SCHOOL APPLICATION/ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL NEEDS
MOUNT CLEMENS COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
LEA APPLICATION
Part I
[pic]
[pic]
LEA Application Requirements
|SCHOOLS TO BE SERVED: An LEA must include the following information with respect to the schools it will serve with a School Improvement |
|Grant. |
| |
|From the list of eligible schools, an LEA must identify each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school the LEA commits to serve and identify the |
|model that the LEA will use in each Tier I and Tier II school. Detailed descriptions of the requirements for each intervention are in |
|Attachment II. |
|Note: Do not complete information about Tier III at this time. |
| |
|SCHOOL |
|NAME |
|NCES ID # |
|TIER |
|I |
|TIER II |
|TIER III |
|INTERVENTION (TIER I AND II ONLY) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|turnaround |
|restart |
|closure |
|transformation |
| |
|Mount Clemens High School |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|X |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Note: An LEA that has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the transformation model in more than 50 percent of those |
|schools. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Mount Clemens High School
Improving Student Achievement and School Climate Through a Transformation Model of Change
Summary of project objectives and expected outcomes: The overall goal of this project is to improve student achievement in the content areas of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies through tightening the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This would resolve issues with discipline, attendance, social promotion, accountability, and mission. Over the period of the grant, we expect to:
• Increase the pass rate of students in reading and mathematics to meet or exceed the state’s annual objectives by 2013
• Increase pass rate of students in science and social studies to meet or exceed the state’s accreditation process earning scores of “A” on the report card’s achievement section
• Tighten the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment by updating the curriculum to reflect current assessment practices and incorporate the national common core standards. Once the curriculum is updated, incorporate research based strategies to teach the curriculum in a highly competent manner. Develop comprehensive formative and summative assessments to support data analysis on how well students are receiving the curriculum and instruction at the classroom level.
• Decrease disciplinary issues from 216 suspensions a year by 15% the first year; 30% the second year; and 50% the third year.
• Decrease the incidents of absences from current levels (12% annually) to fewer than 8%
• Increase teacher and student accountability for attendance, behavior, and academic performance through established protocol and procedures
• Increase staff and student awareness of vision and goals to the degree necessary to promote success across all aspects of student achievement
• Increase graduation rate to meet or exceed state objectives
• Decrease dropout rate to meet or exceed state objectives
• Increase highly effective leaders via new evaluation tool
• Increase highly effective teachers via new evaluation tool.
|DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: An LEA must include the following information in its application for a School Improvement Grant. LEA’s are encouraged to refer to their |
|Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) and District Improvement Plan (DIP) to complete the following: |
| |
|Provide a narrative description following each of the numbered items below for each school the LEA plans to serve with School Improvement Grant funds.|
| |
|1. For each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits to serve, the LEA must: |
| |
|Describe the process the LEA has used to analyze the needs of each school and how the intervention was selected for each school. (Detailed |
|descriptions of the requirements for each intervention are in Attachment II.) The LEA must analyze the needs of each Tier I, II or III school using |
|complete and consistent data. (Attachment III provides a possible model for that analysis.) (Note: Do not complete analysis for Tier III at this |
|time.) |
|Describe how the LEA has the capacity to use school improvement funds to provide adequate resources and related support to each Tier I and Tier II |
|school identified in the LEA’s application in order to implement, fully and effectively, the required activities of the school intervention model it |
|has selected. (Data and process analysis to assist the LEA with this application may be found in the Sample Application (Attachment III) for each |
|school and in the District Improvement Plan (Attachment IV). In the Rubric for Local Capacity, (Attachment V) local challenges are indicated by the |
|categories “getting started” or “partially implemented.” |
| |
| |
|If the LEA is not applying to serve each Tier I school, explain why it lacks capacity to serve each Tier I school. |
| |
|If an LEA claims lack of sufficient capacity to serve each Tier I school, the LEA must submit written notification along with the School Improvement |
|Grant application, that it cannot serve all Tier I schools. The notification must be signed by the District Superintendent or Public School Academy |
|Administrator and the President of the local school board. Notifications must include both signatures to be considered. |
|The notification must include the following: |
|A completed online Michigan District Comprehensive Needs Assessment indicating that the district was able to attain only a “Getting Started” or |
|“Partially Implemented” rating (link below) in at least 15 of the 19 areas with a description of efforts to improve. |
|( |
| |
|Evidence that the district lacks personnel with the skills and knowledge to work with struggling schools. This includes a description of education |
|levels and experience of all leadership positions as well as a listing of teachers who are teaching out of certification levels |
| |
|A completed rubric (Attachment V) scored by the Process Mentor team detailing specific areas of lack of capacity |
| |
| |
|For each Tier I and II school in this application, the LEA must describe actions |
|taken, or those that will be taken, to— |
|Design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements |
|Select external providers from the state’s list of preferred providers; |
|Align other resources with the interventions; |
|Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable its schools to implement the interventions fully and effectively (Attachment VI is a rubric |
|for possible policy and practice changes); and |
|Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends. |
| |
|4. Include a timeline delineating the steps to be taken to implement the selected intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the |
|LEA’s application. (Attachment VII provides a sample rubric for principal selection if the LEA chooses an intervention that requires replacement of |
|the principal.) |
| |
|5. Describe the annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics that it has established|
|in order to monitor Tier I and Tier II schools that receive school improvement funds. |
| |
|6. For each Tier III school the LEA commits to serve, identify the services the school will receive or the activities the school will implement. (No|
|response needed at this time.) |
| |
|7. Describe the goals established (subject to approval by the SEA) in order to hold accountable its Tier III schools that receive school improvement |
|funds. (No response needed at this time.) |
| |
|8. As appropriate, the LEA must consult with relevant stakeholders (students, teachers, parents, community leaders, business leaders, etc.) |
|regarding the LEA’s application and implementation of school improvement models in its Tier I and Tier II schools. |
|Describe how this process was conducted within the LEA. |
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
Item 1
LEA Process Used to Analyze the Needs of Each School and how the Intervention Was Selected
Mount Clemens Community School District has a history of transformation beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the Superintendent and key central office personnel including the Chief Academic Officer and the Finance Director had moved to the Lansing School District. Therefore, Mount Clemens Community School District had begun a new chapter with a new Superintendent, Finance Director, and a Curriculum/Instructional Services Director.
In addition to new leadership, a new initiative to open an International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program and High School Career Academies was inherited. The Mount Clemens Community School District in consortium with Utica Community Schools and the Armada School District received funds to create programs in all three districts to give students a choice of programs within Macomb County. Throughout our work here, the priority of the district is to increase student achievement and to increase enrollment.
The new administration began the work of school reform in its own way by inviting parents, community members, partnering schools, and staff to Open Houses to explain the new programs. Mount Clemens Community School District is a school of choice district to Macomb and Wayne areas. We have attracted approximately 100 Detroit students every year to join under our Section 105c, school of choice program.
The five year plan spanning the 2007-2008 through 2011-2012 school years has included the following.
1. Creation of a Small Learning Community for Freshmen. We have scheduled all ninth graders in a small learning community to increase attention to the unique needs of students when they enter high school. Students, in their cohort groups, attend the same teacher classes. Teachers work as a team to compare progress of all students within the Small Learning Community (SLC). [Opened in 2008-2009]
CURRENTLY: We have been able to continue the small learning communities by appropriating Bond money to renovate the first floor of the High School. This renovation will open in the Fall 2010 as our Small Learning Community- Freshman Academy.
SIG FUNDS: SIG funds will enable us to keep the 9th graders in a cohort group, hire a freshman teacher leader to build capacity to work with staff and motivate students to acquire the credits needed in the most difficult year of the high school experience. We will also offer Double Dose Math and ELA classes to allow extended learning time for all students.
2. Creation of an International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program for all students in the Middle Years (IB GRADES 7-10).
CURRENTLY: In May of 2010, we applied to the International Baccalaureate Headquarters to become an official IB School. All of our staff has undergone rigorous training to present to students a complete International Baccalaureate program emphasizing the following.
TITLE IIA FUNDS: We will continue to offer professional development for staff in the International Baccalaureate approach to learning.
International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program
Grades 7 – 10
Eligibility: The MYP is open to all students enrolled at Mount Clemens Junior High School. Description: The International Baccalaureate Program is a coherent and comprehensive curriculum, which provides a framework of academic challenge and life skills. With an emphasis on holistic learning, intercultural awareness, and the development of communication skills, students acquire the knowledge to prepare them to effectively address twenty-first century global issues.
The Middle Years Program provides a thorough study of English, mathematics, history, science, a foreign language, the arts, health and social education, and technology.
3. Creation of a Creative Arts and Communication Academy. We began researching the design of a Creative Arts and Communication Academy utilizing our Cable Station housed in the Mount Clemens High School for an impetus to attract students. We opened the Creative Arts and Communication Academy during the 2009-2010 school year. The Creative Arts & Communication Academy allows students to be actively engaged in the use of current technology and experts in the media field. Career possibilities include broadcast journalism (e.g., camera operator, floor director, audio technician), editor, graphic designer, video production, webmaster, marketing, and digital imaging.
CURRENTLY: We have several students who have joined the Academy for Communication and Creative Arts. They have attended various classes including media studies to prepare for careers in the field.
SIG FUNDS: SIG funds will allow us to give students the basics with extended time for credit recovery while attending their career academy classes to prepare for career opportunities now available in Michigan. All students will be eligible for the intervention in credit recovery to increase student achievement.
4. Creation of a Medical Bioscience Academy. During the 2009-2010 we researched the curriculum and the design of a Medical Bio-Science Academy for students interested in the medical field. Students should have a strong interest in science and math as this program will help prepare students for careers in the health professions. We also established a partnership with Michigan State University’s Osteopathic Medical School housed here in Macomb County. This academy will open in the 2010-2011 school year.
CURRENTLY: We will have our first class to join this medical academy. We want to encourage students to take advantage of the new classes offered here in Mount Clemens and also the chance to partner with a medical student from Michigan State University.
SIG FUNDS: These funds will allow us to ensure that all 9th and 10th graders will be prepared for advanced science classes when they apply for the Medical/Biosciences Academy as 11th and 12th graders. We will be able to pretest each student in reading and mathematics and place students in the most appropriate classes for success. All students are eligible for credit recovery and entrance into the Medical Bioscience Academy.
5. Establish a College Room. College preparation is an integral part of this program for our high school students. Some of our students will be first generation college attendees. Creating a “college room” was one of our priorities in our transformation.
ACADEMIC ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENCE GRANT: We will continue our emphasis of college and career readiness with our Academic Alliance for Excellence Grant funds.
Overview of
Mount Clemens Community School District
High School Choices
Phase One – 2008-2009, Grade 9
International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme*
Freshman Learning Community
*Grades 7-8 have started Middle Years International Baccalaureate program of studies in 2007-2008
Phase Two – 2009-2010, Grade 10
International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme
Guest Speakers and Partners Introduce Academy Careers
Grade 10 Choose Career Pathway
Career Academies
Offered in Grades 11 and 12
So what does this look like for students? Our ninth graders take intensive career exploration classes and college-preparatory academics with a global emphasis.
Sophomores continue to work with the International Baccalaureate Curriculum.
Juniors and seniors will work in two of our learning communities to connect learning to the real world through internships, job shadowing and community visitations.
Teachers work in teams to integrate both technical and academic content in thematic units with a global emphasis. Students travel in cohort groups as much as possible to connect with staff and to heighten peer relationships.
Mount Clemens High School Reform Continues
As the new programs unfolded, we realized that there were some barriers to overcome. Achievement levels were low and teacher effectiveness needed to improve. The High School principal had been in place for 14 years and was replaced in the 2008-09 school year and we were on the road to “AYP.” A second barrier as we worked with Math and Literacy Coaches from the Macomb Intermediate School District was the effectiveness of some non-tenure teachers in the small learning communities. We replaced an English teacher and a Math teacher who were underperforming in June of 2009.
As the new principal worked with staff, he made high expectations a priority for staff and students. He began to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness and changed several staff assignments to other areas. One seasoned Science teacher who was not reaching the students’ needs was switched from a 9th Grade Biology class to a small reading tutoring assignment. She has since retired. One other seasoned Social Studies teacher had retired mid-year. We are serious about getting the right staff directly in front of students to increase student achievement.
An additional concern in our reform was how to fit in all of the International Baccalaureate subjects (8) in a six-period day. After many meetings with the Mount Clemens Educational Association, we had a letter of understanding to increase the day by dividing it into seven periods. Our new MCEA contract for 2010-2011 incorporates these changes that add time to our day.
Please let us reiterate our passion to service all children in our district. The following pages of data, reform strategies, professional development plans, and budget items are a true effort from all stakeholders to raise student achievement for all students.
The mission of the MOUNT CLEMENS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS is to teach ALL students so that they achieve beyond expectations and meet the challenges of a diverse and rapidly changing world.
Item 1b
Capacity of the LEA to Use School Improvement Funds to Provide Adequate Resources and Related Support to Tier I and Tier II School Identified in the LEA’s Application in Order to Implement, Fully and Effectively, the required activities of the school intervention model it has selected.
Mount Clemens High has developed a transformation plan that includes not only all of the required elements for the model, but the permissible activities as well. Teachers, administrators, and support staff have embraced school improvement and have a plan to provide an excellent education for the students they serve.
We completed our District Process Rubric in April 2010 and our reflections show that we continue to make progress as evidenced by attaining Implemented or Exemplary on all indicators within each strand: Teaching for Learning, Leadership, Shared Leadership, Personnel and Professional Learning, School and Community Relations, and Data Management.
Our district curriculum is fully aligned, but with the adoption of the Common Core standards, we will be revisiting and reviewing our entire curriculum. We ensure that our teachers have access to the curriculum by posting our curricular materials on our district website.
The district has embraced the use of Data Director to access student achievement and demographic data. In addition to central office staff, representative teachers have been trained to use the program. Macomb ISD is part of a regional data initiative and we will be attending numerous professional development sessions to further develop our skills and broaden the range of users.
