schools are aligning resources to support instructional priorities

Theory of Action Instructional Guides Periodic Assessments Use of data Job-embedded professional development—including coaching Strong and knowledgeable leadership Monitoring for implementation

Superintendent’s Charge Our charge is to fundamentally improve the interaction between the teacher and the student to create critical thinkers prepared to participate in a diverse and complex society.

VISION STATEMENT Local District 7 schools will ensure that every student will receive a high quality education in a safe and student-centered environment so that they learn the skills and develop abilities which will help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making.

Mission Statement Local District 7 is a diverse, urban, comprehensive, public school system which provides rigorous standards based instruction that prepares students to contribute to the development of society and self.

Mission Statement, Con’t. Local District 7 schools will: Maintain safe, clean, nurturing and well supervised campuses. Build student-teacher interactions to facilitate high levels of learning. Provide for a variety of learning and teaching modalities to address the needs of diverse learners. Develop student’s sense of self-pride, reciprocal respect, and ownership of their learning. Foster abilities for students to develop life skills to function as a contributing member of society.

Who Said It? “What got us here, will not get us there.” “Change the focus from year to year to long-term planning.” “Transformation begins in the heart.” “Ask teachers: How much will students have grown after they leave your classroom?”

Opportunity To Learn Building Blocks 5.1Create school environments which foster student resilience, provide timely needed academic, social and psychological support mechanisms: Develop clear and rigorous goals for what students should know and be able to do

Opportunity To Learn Building Blocks Communicate expectations to teachers, administrators, parents, students and community Provide samples of student work which meet standards and communicate what is expected to all constituencies

Local District 7 Data

Percent of District 7 Elementary School Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in ELA (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group, 2006) At the elementary school level, District 7 met state AYP goals in ELA for Latino students. District 7 met its 2006 LD7 goals in ELA overall and in all groups except for special education. AYP Goal = 24.4%, 2006 & 2007 N. LALWANI, 2006 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 24.0%, Af. Am, 19.8%, Lat, 23.4%, EL., 20.3% & Sp. Ed., 14.8%

Percent of District 7 Elementary School Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in Math (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group) At the elementary school level, District 7 met state AYP goals in math overall and for all groups except special education students. District 7 met its 2006 LD7 goals in the African-American and Latino groups. N. LALWANI, AYP Goal = 26.5%, 2006 & 2007 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 38.5%, Af. Am, 26.6%, Lat, 39.5%, EL., 37.2% & Sp. Ed., 17.9%

Percent of District 7 Middle School Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in ELA (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group) At the middle school level, District 7 did not meet state AYP or 2006 LD7 goals in ELA overall or in any of its groups. N. LALWANI, AYP Goal = 24.4%, 2006 & 2007 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 21.7%, Af. Am, 18.7%, Lat, 21.7%, EL., 19.3% & Sp. Ed., 16.1%

Percent of District 7 Middle School Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in Math (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group) At the middle school level, District 7 did not meet state AYP or 2006 LD7 goals in math overall or in any of its groups. N. LALWANI, AYP Goal = 26.5%, 2006 & 2007 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 17.5%, Af. Am, 14.3%, Lat, 17.5%, EL., 15.9% & Sp. Ed., 13.2%

Percent of District 7 Senior High Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in ELA (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group) At the senior high level, District 7 met state AYP goals in ELA overall and for African-American students and Latino students. English Learner and special education students did not meet state AYP goals. District 7 met its 2006 LD7 goals in ELA overall and in the African-American and Latino groups. N. LALWANI, AYP Goal = 22.3%, 2006 & 2007 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 21.7%, Af. Am, 18.7%, Lat, 21.7%, EL., 19.3% & Sp. Ed., 16.1%

Percent of District 7 Senior High Students Scoring At or Above Proficient in Math (By Adequate Yearly Progress Group) At the senior high level, District 7 did not meet state AYP goals in math overall or in any of its groups. District 7 met its 2006 LD7 goal for African-American students. N. LALWANI, AYP Goal = 20.9%, 2006 & 2007 = LD7 Goal, LD7 Goals = All, 17.5%, Af. Am, 14.3%, Lat, 17.5%, EL., 15.9% & Sp. Ed., 13.2%

Percent of District 7 Elementary Schools Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress Targets in 2006 (By Subject and Population) English Language ArtsMath In District 7 elementary schools, meeting AYP proficiency goals occurs with considerably greater frequency in math than in English language arts, particularly for Latino students and English learners. N. LALWANI,

English Language Arts Mathematics All Students African- American Latino English Learner Special Education All Students African- American Latino English Learner Special Education FremontNONOYESNONONONONONONO JordanNONONONONONONONONONO King Drew YESYESYESYESNOYESYESYESYESNO LockeNONONONONONONONONONO Manual Arts NONONONONONONONONONO BethuneNONONONONONONONONONO DrewNONONONONONONONONONO EdisonNONONONONONONONONONO GomperNONONONONONONONONONO MarkhamNONONONONONONONONONO MuirNONONONONONONONONONO Profile of Whether or Not 2006 Adequate Yearly Progress Proficiency Goals Were Met in District 7 Secondary Schools (By Location, Group and Area) King-Drew met AYP proficiency goals for all numerically significant subgroups. Latino students at Fremont met the AYP proficiency goal in English language arts. N. LALWANI,