Item 2 – NOT APPLICABLE
Item 3
For each Tier I and II School in this application, the LEA must describe actions taken or those that will be taken to:
(a) Design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements
Mount Clemens High School - Whole School Actions
• Job-embedded professional development
• Professional learning communities
• Using data-based decision making
• Core professional development in explicit instruction, reading in the content area, writing in the content area, connecting interventions to data
• Redesign of the teacher evaluation model. We will be using Charlotte Danielson’s Model, Framework for Teaching, to be implemented Fall 2010.
• Identifying and choosing priority standards
• Unpacking standards
• Extended school day
• Credit recovery
• Common quarterly assessments
• Student Response Team
• Teacher leaders
• Data Manager housed in building
• Smart Data, provided by Successline Inc
SIG FUNDS: We will use SIG funds to assess each student prior to the school year.
Universal Screening - READING
• Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) to determine Lexile measures of all students (all grades)
• AimsWeb
• ACT – EXPLORE (Grades 8 and 9)
• ACT – PLAN (Grade 10)
• WRITING PROMPT (all grades)
Universal Screening - MATHEMATICS
• AimsWeb
• ACT – EXPLORE (Grades 8 and 9)
• ACT – PLAN (Grade 9)
To achieve the goal of increased achievement in reading, we will implement the following tiered interventions:
Tier I - READING
• Regular English/Language Arts Courses
• Honors, AP for students who are prepared for those courses
• Aligned strategies for teaching and assessing how students are learning
• Close and Critical Reading Strategies (Macomb ISD)
• Literacy coaches
• Paraprofessionals
Tier II - READING
• Reading Apprenticeship (West ED) – Recommended by Macomb ISD
• READ 180 (Scholastic) – Recommended by Macomb ISD
• Double dose of Reading – extended time
• Literacy coaches
• Paraprofessionals
Tier III - READING
• Corrective Reading Program (McGraw-Hill) – Recommended by Macomb ISD
• Double dose of reading – extended time
• Literacy coaches
• Paraprofessionals
To achieve the goal of increased achievement in mathematics, we will implement the following tiered interventions to help ensure our students are fluent in mathematical knowledge and skills.
Tier I - MATHEMATICS
• Regular course work with research-based strategies throughout the curriculum
(i.e. Carnegie Learning as core curriculum)
• Job-embedded professional development
• Professional learning communities
• Mathematics coach
Tier II- MATHEMATICS
• Additional math support class: Bridge to Algebra (Algebra readiness course)
• Job-embedded professional development
• Professional learning communities
• Mathematics coach
Tier III- MATHEMATICS
• Additional math support class: Hands-On Equations and Cognitive Tutor by Carnegie
• Job-embedded professional development
• Professional learning communities
• Mathematics coach
(b) External provider
• Macomb ISD
• Our professional development providers and companies providing training, materials, supplies, and equipment will become approved vendors/providers prior to receiving funding for programs and services used to support the School Improvement Grant.
(c) Align other resources with the interventions
To ensure that all resources are in alignment with the school’s transformation, staff will receive extensive professional development and coaching on all strategies that are being implemented. The superintendent will work with the high school principal and administrative team to coordinate all efforts related to our model. Aligning resources of time, energy, and talent is critical to helping students achieve at the highest levels.
(d) Modification of practices or policies to enable the school to implement the interventions fully and effectively (Attachment VI is a rubric for possible policy and practice changes.
We are up to the challenge to make changes that support increased student achievement. Our School Board has reviewed plan and provided guidance and input. For example, as a part of the plan we will establish a standards dress code which we will implement in September 2010.
(e) Sustain reform after funding ends.
The Mount Clemens Community School District is committed to implementing, with fidelity, the strategies in our transformation plan. Thus, we commit to coordinating Title IIA, Section 31A and the school district’s general fund to support our transformation. The teacher leadership initiatives will build capacity to ensure viability to continue our efforts beyond the three-year grant period.
Item 4
Include a timeline delineating the steps to be taken to implement the selected intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the LEA’s application. (Attachment VII provides a sample rubric for principal selection if the LEA chooses an intervention that requires replacement of the principal.)
June 2010
→ Teachers from Mount Clemens High School and the Junior High School work together to work on school improvement plan.
July 2010
→ Held a three-hour workshop with School Board to discuss content and implications of the transformation model.
→ Submit draft of SIG to the Michigan Department of Education for review.
→ Post job announcements for positions that are needed.
→ Review data and prioritize content standards in the curriculum.
August 2010
→ 2nd/3rd Attend two-day training with Macomb ISD consultants (Welcome Back!).
→ 2nd Interview and hire for new positions including the accountability officer.
→ 5th Universal screening for students (Reading and Mathematics)
→ 10th Universal screening for students (Reading and Mathematics)
→ 11th Universal screening for students (Reading and Mathematics)
→ 11th Coaches Planning with Macomb ISD (Renee will attend on our behalf).
→ 13th Completed School Improvement Grant Application due to superintendent
→ 14th Board and Administrative Retreat
→ 18th Administrative Team Retreat
→ 19th Administrative Team Retreat – School Improvement Grant
→ 24th Presentations for school improvement teams, staff, students, parents, and community members to provide an overview of the transformation model.
→ 25th/26th Math teacher attends Carneige Training, Macomb ISD
→ 31st Welcome Back Teachers.
→ Attend professional development program at MISD (Response to Intervention and Data Director).
→ Universal Screenings begin
September 2010
→ 1st Teacher orientation and welcome. Professional development in the teacher evaluation process.
→ 2nd Professional development, Getting Ready for the New School Year (with afternoon for high school staff only).
→ 7th Welcome Back Students! Morning session for all high school students to include an overview of changes, discipline requirements, celebration for achieving AYP (and flag or banner presentation) and more.
→ 8th First full day of classes.
→ 11th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2 (teacher stipends)
→ 13th ACT Reading Pre-test (#6820) and Lenses on Learning (Mathematics)
→ 15th Early Release Day for students. Professional Development, Close and Critical Reading (Macomb ISD).
→ 18th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2 (teacher stipends)
→ 25th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2 (teacher stipends)
→ 29th Early Release Day for students. Professional Development, Common Core Rollout, Macomb ISD.
October 2010
→ 5th Staff Building Meetings
→ 6th Early Release Day
→ 7th Early Release for Students/Parent Teacher Conferences
→ 12th Professional Development, Improve the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 13th Professional Development, Improve the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 26th Professional Development, Adaptive Schools, Macomb ISD
→ 26th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
→ 27th Professional Development, Adaptive Schools, Macomb ISD
→ 27th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
November 2010
→ 1st ACT Reading Post-test, grades 9-12
→ 2nd Professional Development Day, TBD
→ 5th Classes a.m. only. Records p.m.
→ 9th Staff Building Meetings
→ 9th Professional Development, Improve the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 10th Professional Development, Implementing the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 10th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Mathematics, Macomb ISD
→ 11th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2, Macomb ISD
December 2010
→ 7th Professional Development, Implementing the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 7th Staff Building Meetings
→ 8th Professional Development, Implementing the Geometry Units, Macomb ISD
→ 8th Early Release Day, Professional Development, TBD
→ 15th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
January 2011
→ 3rd Classes Resume
→ 4th Staff Building Meetings
→ 5th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
→ 19th Professional Development, Adaptive Schools, Macomb ISD
→ 20th Professional Development, Adaptive Schools, Macomb ISD
→ 26th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
February 2011
→ 1st Staff Building Meetings
→ 2nd Early Release Day, Professional Development, TBD
→ 8th Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 9th Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 10th Students a.m. only. Parent Teacher Conferences, p.m.
→ 16th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
→ 17th Professional Development, Algebra for All, Year 2, Macomb ISD
→ 22nd Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 23rd Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
March 2011
→ 1st MME Testing, a.m.
→ 1st Professional Development, TBD
→ 1st Staff Building Meetings
→ 2nd MME Testing, a.m.
→ 2nd Professional Development, TBD
→ 3rd MME Testing, a.m.
→ 3rd Professional Development, TBD
→ 7th Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 8th Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 15th MME Makeup Tests
→ 16th MME Makeup Tests
→ 17th MME Makeup Tests
→ 17th Professional Development, TBD
→ 22nd Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 23rd Professional Development, Implementing the Algebra II Units, Macomb ISD
→ 30th Professional Development, Lenses on Learning, Macomb ISD (Mathematics)
April 2011
→ 1st Classes a.m. only. Records p.m.
→ 12th Staff Building Meetings
→ 20th Early Release Day. Professional Development, TBD.
May 2011
→ 3rd Staff Building Meetings
→ 4th Early Release Day for students. Professional Development, TBD.
→ 18th Early Release Day for students. Professional Development, TBD.
Item 5
Describe the annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics that it has established in order to monitor Tier I and Tier II schools that receive school improvement funds.
We looked at data for reading and mathematics to determine our annual goals for student achievement. We have set achievement goals with different types of data including outcome, demographic, and process. We’ve done this to make sure we set goals for achievement for all students as well as subgroups of students.
The master list of the data we will review at the end of each year is included in our Comprehensive Needs Assessment. Here, we’ve included just the key annual goals.
Improve reading proficiency.
Improve writing proficiency.
Improve proficiency in mathematics.
Data Summary and Highlights - READING
Our overall goal is to improve reading achievement of our students. After reviewing outcome, demographic, and select process data, we used the data to determine Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the area of Reading.
The Evidences of Need indicate the specific data indicated a need for us to work on reading.
The Evidences of Success correspond directly to the needs in that they state, through data, the measurement change that staff is working toward. This column will be closely monitored each year to determine and verify progress toward the school’s reading goal.
High School Reading Data Overview
Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the School Plan
| |
|High School Reading |
|OUTCOME DATA |
| |
|In the area of outcome data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Reading Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. We are also monitoring our goal to determine if we have more students moving from the level 2 proficiency level to|
|the level 1 proficiency level. |
|Evidences of Need |Evidences of Success |
|Beginning of Year Data |End-of-Year Data and Measurement Goals |
|46% of students scored proficient on the MME Reading Test, Class of |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME |
|2011. |Reading Test from 46% to 65%. |
|29% of students scored in Level 4 on the MME Reading Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Level 4 on the MME from|
| |29% to 26%. |
|54% of students scored in Levels 3 or 4 on the MME Reading Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 or 4 on the |
| |MME Reading Test from 54% to 49%. |
|0% of students scored in Level 1 on the MME Reading Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 1 on the MME |
| |Reading Test from 0% to 5%. |
|46 % of students scored in Level 2 on the MME Reading Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 2 on the MME |
| |Reading Test from 46% to 51%. |
|40% of students scored in the range of 20-32 on the ACT portion of the|Increase the percentage of students scoring in the range of 20-32 on |
|MME. The benchmark for this test is 21. |the ACT portion of the MME from 40% to 46%. |
|67% of students scored in Level 6 or 7 on the Workkeys test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring a Level 6 or 7 on the |
| |Workkeys test from 67% to 74%. |
|20% of students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN Reading |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|test. |the ACT PLAN Reading test from 20% to 28%. |
|24% of students scored close to benchmark on the ACT PLAN Reading |Increase the percentage of students scoring close to benchmark on the |
|test. |ACT PLAN Reading test from 24% to 32%. |
|0% of the students scored 80% or more of the questions correctly on |Increase the percentage of students scoring 80% or more of the |
|the ACT PLAN Reading test. |questions correctly from 0% to 5%. |
|12% of students scored at or above the benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|Reading test. |the ACT EXPLORE Reading test from 12% to 21%. |
| |
|High School Reading |
|DEMOGRAPHIC DATA |
| |
|In the area of demographic data, we are determining our success based on looking at the performance of our subgroups of students on the MME |
|Reading Test, ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. |
|62% of White students scored proficient on the MME Reading test. |Increase the percentage of White students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Reading test from 62% to 66%. |
|37% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Reading test. |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Reading test from 37% to 42%. |
|38% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the |Increase the percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring|
|MME Reading test. |proficient on the MME Reading test from 38% to 44%. |
|None of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 55% for 2009-2010 on the |Increase the number of subgroups hitting the AYP target of 71% on the |
|MME Reading test. |MME Reading test from 0% to 50%. |
| |61% (2009-2010 school year) |
| |71% (2010-2011 school year) |
| |81% (2011-2012 school year) |
|35% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|Reading test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Reading test from 35% to 42%. |
|18% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|Reading test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Reading test from 18% to 26%. |
|26% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|Reading test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE Reading test from 26% to 33%. |
|6% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|Reading test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE Reading test from 6% to 15%. |
| |
|High School Reading |
|PROCESS DATA |
| |
|In the area of process data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Reading Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. In this case we are using the data to help us monitor our efforts toward aligning curriculum, instruction, and |
|assessment. |
|46% of students scored proficient on the MME Reading test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient from 46% to |
| |65%. |
|0% of students scored at least 80% of the questions correctly on the |Increase the percentage of students scoring at least 80% of the |
|ACT PLAN Reading test. |questions correctly on the ACT PLAN Reading test from 0% to 5%. |
|0% of the six strands for the MME Reading test show tight alignment. |Increase the number of strands showing tight alignment from 0 to 3. |
|0 of the five strands for ACT PLAN Reading show tight alignment. |Increase the alignment on the strands for ACT PLAN from 0 strands |
| |being tightly aligned to 2 strands being tightly aligned. |
|0 of the five strands for ACT EXPLORE Reading show tight alignment. |Increase the alignment of the ACT EXPLORE Reading test from 0 strands |
| |to 2. |
Data Summary and Highlights - WRITING
Our overall goal is to improve writing achievement of our students. After reviewing outcome, demographic, and select process data, we used the data to determine Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the area of Writing.
The Evidences of Need indicate the specific data that points to a need to work on. These data points are included because they do not yet reflect the standard that teachers have set for themselves or standards placed upon them by others.
The Evidences of Success correspond directly to the needs in that they state, through data, the measurement change that staff is working toward. This column will be closely monitored each year to determine and verify progress toward the school’s goals.
High School Writing Data Overview
Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the School Plan
| |
|High School Writing |
|OUTCOME DATA |
| |
|In the area of outcome data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Writing Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. We are also monitoring our goal to determine if we have more students moving from the level 2 proficiency level to|
|the level 1 proficiency level. |
|Evidences of Need |Evidences of Success |
|Beginning of Year Data |End-of-Year Data and Measurement Goals |
|21% of students scored proficient on the MME Writing Test, Class of |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME |
|2011. |Writing Test from 21% to 29%. |
|20% of students scored in Level 4 on the MME Writing Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Level 4 on the MME from|
| |20% to 16%. |
|79% of students scored in Levels 3 or 4 on the MME Writing Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 or 4 on the |
| |MME Writing Test from 79% to 63%. |
|2% of students scored in Level 1 on the MME Writing Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 1 on the MME |
| |Writing Test from 2% to 12%. |
|18 % of students scored in Level 2 on the MME Writing Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 2 on the MME |
| |Writing Test from 18% to 24%. |
|16% of students scored in the range of 20-32 on the ACT portion of the|Increase the percentage of students scoring in the range of 20-32 on |
|MME. The benchmark for this test is 22. |the ACT portion of the MME from 16% to 24%. |
|13% of students scored in Level 5 on the WorkKeys test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring a Level 5 on the WorkKeys |
| |test from 13% to 22%. |
|40% of students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN Writing |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|test. |the ACT PLAN Writing test from 40% to 46%. |
|17% of students scored close to benchmark on the ACT PLAN Writing |Increase the percentage of students scoring close to benchmark on the |
|test. |ACT PLAN Writing test from 17% to 25%. |
|0% of the students scored 80% or more of the questions correctly on |Increase the percentage of students scoring 80% or more of the |
|the ACT PLAN Writing test. |questions correctly from 0% to 5%. |
|28% of students scored at or above the benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|Writing test. |the ACT EXPLORE Writing test from 28% to 35%. |
| |
|High School Writing |
|DEMOGRAPHIC DATA |
| |
|In the area of demographic data, we are determining our success based on looking at the performance of our subgroups of students on the MME |
|Writing Test, ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. |
|34% of White students scored proficient on the MME Writing test. |Increase the percentage of White students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Writing test from 34% to 37%. |
|15% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Writing test. |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Writing test from 15% to 24%. |
|13% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the |Increase the percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring|
|MME Writing test. |proficient on the MME Writing test from 13% to 22%. |
|None of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 55% for 2009-2010 on the |Increase the number of subgroups hitting the AYP target of 67% on the |
|MME Writing test. |MME Writing test from 0% to 5%. |
| |55% (2009-2010 school year) |
| |67% (2010-2011 school year) |
|57% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|Writing test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Writing test from 57% to 61%. |
|40% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|Writing test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Writing test from 40% to 46%. |
|33% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|Writing test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE Writing test from 33% to 40%. |
|15% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|Writing test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE Writing test from 15% to 24%. |
| |
|High School Writing |
|PROCESS DATA |
| |
|In the area of process data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Writing Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. In this case we are using the data to help us monitor our efforts toward aligning curriculum, instruction, and |
|assessment. |
|21% of students scored proficient on the MME Writing test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient from 20% to 60%|
|0% of students scored at least 80% of the questions correctly on the |Increase the percentage of students scoring at least 80% of the |
|ACT PLAN Writing test. |questions correctly on the ACT PLAN Writing test from 0% to 5%. |
|0% of the six strands for the MME Writing test show tight alignment. |Increase the number of strands showing tight alignment from 0 to 3. |
|2 of the eight strands for ACT PLAN Writing show tight alignment. |Increase the alignment on the strands for ACT PLAN from 2 strands |
| |being tightly aligned to 4 strands. |
|0 of the eight strands for ACT EXPLORE Writing show tight alignment. |Increase the alignment of the ACT EXPLORE Writing test from 0 strands |
| |to 4. |
Data Summary and Highlights - MATHEMATICS
Our overall goal is to improve mathematics achievement of our students. After reviewing outcome, demographic, and select process data, we used the data to determine Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the area of Mathematics.
The Evidences of Need indicate the specific data that points to a need to work on. These data points are included because they do not yet reflect the standard that teachers have set for themselves or standards placed upon them by others.
The Evidences of Success correspond directly to the needs in that they state, through data, the measurement change that staff is working toward. This column will be closely monitored each year to determine and verify progress toward the school’s goals.
High School Mathematics Data Overview
Evidences of Need and Evidences of Success for the School Plan
| |
|High School Mathematics |
|OUTCOME DATA |
| |
|In the area of outcome data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Mathematics Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. We are also monitoring our goal to determine if we have more students moving from the level 2 proficiency level to|
|the level 1 proficiency level. |
|Evidences of Need |Evidences of Success |
|Beginning of Year Data |End-of-Year Data and Measurement Goals |
|20% of students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics Test, Class |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME |
|of 2010. |Mathematics Test from 20% to 28% |
|66% of students scored in Level 4 on the MME Mathematics Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Level 4 on the MME from|
| |66% to 59%. |
|80% of students scored in Levels 3 or 4 on the MME Mathematics Test. |Decrease the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 or 4 on the |
| |MME Mathematics Test from 80% to 72% |
|2% of students scored in Level 1 on the MME Mathematics Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 1 on the MME |
| |Mathematics Test from 2% to 12%. |
|18 % of students scored in Level 2 on the MME Mathematics Test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring in Level 2 on the MME |
| |Mathematics Test from 18% to 26%. |
|16% of students scored in the range of 20-32 on the ACT portion of the|Increase the percentage of students scoring in the range of 20-32 on |
|MME. The benchmark for this test is 22. |the ACT portion of the MME from 16% to 24%. |
|10% of students scored in Level 6 or 7 on the Workkeys test. |Increase the percentage of students scoring a Level 6 or 7 on the |
| |Workkeys test from 10% to 18%. |
|5% of students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|Mathematics test. |the ACT PLAN Mathematics test from 5% to 15%. |
|16% of students scored close to benchmark on the ACT PLAN Mathematics |Increase the percentage of students scoring close to benchmark on the |
|test. |ACT PLAN Mathematics test from 16% to 24%. |
|0% of the students scored 80% or more of the questions correctly on |Increase the percentage of students scoring 80% or more of the |
|the ACT PLAN Mathematics test. |questions correctly from 0% to 5%. |
|11% of students scored at or above the benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of students scoring at or above benchmark on |
|Mathematics test. |the ACT EXPLORE Mathematics test from 11% to 20%. |
| |
|High School Mathematics |
|DEMOGRAPHIC DATA |
| |
|In the area of demographic data, we are determining our success based on looking at the performance of our subgroups of students on the MME |
|Mathematics Test, ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. |
|31% of White students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test. |Increase the percentage of White students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Mathematics test from 31% to 38%. |
|17% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test. |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring proficient on the |
| |MME Mathematics test from 17% to 25%. |
|12% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the |Increase the percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring|
|MME Mathematics test. |proficient on the MME Mathematics test from 12% to 23%. |
|None of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 55% for 2009-2010 on the |Increase the number of subgroups hitting the AYP target of 67% on the |
|MME Mathematics test. |MME Mathematics test from 0% to 5% |
| |55% (2009-2010 school year) |
| |67% (2010-2011 school year) |
| |78% (2011-2012 school year) |
|17% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|Mathematics test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Mathematics test from 17% to 25%. |
|0% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT PLAN |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|Mathematics test. |benchmark on the ACT PLAN Mathematics test from 0% to 5%. |
|30% of White students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of White students scoring at or above |
|mathematics test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE mathematics test from 30% to 37%. |
|3% of Black students scored at or above benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE |Increase the percentage of Black students scoring at or above |
|mathematics test. |benchmark on the ACT EXPLORE mathematics test from 3% to 13%. |
| |
|High School Mathematics |
|PROCESS DATA |
| |
|In the area of process data, we are determining our success based on several sources of data including results on the MME Mathematics Test, |
|ACT-Plan, and ACT Explore. In this case we are using the data to help us monitor our efforts toward aligning curriculum, instruction, and |
|assessment. |
|20% of students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test. In an |Increase the percentage of students scoring proficient from 20% to |
|aligned system it is reasonable to expect at least 80% or more of the |80%. |
|students to score proficient. An additional 57 students scoring |or |
|proficient were needed and of these 57, only 13 were close. |Increase the number of students who were close to scoring proficient |
| |from approximately 1/3 of the students needed to 100% of the students |
| |needed. |
|0% of students scored at least 80% of the questions correctly on the |Increase the percentage of students scoring at least 80% of the |
|ACT PLAN Mathematics test. |questions correctly on the ACT PLAN Mathematics test from 0% to 5%. |
|0% of the thirteen strands for the MME Mathematics test show tight |Increase the number of strands showing tight alignment from 0 to 6. |
|alignment. | |
|2 of the eight strands for ACT PLAN Mathematics show tight alignment. |Increase the alignment on the strands for ACT PLAN from 2 strands |
| |being tightly aligned to 4 strands being aligned (priority strands). |
|0 of the seven strands for ACT EXPLORE Mathematics show tight |Increase the alignment of the ACT EXPLORE Mathematics test from 0 |
|alignment. |strands to 4. |
Item 6
For each Tier III school the LEA commits to serve, identify the services the school will receive or the activities the school will implement.
DNA
Item 7
Describe the goals established (subject to approval by the SEA) in order to hold accountable its Tier III schools that receive school improvement funds.
DNA
Item 8
As appropriate, the LEA must consult with the relevant stakeholders (students, teachers, parents, community leaders, business leaders, etc) regarding the LEA’s application and implementation of school improvement models in its Tier I and Tier II schools.
Beginning Our Work
The Michigan Department of Education notified the Superintendent of Mount Clemens Community School District on June 14, 2010 that Mount Clemens High School was on “the list” of bottom-performing schools in the state. That same day, the Superintendent met with his Cabinet to continue discussing our current reforms and how we could enhance our efforts to comply with the new state mandates.
The Superintendent and his leadership team continued to review the requirements of the School Improvement Grant. Additionally, he initiated work with staff from Macomb ISD to provide support. The superintendent also contacted Mark Wahlstrom (Successline Inc) to provide Smart Data packets for the junior and senior high. He requested data for the MME, ACT-PLAN, and ACT EXPLORE. The purpose of the data packets was to support critical decision-making for the central office and school staff.
The Superintendent and Cabinet members met with the staffs from the junior high and senior high schools on June 16, 2010. This meeting resulted in notification of staff members of the opportunity for support to improve. Additionally, several teachers volunteered many hours working on data for the comprehensive needs assessment. The staff continued to meet between June 17-22, 2010 to work with data and to share ideas related to improvement. Participants in this work day included the superintendent, cabinet members, instructional staff of the junior and senior high schools, and an ISD representative.
The Michigan Department of Education hosted a meeting in Lansing on June 23, 2010 for SIG-eligible districts. During this meeting, staff received guidance and requirements related to the School Improvement Grant.
The Successline Team began work with the staff on June 30, 2010. On the first day of working together, staff conducted an in-depth study of their achievement. Participants included the superintendent, cabinet members, instructional staff of the junior and senior high schools, and one ISD representative.
Outcomes from the June 30th meeting included:
• Increased participant’s knowledge of the relationship between ACT, PLAN, EXPLORE, and MME.
• Increased staff knowledge about the relationship between curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
• Developed skills on how to get the most from Smart Data Golden Packages, including how to analyze data for alignment.
• Trained team on the use of school strategy cards. (The school strategy cards are Successline’s research-based manipulatives and questions to help a school determine its exact next steps to take for improving student achievement.)
• Created curriculum, instruction, and assessment posters, by content area, to further analyze alignment issues.
• Completed the foundation for the revised improvement plan and established needs for the grant based on current and relevant data.
• Achieved staff buy-in.
On July 1, staff continued their work as they analyzed culture factors impacting student achievement. Outcomes for the July 1st session include:
• Increased staff skills on problem identification and recognition
• Participants identified internal and external factors impacting student achievement
• Participants categorized factors by successes and frustrations
• Participants further categorized issues as those for which we can and cannot control
• Participants prioritized can control issues: attendance, social promotion, discipline, lack of vision/mission, student and staff accountability, and parental involvement.
Following the June 30 and July 1 (2010) work sessions, the external facilitators began to outline the big picture of the transformation project based on the collected data and input.
School Board Approval
The project was presented to the Mount Clemens Board of Education on July 6, 2010. During a three-hour discussion and presentation, Board Members asked questions, shared comments and concerns, and provided further direction to the Superintendent. The content for the draft plan came from the collaborative work of teachers, administrators, cabinet members, and the superintendent, as well as two facilitators. Click here to go to a copy of the Board’s presentation.
Outcome: The draft of the plan was approved.
BUDGET
| BUDGET: An LEA must include a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA will use each year in each Tier|
|I, Tier II, and Tier III school it commits to serve. |
| |
|The LEA must provide a budget in MEGS at the building level that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA will use |
|each year to— |
|Implement the selected model in each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve; |
|Conduct LEA-level activities designed to support implementation of the selected school intervention models in the LEA’s Tier I and |
|Tier II schools; and |
|Support school improvement activities, at the school or LEA level, for each Tier III school identified in the LEA’s application. |
|(No response needed at this time.) |
| |
| |
| |
|Note: An LEA’s budget must cover the period of availability, including any extension granted through a waiver, and be of sufficient|
|size and scope to implement the selected school intervention model in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits to serve. |
| |
| |
|An LEA’s budget for each year may not exceed the number of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools it commits to serve multiplied by |
|$2,000,000. |
| |
| |
INCLUDE BUDGET CHART AND BUDGET NARRATIVE HERE
ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS
STATE PROGRAMS
• INSTRUCTIONS: Please review the assurances and certification statements that are listed below. Sign and return this page with the completed application.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
No federal, appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of a federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal grant or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member Of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form – LL*Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying*, in accordance with its instructions. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the awards documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY, AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION – LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS
The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
ASSURANCE WITH SECTION 511 OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APROPRIATION ACT OF 1990
When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, solicitations, and other documents describing this project, the recipient shall state clearly: 1) the dollar amount of federal funds for the project, 2) the percentage of the total cost of the project that will be financed with federal funds, and 3) the percentage and dollar amount of the total cost of the project that will be financed by nongovernmental sources.