Mean API Scores at the Elementary Level (By Year and Location) From 2005 to 2006, District 7 increased its API by 16 points, LAUSD by 13 and the State of California by 12 points. Elementary level API growth in recent years appears to be slower than in previous years for all locations. N. LALWANI,

Mean API Scores at the Middle School Level (By Year and Location) From 2005 to 2006, District 7 decreased its API by 2 points, LAUSD increased its API by 10, and the State of California increased its API by 8 points. Middle school level API growth in recent years appears to be slowing at all locations, and in District 7, we have seen a decline for the first time. N. LALWANI,

Mean API Scores at the High School Level (By Year and Location) From 2005 to 2006, District 7 decreased its API by 3 points and LAUSD by 4. In the State of California, the API increased by 8 points. At the high school level, progress appears to be variable, intermingled with periods of decline. N. LALWANI,

Los Angeles Unified School District Reclassification Findings

Percentage of English Learners Reclassified to English Proficient Total District 1 2.6%4.6%7.9%11.4% District 2 2.6%4.8%7.4%9.1% District 3 2.4%4.2%7.6%9.3% District 4 2.4%4.8%8.9%10.2% District 5 1.2%3.3%7.5%9.4% District 6 1.8%3.6%8.2%10.5% District 7 1.6%4.0%6.6%6.8% District 8 2.6%5.0%8.0%10.1% LAUSD2.1%4.2%7.7%9.5% California7.7%8.3%9.0%9.6%

Percentage of English Learners Reclassified to English Proficient Elementary District 1 3.1%4.1%5.7%9.4% District 2 2.7%4.7%5.9%7.4% District 3 2.9%4.4%5.5%7.8% District 4 2.6%4.8%7.3%9.3% District 5 1.4%3.7%5.4%8.5% District 6 1.8%4.1%7.8%10.6% District 7 1.6%4.6%6.2%5.8% District 8 3.0%5.6%7.0%9.3% LAUSD2.4%4.5%6.5%8.6%

Percentage of English Learners Reclassified to English Proficient Middle School District 1 2.1%7.7%13.9%17.1% District 2 2.0%6.0%12.7%17.0% District 3 2.3%6.0%16.2%15.0% District 4 2.5%5.6%15.7%14.9% District 5 1.0%3.0%13.6%14.3% District 6 1.8%3.4%13.5%13.5% District 7 1.5%3.3%10.9%9.2% District % 4.5%12.9%14.2% LAUSD2.1%5.6%14.9%15.8%

Percentage of English Learners Reclassified to English Proficient High School Grades District 1 1.5%3.3%8.9%11.3% District 2 2.7%4.2%7.1%6.6% District 3 0.7%1.8%6.3%8.1% District 4 1.4%3.4%7.4%8.4% District 5 0.2%2.3%7.4%6.1% District 6 2.4%0.4%2.8%6.0% District 7 1.9%2.4%2.7%7.8% District % 2.5%6.2%7.6% LAUSD1.7%2.8%6.9%8.6%

MCD Outcomes by Local District

Outcome 1: Participation in the (STAR) Statewide Assessment Program Year-end and PRELIMINARY

Outcome 1: Participation in the (STAR) Statewide Assessment Program Year-end and PRELIMINARY

Outcome 2: Performance in the (STAR) Statewide Assessment Program (Math) Year-end and PRELIMINARY

Outcome 2: Performance in the (STAR) Statewide Assessment Program (Math) Year-end and PRELIMINARY

Outcome 5: Suspension Rate for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 5: Suspension Rate for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 5: Long-Term Suspension Rate for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 5: Long-Term Suspension Rate for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 5: Relative Risk of Suspension for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 5: Relative Risk of Suspension for Students with Disabilities Year-end and

Outcome 6: Placement of Students with Disabilities (SLD/SLI) Year-end and

Outcome 6: Placement of Students with Disabilities (SLD/SLI) Year-end and

Outcome 7: Placement of Students with Disabilities (Not SLD/SLI) Year-end and

Outcome 7: Placement of Students with Disabilities (Not SLD/SLI) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 50 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 50 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 65 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 65 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 65 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 65 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 65 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 80 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations (Within 80 Days) Year-end and

Outcome 14: Parent Participation Year-end and

Outcome 14: Parent Participation Year-end and

Outcome 17: Behavioral Support Plan (Students with Autism) Year-end and

Outcome 17: Behavioral Support Plan (Students with Autism) Year-end and

Outcome 17: Behavioral Support Plan (Students with Emotional Disturbance) Year-end and

Outcome 17: Behavioral Support Plan (Students with Emotional Disturbance) Year-end and

Creating Conditions For Learning “Improvement is change with direction, sustained over time, that moves entire systems, raising the average level of quality and performance while at the same time decreasing the variation among units, and engaging people in the analysis and understanding of why some actions seem to work and others don’t.” Richard Elmore

PELP Coherence Framework

“Change throughout the system will not come about through a thousand points of light, but from steadily increasing, concentrated light and heat of one sun.” Donahoe 1993 Creating Conditions For Learning

Reflective Questions What are your greatest challenges as it relates to the instructional program and student achievement? What are your apprehensions?