ASSURANCE CONCERNING MATERIALS DEVELOPED WITH FUNDS AWARDED UNDER THIS GRANT
The grantee assures that the following statement will be included on any publication or project materials developed with funds awarded under this program, including reports, films, brochures, and flyers: “These materials were developed under a grant awarded by the Michigan Department of Education.”
CERTIFICATION REGARDING NONDISCRIMINATION UNDER FEDERALLY AND STATE ASSISTED PROGRAMS
The applicant hereby agrees that it will comply with all federal and Michigan laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination and, in accordance therewith, no person, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, marital status or handicap, shall be discriminated against, excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination in any program or
activity for which it is responsible or for which it receives financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education or the Michigan Department of Education.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EQUAL ACCESS ACT, 20 U.S.C.
7905, 34 CFR PART 108.
A State or subgrantee that is a covered entity as defined in Sec. 108.3 of this title shall comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C.
7905, 34 CFR part 108.
PARTICIPATION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS
The applicant assures that private nonprofit schools have been invited to participate in planning and implementing the activities of this application.
ASSURANCE REGARDING ACCESS TO RECORDS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The applicant hereby assures that it will provide the pass-through entity, i.e., the Michigan Department of Education, and auditors with access to the records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to comply with Section 400 (d) (4) of the U.S. Department of Education Compliance Supplement for A-133.
ASSURANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The grantee agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of all State statutes, Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, policies and award conditions governing this program. The grantee understands and agrees that if it materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant award, the Michigan Department of Education may withhold funds otherwise due to the grantee from this grant program, any other federal grant programs or the State School Aid Act of 1979 as amended, until the grantee comes into compliance or the matter has been adjudicated and the amount disallowed has been recaptured (forfeited). The Department may withhold up to 100% of any payment based on a monitoring finding, audit finding or pending final report.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A.), P.L. 101-336, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides comprehensive civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities. Title II of the ADA covers programs, activities, and services of public entities. Title II requires that, “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity.” In accordance with Title II ADA provisions, the applicant has conducted a review of its employment and program/service delivery processes and has developed solutions to correcting barriers identified in the review.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A.), P.L. 101-336, PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides comprehensive civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA covers public accommodations (private entities that affect commerce, such as museums, libraries, private schools and day care centers) and only addresses existing facilities and readily achievable barrier removal. In accordance with Title III provisions, the applicant has taken the necessary action to ensure that individuals with a disability are provided full and equal access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by the applicant. In addition, a Title III entity, upon receiving a grant from the Michigan Department of Education, is required to meet the higher standards (i.e., program accessibility standards) as set forth in Title III of the ADA for the program
or service for which they receive a grant.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING GUN-FREE SCHOOLS - Federal Programs (Section 4141, Part A, Title IV, NCLB)
The applicant assures that it has in effect a policy requiring the expulsion from school for a period of not less than one year of any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school under the jurisdiction of the agency except such policy may allow the chief administering officer of the agency to modify such expulsion requirements for student on a case-by-case basis. (The term "weapon" means a firearm as such term is defined in Section 92` of Title 18, United States Code.)
The district has adopted, or is in the process of adopting, a policy requiring referral to the criminal or juvenile justice system of any student who brings a firearm or weapon to a school served by the agency.
AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
All grant recipients who spend $500,000 or more in federal funds from one or more sources are required to have an audit performed in compliance with the Single Audit Act (effective July 1, 2003).
Further, the applicant hereby assures that it will direct its auditors to provide the Michigan Department of Education access to their audit work papers to upon the request of the Michigan Department of Education.
IN ADDITION:
This project/program will not supplant nor duplicate an existing School Improvement Plan.
SPECIFIC PROGRAM ASSURANCES
The following provisions are understood by the recipients of the grants should it be awarded:
1. Grant award is approved and is not assignable to a third party without specific approval.
2. Funds shall be expended in conformity with the budget. Line item changes and other deviations from the budget as attached to this grant agreement must have prior approval from the Office of Education Innovation and Improvement unit of the Michigan Department of Education.
3. The Michigan Department of Education is not liable for any costs incurred by the grantee prior to the issuance of the grant award.
4. Payments made under the provision of this grant are subject to audit by the grantor.
5. This grant is to be used to implement fully and effectively an intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits to serve consistent with the final requirements.
6. The recipient must establish annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics and measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of the final requirements in order to monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that it serves with school improvement funds.
7.If the recipient implements a restart model in a Tier I or Tier II school, it must include in its contract or agreement terms and provisions to hold the charter operator, charter management organization, or education management organization accountable for complying with the final requirements.
8. The recipient must report to the SEA the school-level data required under section III of the final requirements.
SIGNATURE OF SUPERINTENDENT OR AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL Date
SIGNATURE OF LEA BOARD PRESIDENT Date
|ASSURANCES: An LEA must include the following assurances in its application for a School Improvement Grant. |
| |
|See the Assurances and Certifications section of the LEA Application for a complete list of assurances. LEA leadership signatures, including|
|superintendent or director and board president, assure that the LEA will comply with all School Improvement Grant final requirements. |
|WAIVERS: The MDE has requested all of the following waivers of requirements applicable to the LEA’s School Improvement Grant. Please |
|indicate which of the waivers the LEA intends to implement. |
| |
|The LEA must check each waiver that the LEA will implement. If the LEA does not intend to implement the waiver with respect to each |
|applicable school, the LEA must indicate for which schools it will implement the waiver. |
|Extending the period of availability of school improvement funds. |
| |
|Note: If an SEA has requested and received a waiver of the period of availability of school improvement funds, that waiver automatically |
|applies to all LEAs in the State. |
| |
| |
|“Starting over” in the school improvement timeline for Tier I and Tier II Title I participating schools implementing a turnaround or restart|
|model. |
| |
|Implementing a schoolwide program in a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty eligibility |
|threshold. |
Baseline Data Requirements
QUESTION FROM DEB: FOR WHICH YEAR WAS THIS DATA?
Provide the most current data (below) for each school to be served with the School Improvement Grant. These data elements will be collected annually for School Improvement Grant recipients.
|Metric |
|School Data |
|Which intervention was selected (turnaround, restart, closure or transformation)? |Transformation |
|Number of minutes in the school year? |71,632 |
|Student Data |
|Dropout rate |89.9% |
| |Note from Deb: NUMBER NEEDS TO BE CHECKED – |
| |I DON’T THINK THIS IS ACCURATE. |
|Student attendance rate |89% |
|For high schools: Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework for each |Number |Percent |
|category below | | |
|Advanced Placement |62 |65% |
|International Baccalaureate |0 | |
|Early college/college credit |16 |17% |
|Dual enrollment |16 |17% |
|Number and percentage enrolled in college from most recent graduating class |38 |40% |
|Student Connection/School Climate |
|Number of disciplinary incidents |216 |
|Number of students involved in disciplinary incidents |225 |
|Number of truant students |47 |
|Teacher Data |
|Number of teachers at each performance level category below |Number |Percent |
|Highly effective |NA | |
|Effective (Satisfactory) |98% | |
|Moderately effective |NA | |
|Ineffective (Unsatisfactory) |2% | |
|Teacher attendance rate |88% | |
MOUNT CLEMENS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEA APPLICATION
PART II
SCHOOL APPLICATION/ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL NEEDS
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT – 1003(g)
FY 2010 – 2011
The LEA must provide evidence of a comprehensive needs assessment, such as the process in this model, for each school it will be including in its grant application
|School Name and Code: |District Name and Code: Mount Clemens Community School District - 50160 |
|Mount Clemens High School - 02624 | |
|Model for change to be implemented: Transformation |
|School Mailing Address: | |
|155 Cass Avenue, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 | |
|Contact for the School Improvement Grant: |
| |
|Name: Suzanne Kotas |
| |
|Position: Director of Instructional Services |
| |
|Contact’s Mailing Address: 167 Cass Avenue |
|Telephone: 586.461.3770 |
|Fax: 586.469.5569 |
|Email address: Kotass@ |
|Principal (Printed Name): |Telephone: |
|Michael Bruce |586-461-3491 |
|Signature of Principal: |Date: August 13, 2010 |
| | |
|X_ [pic] | |
The School, through its authorized representatives, agrees to comply with all requirements applicable to the School Improvement Grants program, including the assurances contained herein and the conditions that apply to any waivers that the District/School receives through this application.
| |
Section I: PROJECT NEED
SECTION I: NEED
The school must provide evidence of need by focusing on improvement status; reading and math achievement results, as measured by the MEAP, Mi-Access or the MME; poverty level; and the school’s ability to leverage the resources currently available to the district. Refer to the school’s Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) School Data and Process Profile Summary report.
1.
|1. Explain how subgroups within the school are performing and possible areas to target for improvement. (The following charts |
|contain information available in the school Data Profile and Analysis). |
READING
What is the performance, by proficiency levels, of subgroups of students?
As required by federal law, we track the results of subgroups. In Michigan, a subgroup is counted for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) when thirty (30) or more students are in a group. For example, in the graph below, there are 11 (eleven) students with disabilities who took this Reading test. This is not enough students to be counted as a group for AYP purposes, so the school would not have an AYP target for this subgroup of students. But, when looking at Black students, there are 62 – well over the 30 needed to make a group. Thus the school will have to meet the AYP target for the subgroup, Black Students.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Students in Each Proficiency Level on MME Test, by Subgroups of Students (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLSUB
The AYP target for 2010 is 61%. Using the above graph, we can quickly see which subgroups hit the target. This AYP target increases in the 2010-2011 school year to 71% and again in the 2011-2012 school year to 82%.
The percentage of students scoring proficient from different subgroups of students include 62% of white students scored proficient, while 37% of black students did. This is a gap of 25 percentage points. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the economically disadvantaged students scored proficient. None of these subgroups hit the 2009-2010 target of 61%, however, they may be found provisionally proficient.
Evidences of Need
62% of White students scored proficient on the MME Reading test.
37% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Reading test.
38% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the MME Reading test.
0% of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 61% for 2009-2010 (Class of 2011).
WRITING
What is the performance, by proficiency levels, of subgroups of students?
As required by federal law, we track the results of subgroups. In Michigan, a subgroup is counted for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) when thirty (30) or more students are in a group. For example, in the graph below, there are 11 (eleven) students with disabilities who took this Writing test. This is not enough students to be counted as a group for AYP purposes, so the school would not have an AYP target for this subgroup of students. But, when looking at Black students, there are 62 – well over the 30 needed to make a group. Thus the school will have to meet the AYP target for the subgroup, Black Students.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Students in Each Proficiency Level on MME Test, by Subgroups of Students (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLSUB
The AYP target for 2010 is 55%. Using the above graph, we can quickly see which subgroups hit the target. This AYP target increases in the 2010-2011 school year to 67% and again in the 2011-2012 school year to 78%.
The percentage of students scoring proficient from different subgroups of students include 34% of white students scored proficient, while 15% of black students did. This is a gap of 19 percentage points. Thirteen percent (13%) of the economically disadvantaged students scored proficient. None of these subgroups hit the 2009-2010 target of 55%.
Evidences of Need
34% of White students scored proficient on the MME Writing test.
15% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Writing test.
13% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the MME Writing test.
0% of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 55% for 2009-2010 (Class of 2011).
MATHEMATICS
What is the performance, by proficiency levels, of subgroups of students?
As required by federal law, we track the results of subgroups. In Michigan, a subgroup is counted for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) when thirty (30) or more students are in a group. For example, in the graph below, there are 11 (eleven) students with disabilites who took this mathematics test. This is not enough students to be counted as a group for AYP purposes, so the school would not have an AYP target for this subgroup of students. But, when looking at Black students, there are 62 – well over the 30 needed to make a group. Thus the school will have to meet the AYP target for the subgroup, Black Students.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Students in Each Proficiency Level on MME Test, by Subgroups of Students (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLSUB
The AYP target for 2010 is 55%. Using the above graph, we can quickly see which subgroups hit the target. This AYP target increases in the 2010-2011 school year to 67% and again in the 2011-2012 school year to 78%.
The percentage of students scoring proficient from different subgroups of students include 31% of white students scored proficient, while 17% of black students did. This is a gap of 14 percentage points. Twelve percent (12%) of the economically disadvantaged students scored proficient. None of these subgroups hit the 2009-2010 target of 55%.
Evidences of Need
31% of White students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test.
17% of Black students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test.
12% of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient on the MME Mathematics test.
0% of the subgroups hit the AYP target of 55% for 2009-2010 (Class of 2011).
The following chart shows our three-year trend, by subgroups, of student performance on the Michigan Merit Exam.
Mount Clemens High School
Percentage of Students Meeting State Proficiency Levels
by Student Subgroups
Michigan Merit Exam (MME)
2007-2008 through 2009-2010 School Years
| |Reading |Writing |Mathematics |
| | | | |
| |
School Resource Profile
The following table lists the major grant related resources the State of Michigan manages and that schools may have as a resource to support their school improvement goals. As you develop your School Improvement Grant, consider how these resources (if available to your school) can be used to support allowable strategies/actions within the School Improvement Grant.
A full listing of all grants contained in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is available at: schoolimprovement.
See comprehensive chart below.
| General Funds |Title I School |Title II Part A |Title III |
| |Improvement (ISI) |Title II Part D | |
|Title I Part A | |USAC - Technology | |
|Title I Schoolwide | | | |
|Title I Part C | | | |
|Title I Part D | | | |
|Title IV Part A |Section 31 a | Head Start | Special Education |
|Title V Parts A-C |Section 32 e |Even Start | |
| |Section 41 |Early Reading First | |
|Other: (Examples include: Smaller Learning Communities, Magnet Schools. A complete listing of all grants that are a part of NCLB is |
|available at schoolimprovement. |
Mount Clemens Community School District
High School Reform
2010-11 Expenditures
Additional School District Funding
|Activity |Description |Cost Estimate |Provider |Funded |
|Drop Out Prevention/ | | | | |
|Graduation Rate Increase/ | | | | |
|Credit Recovery | | | | |
|Education 20/20 |Software |$13,000 |Education 20/20 |31A |
|Education 20/20 Credit Recovery Class (1 |Curriculum |$33,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|Teachers) |.5 FTE | | | |
|College Resource Center |Position (.5) |$15,000 |PCMI |AAE |
| |(certified teacher) | | | |
|Accountability Officer |Position |$108,400 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teacher/Admin | | | |
|Data Director |Student License Fee (500 x $4.90) |$2,450 |MISD |31A |
|Alternative Ed Supervisor |Position |$100,000 |MTC Staff |MI Works (.5) |
| |(certified teacher) | | |General (.5) |
|Alternative Ed/Credit Recovery |Positions |$215,000 |PCMI |31A Funds |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Attendance/Discipline |Position |$130,000 | |31A |
| |(certified teacher) | | | |
|Intervention Staff |Positions |$70,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Behavior Coach |Position |$100,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Community In Schools Liaison |Position |$70,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|Social Worker |Position (certified) |$100,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|West Ed Reading Apprenticeship |Curriculum |$28,320 |West Ed |Title IIA |
|Professional Development | | | | |
|Professional Development |Conferences/ |$40,000 |Various |Title IIA |
| |Supplies/Stipends | | | |
|Professional Development |Consultants |$40,000 |Danielson/ |Title IIA |
| | | |Various | |
|Sub Teachers for Professional | |$10,000 | |Title IIA |
|Development | | | | |
|TOTAL | |$1,075,170 | | |
SECTION II: COMMITMENT
Evidence of a strong commitment should be demonstrated through the district’s ability and willingness to implement the selected turnaround model for rapid improvement in student achievement and proposed use of scientific and evidence based research, collaboration, and parental involvement.
Using information gathered using the MDE Comprehensive Needs Assessment - CNA, provide the following information:
1. Describe the school staff’s support of the school improvement application and their support of the proposed efforts to effect change in the school.
2. Explain the school’s ability to support systemic change required by the model selected.
3. Describe the school’s academic in reading and mathematics for the past three years as determined by the state’s assessments (MEAP/ MME/Mi-Access).
4. Describe the commitment of the school to using data and scientifically based research to guide tiered instruction for all students to learn.
5. Discuss how the school will provide time for collaboration and develop a schedule that promotes collaboration.
6. Describe the school’s collaborative efforts, including the involvement of parents, the community, and outside experts.
1. Staff Support of the School Improvement Application and Their Support of the Proposed Efforts to Effect Change in the School
Mount Clemens High School staff fully supports the school improvement application and the proposed efforts to change the school. We provide the following evidence:
Survey completed in lieu of signed letter of support. Thirty-one of thirty-six staff members completed an online survey which focused on the transformation model and support of the proposed changes. Five staff members are out of country and were not available to complete the survey. A total of 86% of the staff participated. 100% of the respondents supported the SIG application. 100% of the respondents agreed they are committed to making the necessary changes. Attachment II contains the complete survey results. The results are provided in Appendix II to the application.
Staff support of school improvement process upon notification. Upon notification of SIG eligibility, thirty-two of thirty-six or 88% of the staff voluntarily participated in daily efforts to work the school improvement process. A calendar of comprehensive events involving the high school staff , central office, and ISD personal is provided as additional evidence of commitment. Attachment II contains the complete schedule of events.
Two-Day Data Analysis and School Improvement Workshop Completed. In addition to the activities addressed above, the Superintendent with the support of the High School Principal and key staff members scheduled and completed a comprehensive two day school improvement workshop conducted by Successline’s Dr. Deb Wahlstrom (MDE Keynote for November 2008 School Improvement Conference). Over the course of the two days 86% of the high school staff participated in the heavy use of achievement and climate data to craft a comprehensive school improvement plan. Attachment II also contains the agenda for the two days of training and activities associated with the development of the school improvement plan.
Staff support of Plan at Board of Education meeting. The Board of Education conducted a meeting on July 6, 2010. The BOE was provided a 3 hour presentation of the SIG and the plan. Three high school staff members were present to provide their support of plan. Had it not been just after the fourth of July, many more would have participated to voice their support.
2. Explanation of School’s Ability to Support Systemic Change Required by the Model Selected, in Our Case, the Transformation Model
We are fully capable of supporting the transformation model at Mount Clemens High School. Evidence for this includes the actions by the district to begin the reform efforts (e.g., remodeling of the high school to better serve the reform model, adjusting student schedules, working in collaborative teams, creating a position for Communities in Schools, creating a comprehensive professional development program, choosing and implementing a new evaluation model, promoting teacher leaders, and supporting decisions made by teachers.
3. Three-Year Trend of Academic Achievement in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.
The following graphs show the results of our key state assessments in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Scoring Proficient (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLPB
When looking at results over time and by graduating class, the proficiency rates for the Reading test has fluctuated with 47% of the students proficient for the class of 2008, 40% proficient for the class of 2009, 42% proficient for the class of 2010, and 46% proficient for the class of 2011 – an overall decrease of one (1) percentage point.
Since the 2006-2007 school year, the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME Reading test has declined from 47% of students being proficient for the Class of 2008 to 46% proficient for the Class of 2011, a decrease of one percentage point.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Scoring Proficient (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLPB
When looking at results over time and by graduating class, the proficiency rates for the Writing test has fluctuated with 22% of the students proficient for the class of 2008, 22% proficient for the class of 2009, and 28% proficient for the class of 2010, an increase of 6 percentage points over the last two years. Only 21% were proficient for the class of 2011 – an overall decrease of seven (7) percentage points.
Beginning in the 2006-2007 school year, the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME Writing test remained the same with 22% of the students’ proficient for the Class of 2008 and the Class of 2009. The Class of 2010 showed an increase of six (6) percentage points when 28% of the class scored at the proficient level. The Class of 2011 showed a decrease of seven (7) percentage points with only 21% of the students scoring at the proficient level.
[pic]
Data Source: Smart Data, Percentage of Scoring Proficient (Achievement Filter) Report QFC:ME-PLPB
When looking at results over time and by graduating class, the proficiency rates for the mathematics test has fluctuated with 24% of the students proficient for the class of 2008, 21% proficient for the class of 2009, and 31% proficient for the class of 2010, and 20% proficient for the class of 2011 – an overall decrease of four (4) percentage points.
Since the 2006-2007 school year, the percentage of students scoring proficient on the MME Mathematics test has declined from 24% of students proficient for the Class of 2008 to 20% proficient for the Class of 2011, a decrease of four percentage points.
4. Describe the commitment of the school to using data and scientifically based research to guide tiered instruction for all students to learn.
The staff has demonstrated its commitment to use data and researched based strategies in the following ways:
Staff expressed commitment to using both data and strategies in recent survey. Thirty-one of thirty-six staff members responded to a survey directly associated with the SIG application and relevant factors to its implementation. The respondents represent 86% of the entire staff. Five staff members were out of the country and not available to respond. When asked if they would agree to routinely use data to improve student achievement 100% of the respondents agreed to. When asked if they would agree to use research based strategies such as T-4 Readings and Type 2 Writings, 100% of the respondents agreed.
Two Day Data Analysis and School Improvement Workshop Completed. In addition to the activities addressed above, the Superintendent, with the support of the High School Principal, and key staff members scheduled and completed a comprehensive two day school improvement workshop conducted by Successline’s Dr. Deb Wahlstrom (MDE Keynote for November 2008 School Improvement Conference). Over the course of the two days 86% of the high school staff participated in the heavy use of achievement and climate data to craft a comprehensive school improvement plan. The process required the use of School Strategy Cards which contain research based questions that team members must use data to answer. The cards are divided into curriculum, instruction and assessment. One outcome is participants must identify researched based strategies with large effect sizes. Therefore, the staff has already begun to make the transition in the use of data and research-based strategies. Attachment 2 contains the agenda for the two days of training and activities associated with the development of the school improvement plan.
SIG Application reflects a higher use of data and research-based strategies. The heavy use of data in the first portion of this application is the testament to the staff making the transition to data based decision-making. Our Comprehensive Needs Assessment reflects the staff efforts to use data and research based strategies. Additionally, the back section to the CNA provides a comprehensive data-based school improvement plan by content area as evidence of the staff’s commitment in these areas.
Commitment to using a variety of data tools. There are a number of data tools available to support our work with data. We have embraced the use of Data Director, which is supported by Macomb ISD. During the 2010-2011 school year, we will send several staff members to Macomb ISD professional development events that focus on the use of Data Director. We are also using Smart Data, which analyzes and provides data in the format of high-quality reports with corresponding analysis questions. This system supports us when looking at data required for accreditation and accountability purposes, but also includes comprehensive data for helping us tighten alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. We are also beginning to use PowerSchool, which is student management software.
As we work to implement Response to Interventions, we have many additional data tools to support our work. For example, when designing our universal screening, which students begin taking in August 2010, we identified data tools and systems that we could triangulate to get the best information we can for placing students at the beginning of the school year. Much of the data from our universal screenings will be collected during the remainder of August.
5. Providing Time for Collaboration and Development of a Schedule That Promotes Collaboration
We believe in collaboration and the sharing of ideas to help more students achieve at higher levels. In our application, we have provided time for this collaboration. First, our district calendar includes at least twelve early release days that will be used by teachers to discuss and talk about student work. Second, we are building into our grant additional opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively after school.
In our June 30th/July 1st work session, data and teacher discussion revealed the need to look at the following issues in the school.
[pic]
In a recent survey, in which 31 of 36 or 86% of staff members responded to questions relating to committing the time and effort to collaborate. When asked if they would be willing to meet twice a week for 45 minutes and 4-6 hours once a month to discuss student data and other data related matters, 92% agreed. 100% agreed to meet weekly with colleagues to discuss data to determine the next steps. Survey results are provided in Appendix II as evidence.
We are committed to ensuring that as many stakeholders as possible are included in the development, implementation, and monitoring of the activities and priorities noted in our grant application. To that end, we have thus far completed the following:
1. The entire superintendent's cabinet has met to thoroughly review the grant's requirements and determine how it can best support students in Mount Clemens.
2. The superintendent’s cabinet met with representatives from Macomb ISD to garner their input.
3. Upon hearing about being put on "the list," the superintendent and cabinet members held a meeting with the staffs from the junior high and high school to ensure they had the information from the state. Additionally, at this time several teachers signed on to help with data collection for the comprehensive needs assessment.
4. Mark and Deb Wahlstrom (Smart Data/Successline Inc) conducted a two-day, in-depth review of the schools data with almost all of the teachers from the two schools. During this time, teachers collaborated as they looked at data, identified areas of need, determined priority actions for the school improvement plan, and determined school culture factors that need to be addressed in order to transform the school into a center of high achievement for more students.
5. The superintendent invited Successline Inc team members Mark and Deb Wahlstrom to present the collaborative findings with the School Board, which resulted in a three-hour presentation in which Board members asked questions related to recommend forthcoming changes at Mount Clemens High School. The outcome of the meeting: The School Board approved the draft version of the plan for improvement.
We are using a research-based process through a set of manipulatives (School Strategy Cards) that have been designed to ensure that our school focuses deeply on the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment – the three parts to the teaching-for learning process. The research-based cards fully support Michigan's School Improvement Rubrics, and have been adapted by Oakland ISD for use with school improvement teams throughout the state. This process provides a collaborative setting for all stakeholders to determine exactly where they are, by content area, in tightening the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This is also supported by research that indicates the tighter the alignment, the higher the student achievement.
6. Describe the school’s collaborative efforts, including the involvement of parents, the community, and outside experts.
To help ensure good working relationships among all of our stakeholders, we have begun to outline roles and responsibilities for the adults who set the conditions for the school’s success.
In our work, we have fpir core groups of adults who will work together collaboratively to set the conditions for success for all students. These groups include the Board of Education, Central Office Leadership, Mount Clemens High School staff, and Macomb ISD staff.
The following chart shows the roles and responsibilities for these transformation relationships.
|Board of Education |Central Office |Mount Clemens High School |Macomb ISD |
| | |Staff | |
|Directs new & revised policy |Proposes policy changes to support |Owns the transformation and |Serves as the External Provider |
|Reviews and approves changes to |transformation |lives it each day |Drives the master plan |
|transformation plan |Implements policy changes directed |Leads from the front to |Serves as a clearing house for services|
|Provides guidance based on |by Board of Education |execute transformation plan |Keeps all stakeholders advised of |
|transformation progress |Provides guidance to Successline on|and holds the staff |status |
|Holds stakeholders accountable for|External Source Provider matters |accountable |Guides and mentors critical areas – |
|success of transformation plan |Monitors and guides High School |Directs changes based on |student support team, discipline, |
|Directs the allocation of |leadership on key matters for |transformation progress |attendance, community involvement |
|transformation resources |transformation |Directs the allocation of |Provides specialist support (e.g. MISD |
|Assists in obtaining additional |Keeps the Board of Education |transformation resources |has committed to providing math |
|resources to support |advised of status of transformation|Teams with External Source |mentoring on Thursdays from 3pm to 5pm)|
|transformation |Supports procurement of resources |Provider in plan execution and|Provides professional development |
|Approves new hires to support |both inside & outside of grant |keeps Central Office |support in areas of most need by our |
|transformation |Supports community relations – |Leadership and BOE apprised of|project. |
|Approves dismissal of |parent involvement matters |progress |Provides comprehensive data support |
|instructional staff when |Assists with course design when |Monitors, evaluates and |including helping teachers use data to |
|appropriate |required |provides feedback to |identify appropriate interventions at |
|Acts on any matter for the good of|Guides good news stories to press |instructional staff regularly |the classroom level |
|the district as the BOE sees fit |on transformation |through the transformation |Prepares and supports monitor visits |
| | |period |Designs and executes embedded |
| | |Nominates instructional staff |professional development for |
| | |for dismissal when appropriate|Instructional Staff (curriculum, |
| | | |instruction, and assessment). |
While these groups have the responsibility for setting the stage for success, the role of parents and community members and stakeholders will help fuel the achievement engine.
But there’s more. Mount Clemens is the only district in Macomb County with a Communities in School partnership. Alan Dozier, a Mount Clemens High School graduate, worked with Mount Clemens two days last year and had some ongoing responsibility with 16 Detroit High Schools. This year he will be working in the Mount Clemens Secondary Campus full time as the Communities in Schools liaison. Alan specializes in conflict resolution. During the 2009-2010 school year he developed Boys to Men and Girls to Ladies mentor groups.
Founded in 1995, Communities In Schools of Detroit (CIS) is the largest local affiliate of the nation's leading community-based organization helping kids succeed in school and prepare for life. The national organization shares 30 years of experience and knowledge gained from working with communities and at-risk youth throughout the United States. CIS is the only national non-profit that can document its ability to increase graduation rates through national evaluation processes.
CIS champions the connection of needed resources with schools to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life. CIS is a partnership of private and public education institutions, human service agencies, community organizations, faith-based entities, and business interests. CIS helps students to overcome barriers, achieve successes, and graduate with the skills necessary for higher education and/or meaningful employment. CIS accomplishes this by developing and nurturing partnerships and collaborations among existing community resources, and institutionalizing the delivery of supportive services in schools and communities.
CIS operates on five basic principles which affirm that - Every child needs and deserves:
1. A personal, one-on-one relationship with a caring adult;
2. A safe place to learn and grow;
3. A marketable skill to use upon graduation;
4. A healthy start and a healthy future; and
5. A chance to give back to peers and community.
Three key precepts of CIS activities are:
1. Personalization: emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining a one-on-one relationship between a caring adult, the student, and the student's family members.
2. Accountability: holds individual staff members, not institutions or "the system" responsible for actions taken. When parents ask why something has happened to their son or daughter, ‘the system' is not blamed or credited. Individual team members accept responsibility.
3. Coordination: requires a process which brings together assigned and repositioned staff as an integrated team in the provision of education support services for students and their families.
The range of services CIS provides and coordinates in schools includes: comprehensive coordination of student and family services in accordance with priorities established in concert with academic and parent leaders; after-school and summer programming; volunteer services; innovative schools, such as the Detroit Lions Academy, an alternative middle school co-managed by CIS with the support of the Detroit Lions and local businesses; an academic incentives warehouse; a community technology center; and a Center for Community Collaboration.
CIS results consistently show that its services improve outcomes for children, schools, and communities. National and local statistics show the following outcomes:
▪ 75% of CIS-tracked students improve attendance
▪ 95% of CIS-tracked students are promoted to the next grade
▪ 81% have fewer discipline incidents
▪ 78% improve academic performance
▪ 83% of eligible CIS seniors graduate
▪ The dropout rate for CIS-tracked students is 6 - 10% lower than for similar students without CIS services
▪ 7 in 10 of CIS-tracked students report pursuing post-secondary education
▪ More than 25% enter the workforce
▪ 4% enter the military
Section III
Proposed Activities
SECTION III: PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
1. Describe the proposed activities that address the required US Department of Education (USED) school intervention that the school will use as a focus for its School Improvement Grant.
2. Explain how the school will use data to inform instruction, guide decision-making, and design professional development related to the proposed activities.
i. Discuss how the school will use data to develop and refine its improvement plan and goals based on sub groups in need.
ii. Describe how the school will collect, analyze and share data with internal and external stakeholders. Include how the school will ensure that all administrators and teachers are able to access and monitor each student’s progress and analyze the results.
iii. Describe how the school plans to adjust instruction based on progress monitoring and data results collected. Describe and name any local or national assessments used to measure student progress at each grade level.
iv. Discuss how the school has a clearly defined procedure in place for writing a professional development plan that aligns to the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards for Staff Development () that focuses on context standards, process standards and content standards. If the school or LEA does not have a professional development plan in place, describe the process and timeline for completing a professional development plan.
3. List the individuals and job titles of the central office and school personnel who will oversee the school receiving School Improvement Grant – Section 1003(g) funds. Include the percentage of time dedicated to oversight of the school.
4. Explain specific school improvement technical assistance and evaluation responsibilities needed. Include personnel responsible for coordinating such services.
The Comprehensive Needs Assessment and corresponding school improvement activities are included later in this grant – one for general data and then one each for the content areas of Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Directly following the data is the school improvement plan for each of the content areas. Based on our data and the activities we have identified for our school improvement plan, we have developed a number of activities – all designed to transform the school including what and how we have students learn.
The United States Department of Education has identified required activities for the transformation model. Listed below is an overview of the required parts of the transformation model and our proposed activities/ interventions for meeting the requirements.
DEVELOP AND INCREASE SCHOOL LEADER EFFECTIVENESS
Required Activities
→ Replace the principal. As allowed under the SIG transformation model, we have replaced the principal within the two years allowed for the transformation model. By a number of measures, our new principal has overseen improvements in the school and is onboard for making the significant changes that are needed to transform the school into a learning machine. He is working to align individual efforts toward common goals, building the capacity to work more effectively and efficiently, and encouraging program ownership and leadership among all stakeholders. He is working to ensure a clear focus on student achievement, building a school culture around collaboration, and inspiring energy for other school leadership roles by individual efforts.
Additionally, the principal has been a key player in choosing and gaining support for the new teacher evaluation system, which begins Fall 2010. He has already begun the work on instituting comprehensive instructional reform and figured out how to make sure we begin to provide expanded learning time for all students and not just struggling students. He also is key to ensuring that the reform efforts span all content areas and teachers – again, reform for all students, not just those who are struggling.
→ Develop and increase teacher and leader effectiveness. The heart of student achievement is the classroom teacher; teachers do matter. Thus we are investing a great deal of time, energy, and resources toward helping each and every one of our teachers become “distinguished” on the Framework for Teaching evaluation model. For students to achieve at high levels, they need excellent teachers. Research by the Public Education Foundation serving Hamilton County defined excellence in teaching by researching the skills and capacities of highly effective teachers. The evaluation model we have chosen integrates this research.
→ Include student data in teacher/leader evaluation. Because we have a number of students who are struggling with reading, we have many students who are at-risk for not graduating on time. Our data shows that we have a number of incoming freshmen who are reading at a lower-elementary level. Thus, one of our strategies must be to help non-readers become readers. We are in the process of identifying which students will need to use credit recovery and by the beginning of the school year, identify the programs these students will use to recover credits. We will be establishing an Academic Review Team to monitor the progress of these at risk students and ensure they receive any supports they need.
The Academic Review Team will regularly look at student data to help ensure that students do not fall through the cracks. Additionally, a key part of the Danielson model is that of teachers using assessments on a regular basis to inform instruction, “Assessment is used in a sophisticated manner in instruction, through student involvement in establishing the assessment criteria, self-assessment by students and monitoring of progress by both students and teachers, and high quality feedback to students from a variety of sources.” (Danielson, 2006)
→ Evaluation designed with teacher/principal involvement.
The Mount Clemens Community School District has implemented in its collective bargaining agreement with classroom teachers, a method of compensation that includes job performance as a significant factor in determining compensation, and also implemented a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system to evaluate teacher job performance. The collective bargaining agreement provides that teachers will be evaluated one (1) time during each school year utilizing the approved evaluation instrument. The evaluation system is based on the research of Charlotte Danielson. The evaluation focuses on teacher preparation and planning; classroom environment; instructional practices; and professional development, and is, in part, based upon data on student growth.
The school district and the Michigan Education Association, the bargaining representative which is certified to represent the district’s teachers, discussed the teacher evaluation system for many months. Ultimately, the parties focused on the Charlotte Danielson model, and after several meetings, agreed on a system which is applicable to new teachers, tenured teachers, and teachers in need of assistance. The evaluation system was ratified by the teachers on July 29, 2010, and by the Board of Education on August 14, 2010.
The District has purchased two books authored by Charlotte Danielson and these were distributed to all of our teachers at their contract ratification meeting. One of the books, Enhancing Professional Practice, serves as an introduction to the Frameworks and the other, The Handbook for Enhancing Professional Practice, serves as a working handbook for implementation of the process. Teachers will be able to begin reading the books and the evaluation tool for a full month prior to the start of the 2010-11 school year. The administration will also meet with Building Principals at a training conference on August 18, 2010 to familiarize building administrators with the precepts of our new evaluation process.
In addition, a trainer from the Danielson Group, Ms. Darlene Axtell, will be in the Mount Clemens School District to spend an afternoon with the administrative team on August 31, 2010, and a full day with the entire teaching staff on September 1, 2010 to introduce the Frameworks evaluation model.
→ Remove leaders/staff who have not increased achievement. As we indicated earlier, we have already begun to replace teachers who are not effective in helping students learn. This will continue as we move into the next three years through our new evaluation model which will be implemented in at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
→ Provide on-going job embedded staff development.
We are integrating a strong embedded professional model that is directly tied to improving student achievement through the actions of teachers and leaders. The professional development is carefully planned to align to each of our improvement components.
Our professional development program is tightly aligned with the needs of our school. We are approaching professional development with a two-pronged approach: one prong applies to professional development for all teachers and the second prong applies to the specific content needs of individual teachers. For example, one across-the-board need for professional development is that of better classroom assessments. As content area teachers are ready to implement this part of their plans, they’ll have just-in-time help and training to do this. An example of professional development for an individual teacher is that of acquiring more information related to world religions, part of the social studies curriculum. We have built in forty-hours of embedded professional development time for each teacher for each year of the grant.
Based on our data and student needs, we are focusing our professional development efforts in the following areas: explicit instruction, vocabulary development, reading and writing in the content area, looking at student work, tying data to interventions, and classroom procedures and protocols. Additionally, we will be working to address the specific content needs of our students as identified by our data. For example, our data shows that our students show a weakness in the area of identifying details in a passage and doing such things as making inferences from those details. In our collaborative teams, we will discuss what it means to achieve at a high level in working with details in passages and then develop tightly-aligned lessons and assessments to help ensure students learn this skill.
One of our vendors, Successline, will work closely with us to use the data throughout the school year. We’ll work with a simple and powerful model, supported by the professional learning literature: what do we want our students to know? How do we know they know it? What will we do when they don’t know it?
Rather than have a “data team,” we embrace helping all teachers learn to use data to improve student learning. This will support collaborative efforts toward determining interventions based on the data. We have a number of data skills that our teachers will learn:
→ Interpret data from state, district, school, class, and individual assessments.
→ Determine aligned interventions for students based on assessment data.
→ Determine how well students are learning standards and objectives through such strategies as Checking for Understanding, formative assessments, quarterly assessments, power quizzes, and more.
→ Use secure assessment practices – What’s right, What’s not?
→ Develop and use high-quality assessments (include the choosing and/or development of paper-and-pencil assessments, rubrics, and formative assessments).
→ Determine progress of students toward attainment of curricular standards.
→ Monitor student achievement data.
→ Communicate data to students and parents in an understandable way.
→ Provide feedback and guidance to students.
→ Identify strategies that help students reach their own learning goals.
→ Determine student satisfaction with a curricular unit through methods such as surveying and conducting a class focus group.
→ Determine student learning needs.
• Implement financial incentives for career growth or flexible work conditions.
We have also included funding for teachers who meet and/or exceed their professional learning goals. This has been approved by our union on their recent ratification on the new contract.
The Mount Clemens Community School District has implemented in its collective bargaining agreement with classroom teachers, a method of compensation that includes job performance as a significant factor in determining compensation. In fact, satisfactory job performance is the determining factor for future salary increases for teachers in the Mount Clemens Community School District. The collective bargaining agreement provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll bargaining unit employees on the payroll on December 1, 2010 . . . who receive a satisfactory performance evaluation shall be paid an additional lump sum salary adjustment of one-half (1/2) of one (1%) percent, on the last payroll in May, 2011 . . .”
Likewise “[a]ll bargaining unit employees on the payroll on December 1, 2011 who receive a satisfactory performance evaluation shall be paid an additional lump sum salary adjustment of one-half (1/2) of one (1%) percent, on the last payroll in May, 2012. The salary schedule shall be increased by one-half (1/2) of one (1%) percent at the end of the school year.”
The school district and the Michigan Education Association, the bargaining representative which is certified to represent the district’s teachers, discussed the teacher compensation system for many months. Ultimately, the parties agreed to implement a teacher evaluation system based on the Charlotte Danielson model, and after several meetings, agreed to base teacher salary increases to receipt of a satisfactory job performance rating. The compensation system was ratified by the teachers on July 29, 2010, and by the Board of Education on August 14, 2010 and will go into effect this coming school year.
Permissible Activities
→ Provide additional money to attract and retain staff. Negotiations with our teachers’ union have been successful and we will implement the program in conjunction with Charlotte Danielson’s evaluation model. Additionally, we want to honor and recognize the extra tasks that teachers take on – especially in the area of helping others learn. When teachers are asked to provide professional development to the rest of the staff, we are committed to reimbursing them for their planning time.
→ Institute a system for measuring changes in instructional practices that result from professional development. There are a number of things we will look at in terms of measuring change in instructional practices. One of those things is simply knowing which strategies teachers already regularly use in the classroom. To identify this, we plan to survey teachers at the beginning of the year to determine their use of key instructional strategies. We would expect that by the end of each year of the project, teachers will have an increase in the number and types of research-based instructional strategies that they use in the classroom.
We will also use common-sense evidences that document change in practice: looking at student work, surveying teachers again to determine end-of-year (each year of transformation project) knowledge and use of strategies, and more. We are implementing a dynamic classroom monitoring program to insure the fidelity of our staff’s instruction. This will include techniques such as walkthroughs to help determine how strategies are being implemented. This will provide us with an early alert that staff members are encountering difficulties with instructional practices and allow us to bring appropriate resources to bear to get back on target.
→ Ensure the school is not required to accept a teacher without consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of seniority. On a July 6, 2010 a Board of Education meeting was conducted. The Board unanimously agreed to accept this as one of the conditions for accepting SIG funding. The Board is the only authority which has to power to hire or fire in the district.
COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUCTION REFORM ACTIVITIES
Required Activities
→ Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is researched based and aligned from one grade to the next as well as with state standards. We are using different types of data (i.e., outcome, demographic, process/and perception) to determine our strengths and weaknesses in our overall program, and as suggested by Michigan’s School Improvement Rubrics, we are closely looking at the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The staff has committed to 45 minute meetings twice a week to discuss data and 4-6 hours a month in planning sessions. We have completed a comprehensive review our curriculum, instruction and assessment and the school improvement plans and have used data to identify the specific standards on which our students are performing poorly.
Our entire application is based on an extensive review of data, which was completed by teachers during the last couple of days in June 2010. When looking at our data we determined that our curriculum is not yet tightly aligned – thus we are working on that in our reform efforts. We also identified specific areas where our students are struggling, thus we are addressing that in our reform efforts.
Data was also used to determine the selection of our research-based, programmatic interventions. We reviewed the research related to Reading (McGraw-Hill’s Corrective Reading Program, West-Ed’s Reading Apprenticeship Program, and SRA’s READ 180 program). In the area of mathematics, we reviewed the Hands On Equations program and the assortment of intervention programs from Carnegie.
• Promote continuous use of student data to inform instruction and meet individual needs of students.
We have included a collaboration chart which outlines topics of collaborative discussions during the school year. These include looking at data (including attendance, discipline, and accountability data), looking at student work, talking about curriculum, instruction, and assessment, working on parent connections, and building relationships with students. Additionally, in our school improvement plan, we are very specific about the ways we will tie data to interventions in each of our content areas.
One of our vendors, Successline, will work closely with us to use the data throughout the school year. We’ll work with a simple and powerful model, supported by the professional learning literature: what do we want our students to know? How do we know they know it? What will we do when they don’t know it?
Rather than have a “data team,” we embrace helping all teachers learn to use data to improve student learning. This will support collaborative efforts toward determining interventions based on the data. We have a number of data skills that our teachers will learn:
→ Interpret data from state, district, school, class, and individual assessments.
→ Determine aligned interventions for students based on assessment data.
→ Determine how well students are learning standards and objectives through such strategies as Checking for Understanding, formative assessments, quarterly assessments, power quizzes, and more.
→ Use secure assessment practices – What’s right, What’s not?
→ Develop and use high-quality assessments (include the choosing and/or development of paper-and-pencil assessments, rubrics, and formative assessments).
→ Determine progress of students toward attainment of curricular standards.
→ Monitor student achievement data.
→ Communicate data to students and parents in an understandable way.
→ Provide feedback and guidance to students.
→ Identify strategies that help students reach their own learning goals.
→ Determine student satisfaction with a curricular unit through methods such as surveying and conducting a class focus group.
→ Determine student learning needs.
Permissible Activities
→ Conduct reviews to ensure that curriculum is implemented with fidelity and is impacting student achievement.
We have actually done a lot of work with this including the identification of the areas in the curriculum where students are not performing well. A part of this project HAS to be ensuring that the right curriculum is offered to students – to help ensure they are learning the right college and career-ready skills. We recognize the work that needs to be done to align the High School Content Expectations with the ACT College and Career Readiness Standards and the Common Core standards.
The monitoring of the curriculum comes after the curriculum is in place and includes such things as teacher feedback related to the implementation of the curriculum in the classroom, teacher observations of implementing the curriculum, and local assessments (including formative assessment strategies) of how the curriculum is being implemented. This is built into our school improvement plan.
We are implementing a number of things to monitor the implementation of the curriculum. This includes curriculum development: (a) choosing power standards based on our data and the Common Core standards, (b) unpacking standards into objectives, (c) developing content cards, and (d) identifying core content vocabulary for each course. We are also working in a collaborative manner with teachers to deliver the curriculum in a way that works for them. Additionally, teachers will provide feedback on the curricular materials, as will the students. We are also developing common assessments to determine if the delivery of the curriculum is consistent from one class to another and if students are learning the curriculum from one class to another.
We are also prepared to monitor the implementation of the research-based programs. As we studied the research, we were reminded about how important it is to implement the each of the intervention programs with fidelity. One of our vendors, Successline, has knowledge, experience, and skills in determining how well programs are implemented and will help guide our professional learning teams in learning to monitor their own interventions.
→ Implement a school-wide Response to Intervention model. Last year the district implemented RTI in a county wide effort. This year we will complete the implementation. Our early-warning system complements the RTI concept, and we will continue to increase the staff’s awareness via embedded professional development.
The visual below lays out the basics of our reform in the area of reading. We are transforming how we assign students to classes and how students spend their time in school. We also recognize that students cannot be college and career ready without being a reader – and our data showed that we have many students who cannot read. Thus, all students will participate in a universal screening, and from there will be placed on one of four tiers. To help ensure success of all students no matter what class they take, we will focus on explicit and direct instruction, reading-to-learn strategies, writing-to-learn strategies, close-and-critical reading (reading comprehension) and direct vocabulary instruction. The visual below provides an overview of what this looks like for our high school students.
[pic]
Again, we will look at data for each student, grades 9-12, to determine their reading levels. We have three levels for which we will hand-schedule students. Level I has two parts – regular classes and advanced classes. Level II represents students who are one or two years below grade level. Students who are three or more levels below grade level are in Level III. We are providing research-based programmatic interventions for Tier II (Reading Apprentice, West Ed) and Tier III (Corrective Reading Program, McGraw-Hill). It’s not enough to have a program – we must also make sure that the program is implemented with integrity and fidelity. Thus, we are upping our efforts to monitor the implementation of each program.
• Provide PD to teachers/principals on strategies to support students in the least restrictive environment and English Language Learners.
Our plan and the instructional strategies we have chosen are research-based and work with all students, thus helping us provide a high-quality education for all students in the least restrictive environment. Based on the work of Marzano, there are numerous research-based strategies for helping all students, including students served by the special education program, learn better and more deeply when the strategies are used.
→ Use and integrate technology-based interventions. We have a number of ways we will support technology-based interventions. These include (1) the use of READ 180 for students who are struggling in reading; (2) Scholastic Reading Inventory to determine learning levels and needs of our students; and (3) ACT Online Prep to provide students an opportunity to determine their knowledge and skill level toward college and career readiness standards.
→ Increase rigor (AP, IB, STEM, and others).
We have ongoing programs in both Advanced Placement and IB. Our strategy is to increase rigor by tightening the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This will help ensure that staff members are teaching the right things and teaching them really well. By improving the quality of our assessments and the frequency at which they are administered, we will be in a better position to increase the rigor of our classes.
Other ways we increase rigor is through clarifying the curriculum, having multiple entry-level courses (including those for struggling students); setting expectations for teachers to use explicit instruction, develop vocabulary; help students become literate in the content areas (i.e., reading/writing to learn); tying data to classroom interventions; and having content-area coaches.
• Summer transition programs or freshman academies.
We have developed a separate academy for students leaving 8th grade who are not quite ready for 9th grade.
→ Increase graduation rates through credit recovery, smaller learning communities, and other strategies. The best way to increase graduation rates is to help students learn things well the first time around and provide supports to students who are struggling immediately. Because we have a number of students who are struggling with reading, we have many students who are at-risk for not graduating on time. Our data shows that we have a number of incoming freshmen who are reading at a lower-elementary level. Thus, one of our strategies must be to help non-readers become readers. We are in the process of identifying which students will need to use credit recovery and by the beginning of the school year, identify the programs these students will use to recover credits. Will use our Academic Review Board to monitor the progress of these at risk students.
→ Establish early warning systems to identify students who may be at risk of failure. We have created a multi-layered strategy to meet this intervention. Two weeks prior to the beginning of the school year we plan to assess as many students as possible in reading, writing, and math. We have a great deal of end-of-year data that has allowed us to create a priority list of students who are at risk based on SRI performance, ACT-PLAN, and ACT-EXPLORE results. We know who these students are and are taking action to place the student in the proper setting from day one so we can quickly begin to focus on their weaknesses. Our top priority is reading since we have a number of students that are 1-2 grade levels below where they should be. We have also created an Academic Review Team. The purpose of the collaborative team is to maintain visibility on at risk students, and make sure the school is brining to bear all necessary resources both inside and outside of the school setting. A more detailed discussion of the Academic Review Team is provided is later sections.
We have also addressed assessment in each content area including reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies as part of ensuring we have an aligned system that will lead to higher student achievement.
INCREASED LEARNING TIME AND CREATING COMMUNITY-ORIENTED SCHOOLS
Required Activities
• Provide increased learning time.
Mount Clemens Community School District currently provides more annual instructional hours then are required by the State of Michigan. At the present time, Mount Clemens Schools provides its students with 1108.8 hours in instructional time, annually, although the State of Michigan only requires 1,098 hours of pupil instruction. In the most recent round of collective bargaining, the District and the MEA began to talk about effective ways of increasing student instructional contact time without materially increasing the District’s operating costs. Ultimately, both parties recognized that increased student instructional time was a vital component on the District’s educational offerings. After a substantial amount of discussion and negotiation, Mount Clemens Schools and the MEA agreed to a provision in the collective bargaining agreement which increased the number of instructional periods in the secondary program from six (6) periods per day to seven (7) instructional periods per day. This was accomplished, in part, by converting twenty-six (26) minutes per day of “student career advisory” time to core class instructional time. This change in the instructional calendar had the effect of adding 26 minutes per day to the total daily instructional contact time, or almost 75.5 additional hours of core instructional time per student. Thus, in the 2010 school year, all students will experience an additional eighty-six (86) hours of instructional contact time. The District is committed to continuing to discuss, now and in the future, additional proposals with the MEA to add instructional time to the calendar, including a bifurcated instructional program in which some secondary teachers would work from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and others would teach from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., thus extending the student’s instructional day by one hour, or having some teaching staff start working later in the year than other staff members, so that the instructional year is increased.
The District does believe that the addition of the seventh instructional period will prove to be beneficial to students, as will the addition of 75.5 hours which resulted from changing the 26 minutes of “career advisory” time to “core content” instructional time.
Additionally, there are a number of ways in which we will increase learning time for struggling students. First, for our most struggling students, we are completely changing how we do our schedule to accommodate the learning needs of students. Students who are Tier 3 and have the greatest need for intensive interventions in reading will have a double block of time for reading as well as one block for writing – for a total of three hours of literacy support each day. We are committed to ensuring that our students have the literacy skills they need for college and career.
Additionally, we will provide phase in the requirement of providing at least an additional 300 hours of extended learning time. In the 2010-2011 school year, we will increase the learning time by 100 hours. (Because of the timing of the approval and funding of the grant by September 7, 2010, we cannot commit to students, teachers, and parents to do this within the next three weeks.) We believe in this and have already implemented actions to move toward an extended day, but require significant SIG funds to support full implementation of the extended time.
• Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.
We are going to revisit a number of strategies we have used in the past including Boys to Men, Girls to Women, Parent Nights, Book Clubs for Parents, and reaching out to churches. A key piece for family and community engagement is the further development of the Communities in Schools partnership, which will have a full-time coordinator beginning in Fall 2010.
Permissible Activities
• Partnering with parents and other organizations to create safe school environments that meet students’ social, emotional, and health needs.
Our Communities in School partnership will provide critical support to students by going beyond their academic needs.
We have a new attendance officer. This person goes beyond simply tracking attendance, but rather follows up with students, visits parents, and works with the coordinator of our Communities in School partnership to help ensure students get the supports they need to come to school.
We have also hired an accountability officer with other funding from the district. The purpose of this new hire is to free up time so our principal can spend 80% of his time in classrooms – working in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Detailed job description below.
SECONDARY CAMPUS ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICER
SUMMARY: The position of “Secondary Campus Accountability Officer” is responsible for overall management of student discipline and for creating a culture of student and staff accountability for personal behavior and responsibility on the entire secondary campus (7-12). The Accountability Officer will take dedicated ownership of discipline, with the primary goals of developing and supporting an orderly, nurturing learning environment, creating a culture of respect and appropriate behavior by staff and students; eliminating distractions to leadership and instructional staff; and promoting rapid and effective reactions and systematic and programmatic solutions to discipline issues.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
(1.) Investigate and enforce code of conduct and other student conduct issues, and implement and properly process appropriate student discipline, including where appropriate, recommending long-term suspensions and expulsions of regular education and special education students.
(2.) Develop a culture of respectful and orderly relationships between staff and students, and establish a caring and nuturing climate that supports and promotes high level student academic achievement.
(3.) Familiarize staff and students with the School District’s expectations for behavior and personal responsibility, including “beginning of year” orientation assemblies and distribution, publication and dissemination of “first day of school protocols”.
(4.) Identify students who need additional support and more individualized interventions.
(5.) Use data regarding discipline and school climate to guide decision making.
(6.) Responsible for student discipline data collection process including oversight of staff responsible for proper entry in SASI student data base, and timely completion, review and submission of School Infrastructure Database report.
(7.) Collaborate with District personnel to develop a behavior management system, to effect positive student behavior in the school, including implementation of programs such as MBLISI, PBS, peer mediation programming and alternative dispute resolution, as well as coordination of staff and student training.
(8.) Assist in developing, implementing and monitoring prescribed interventions and appropriate response to intervention protocols for individual students, including the planning, developing and implementing of individual student behavior plans.
(9.) Coordinate alternative education placement for students, and provide administrative support to home-based educational staff.
(10.) Work with community and governmental agencies on problems relating to drug abuse, discipline problems and truancy from school.
(11.) Assist in the dissemination of information regarding school and district programs, policies and procedures to parents, staff and community.
(12.) Make recommendations concerning the development, maintenance and distribution of student-parent handbooks, code of conduct provisions, board policies, emergency response procedures, administrative guidelines and similar literature.
(13.) Assist with the supervisory responsibility for student activities, programs of student orientation and similar activities.
(14.) Perform other administrative duties assigned by the Building Principal, the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and Pupil Personnel Services, or the Director of Instructional Services, or as may be necessary to promote effective and efficient operation of the School.
JOB QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Master’s degree in educational administration or related field, preferred.
1. Valid Teaching Certificate with a secondary Endorsement, preferred.
2. Three (3) years secondary teaching experience, and/or equivalent experience as administrator in an urban, multi-cultural, multi-racial Title I school district preferred.
3. Meet North Central Association standards.
4. Minimum of three (3) years successful experience with a data driven, research based approach to curriculum and instruction, including knowledge of student data base.
5. Proven record of effective, collaborative leadership skills.
WORK YEAR: 205 school day work year.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE MOUNT CLEMENS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT NO PERSON SHALL ON THE BASIS OF RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AGE OR DISABILITY BE EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATION AND BE DENIED THE BENEFITS, OR BE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION UNDER PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY AND IN EMPLOYMENT, FURTHER, THE MOUNT CLEMENS BOARD OF EDUCATION STRICTLY ADHERES TO PROVISIONS OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964, TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATIONAL AMENDMENTS OF 1972, SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AND ALL MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICIES AND REGULATIONS PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION. LACK OF ENGLISH SKILLS WILL NOT BE A BARRIER TO ADMISSION OF PARTICIPANTS
• Extending or restructuring the school day to add time for strategies that build relationships between students, faculty, and other school staff.
We believe in collaboration and the sharing of ideas to help more students achieve at a higher level. We are addressing this on a couple of levels – working on teacher relationships and working on relationships between students and teachers. First, our district calendar includes at least twelve early release days that will be used by teachers to discuss and talk about student work. Second, we are building into our grant additional opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively after school.
In a recent survey (July 2010) of staff, 925 of our teachers agreed to meet twice a week for 45 minutes and 4-6 hours each month to discuss student data and other data-related matters. 100% of our teachers agreed to meet weekly with colleagues to discuss data to determine the next steps.
Teachers will also work in teams to provide academic support for students. Our teachers will have opportunities to work with one another as they develop and deliver explicit/direct lessons. They will also work together as they figure out next steps for students who need additional help.
• Implementing approaches that improve school climate and discipline.
We have two new key positions that support the improvement of school climate and discipline: an attendance officer and an accountability officer.
PROVIDING OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND SUSTAINED SUPPORT
Required Activities
• Provide operational flexibility (staffing, calendars/time/budgeting) to implement comprehensive approach to substantially increase student achievement and increase graduation rates.
On July 6, 2010, the School Board approved the first draft of the application. Our district calendar includes at least twelve early release days that will be used by teachers to discuss and talk about student work. Second, we are building in opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively after school.
Teachers will also work in teams to provide academic support for students. Our teachers will have opportunities to work with one another as they develop and deliver explicit/direct lessons. They will also work together as they figure out next steps for students who need additional help.
• Ensure that school receives ongoing, intensive Technical Assistance and related support from LEA, SEA, or designated external leader partner or organization.
The following chart outlines the responsibilities of the adults participating in this project. In the chart, we have outlined the role of the Mount Clemens Board of Education, Central Office, Mount Clemens High School Staff, and Macomb ISD.
The following chart shows the roles and responsibilities for these transformation relationships.
|Board of Education |Central Office |Mount Clemens High School |Macomb ISD |
| | |Staff | |
|Directs new & revised policy|Proposes policy changes to |Owns the transformation and |Serves in a support role |
| |support transformation |lives it each day |Provides specialist support |
|Reviews and approves changes|Implements policy changes |Leads from the front to |(e.g. MISD has committed to |
|to transformation plan |directed by Board of |execute transformation plan |providing math mentoring on |
|Provides guidance based on |Education |and holds the staff |Thursdays from 3pm to 5pm) |
|transformation progress |Provides guidance to |accountable |Provides professional |
|Holds stakeholders |external providers |Directs changes based on |development support in areas|
|accountable for success of |Monitors and guides High |transformation progress |of most need by our project |
|transformation plan |School leadership on key |Directs the allocation of |Assists with developing the |
|Directs the allocation of |matters for transformation |transformation resources |coaching schedule |
|transformation resources |Keeps the Board of Education|Teams with External Source |Provides coaching services |
|Assists in obtaining |advised of status of |Provider in plan execution |as requested by the school |
|additional resources to |transformation |and keeps Central Office |Provides content expertise |
|support transformation |Supports procurement of |Leadership and BOE apprised |as needed by the school |
|Approves new hires to |resources both inside and |of progress | |
|support transformation |outside of grant |Monitors, evaluates and | |
|Approves dismissal of |Supports community relations|provides feedback to | |
|instructional staff when |– parent involvement matters|instructional staff | |
|appropriate |Assists with course design |regularly through the | |
|Acts on any matter for the |when required |transformation period | |
|good of the district as the |Guides good news stories to |Nominates instructional | |
|BOE sees fit |press on transformation |staff for dismissal when | |
| | |appropriate | |
Permissible Activities
• Allow the school to be run under a new governance arrangement.
We are changing the roles of adults in the school to better meet the needs of students. Our principal will spend approximately 80% of his time working on instruction; while the attendance officer will work with students and families to avoid truancy and tardiness. We have added the Accountability Officer to work with student discipline and behavioral issues. In this way we have changed the governance and responsibility of principal to the true instructional leader.
• Implement a per pupil school based budget formula weighted based on student needs.
Our approach to the budget is to direct resources toward those who need it most, which is indeed, weighting the budget.
Begin With the End in Mind
The following chart, the Big Picture for Getting Started, provides an overview of key actions that will lead the school to tighter alignment (thus increasing student achievement) while also focusing on issues related to attendance and discipline.
|Curriculum |Instruction |Assessment |Attendance |Discipline |
|What do we want our students|What are the best ways for |How do we know students are |Students achieve at higher |Orderly and respectful |
|to know and be able to do? |students to learn the |learning what we wanted them|levels when they come to |school climate that supports|
| |curriculum? Every teacher |to learn? |school. |student learning. |
| |teaches on grade-level every| | | |
| |day. | | | |
|Curriculum Development |All Teachers |Universal Screenings |School attendance system |Beginning-of-year assembly |
|Ensure tight alignment of |Explicit Instruction | |Reward system for good |(student discipline |
|standards where data shows a|Vocabulary Development |Reading |attendance |expectations, discipline |
|weakness. |Reading in the Content Area |Dolch 1000 list |Follow-up for students Not |handbook, discipline policy,|
| |Writing in the Content Area |SRI LEXILE measures |in school |school expectations, culture|
|Unpack standards. |How to Tie Data to | |Track reasons for absences. |of respect, etc.) |
| |Interventions |Writing | | |
|Core vocabulary lists for |Classroom Procedures and |Writing Prompt – 4x a year |Adults |Teachers |
|each “weak” standard. |Protocols – PBIS (Positive | |Attendance expectations |Classroom expectations |
| |Behavioral Interventions and|Math |Automated call system |aligned and enforced with |
|Develop content cards for |Support) |MME/ACT |Attendance officer |school expectations |
|each standard. | |ACT PLAN |Rapid responses, immediate |First day of school |
| |Individuals |ACT EXPLORE |notification, and follow-up |protocols |
|Multiple Entry-Level Courses|Instructional Coaches | | | |
|Reader’s Lab for students |Professional Growth Plan |Student Progress Monitoring |Attendance Officer | |
|who are the most at need for| |Toward standards | | |
|learning to read. | |Toward improvement and | | |
| | |growth | | |
| | | |School Social Worker |
| | | |Accountability Officer |
|Curriculum |Instruction |Assessment |Attendance |Discipline |
|What do we want our students to know |What are the best ways for students to learn the|How do we know students are learning what |Students achieve at higher levels |Orderly and respectful school |
|and be able to do? |curriculum? Every teacher teaches on |we wanted them to learn? |when they come to school. |climate that supports student |
| |grade-level every day. | | |learning. |
|Curriculum Development |All Teachers |Universal Screenings |School attendance system |Beginning-of-year assembly (student|
|Ensure tight alignment of standards |Explicit Instruction | |Reward system for good attendance |discipline expectations, discipline|
|where data shows a weakness. |Vocabulary Development |Reading |Follow-up for students Not in |handbook, discipline policy, school|
| |Reading in the Content Area |Dolch 1000 list |school |expectations, culture of respect, |
|Unpack standards. |Writing in the Content Area |SRI LEXILE measures |Track reasons for absences. |etc.) |
| |How to Tie Data to Interventions | | | |
|Core vocabulary lists for each “weak” |Classroom Procedures and Protocols – PBIS |Writing |Adults |Teachers |
|standard. |(Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support) |Writing Prompt – 4x a year |Attendance expectations |Classroom expectations aligned and |
| | | |Automated call system |enforced with school expectations |
|Develop content cards for each |Individuals |Math |Attendance officer |First day of school protocols |
|standard. |Instructional Coaches |MME/ACT |Rapid responses, immediate | |
| |Professional Growth Plan |ACT PLAN |notification, and follow-up | |
|Multiple Entry-Level Courses | |ACT EXPLORE | | |
|Reader’s Lab for students who are the | | |Attendance Officer | |
|most at need for learning to read. | |Student Progress Monitoring | | |
| | |Toward standards | | |
| | |Toward improvement and growth | | |
A PROCESS, NOT A PROGRAM
Using Data to Inform Instruction, Guide Decision-Making, and Design Professional Development
In what ways can we use data to support the learning of our students and overall improve our school? That is the key and critical question we’ll ask throughout this project. This project brings together the diverse data used in our district (including teacher-developed assessments) in a way that it is useable and actionable by the classroom teacher.
Using Data to Develop and Refine Our Improvement Plan and Goals Based on AYP Groups in Need
Our school improvement plans are based on the use of data, including outcome, demographic, and process (which includes perception). We have set up our data so it is easy to compare from one time period to the next. A time period might be day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, or year-to-year. Each year, and the time periods in between, we’ll review our data to refine our plan and goals.
Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data with Internal and External Stakeholders.
There are a number of ways that we will work with data and share what we learn with internal and external stakeholders.
1. We will collect data toward all of our goals and objectives.
2. We will use proven protocols to analyze our data. This includes the protocols for analyzing data (Successline Inc) and looking at student work.
3. We will share our data with each other and our community members to keep everyone informed of our progress along the way. We will be setting up an enterprise Wiiki to share our progress with one another. Additionally, we will report to the School Board on a quarterly basis with a progress report of program implementation and corresponding results. To ensure that our community members realize the positive changes that are occurring, we will also provide information to them through the district’s website.
4. We will monitor each student’s progress during the school year. During the 2010-2011 school year, we will begin to review the progress of students in a more comprehensive and substantial way. First of all, we will do beginning-of-year assessments for all students. These assessments, in reading, writing, and mathematics, will provide critical data for ensuring that we begin to meet the needs of our individual learners. We want a student who is struggling to get the help that he or she needs. We will focus our assessments on the priority areas we identified in our data – again working to accomplish more significant work at a higher level than trying to assess everything. We will regularly communicate to our parents how their children are achieving toward the standards.
5. We will use data tools such as DataDirector and SmartData to help us analyze our data.
Adjusting Instruction Based on Progress Monitoring and Data Results Collected
One of the things that did come out as a part of our two-day workshop is that of doing a better job using data to improve student achievement. Thus, that is an overarching focus for us as we work to make changes that will lead to higher student achievement.
We will provide a number of different types of assessments in the high school. We will give aligned teacher-made tests and quarterly common assessments in all content areas. Additionally, we give common unit exams in English, grades 9-12.
Mount Clemens High School
Overview of Assessments
Grades 9-12
| |Grade Level When Tested |
|Type of Assessments |9 |10 |11 |12 |
|Teacher-made tests |X |X |X |X |
|Common Unit Exams – ENGLISH |X |X |X |X |
|Quarterly Common Assessments – Core Content Areas |X |X |X |X |
|Scholastic Reading Inventory |X |X |X |X |
|ACT EXPLORE |X | | | |
|ACT PLAN | |X | | |
|ACT WORKKEYS | | |X | |
|MME | | |X | |
We will ensure that we are using the results from the data in an appropriate way and will also revise this list as we develop our own assessments – such as the writing assessment. We will review the results of all of assessments and use the data to determine interventions for students.
One of the important pieces of our embedded professional development is that of looking at student work as well as tying data to interventions. This is critical to ensure that students get the interventions they need to perform at a higher level.
Thus far, planned beginning-of-year assessments (universal screenings) include:
Reading
Dolch 1000 list (list to be mastered by students by the end of 5th grade)
Scholastic Reading Inventory (Lexile measures)
ACT-PLAN
ACT-EXPLORE
Writing
A writing prompt will be given five times per year, with a baseline the first week of school followed by a writing assessment at the end of each quarter. We will design an analytic, instructional rubric aligned to the ACT College and Career Readiness Skills and the Common Core standards. After students respond to the writing prompt we will collaboratively score them (with embedded professional development in how to do so) and then look at the data to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses in student writing. From there we will identify interventions for areas in which our students showed a weakness.
Mathematics
ACT MATH (Mathematics, grade 11)
ACT PLAN (Mathematics, grades 9 and 10)
ACT EXPLORE (Mathematics, grades 7 and 8)
In addition to beginning-of-year assessments, which are designed to help place students generally where they should be, we will also be monitoring the progress of students during the school year in each of our courses.
STUDENT PROGRESS MONITORING
A large part of our project and one that will be new for many teachers, is that of more closely following the progress of our students. The following graphic shows an overview for student progress monitoring. The monitoring will be for all students in all courses.
[pic]
At the beginning of the school year, each student will be assessed to determine levels of knowledge and skills, especially in the areas of literacy (i.e., reading and writing) and mathematics. After reviewing the data from the assessments, students will be placed into one of three categories: (1) students achieving above grade level, (2) students performing at grade level, and (3) students performing below grade level.
MONITORING STUDENT GROWTH
One part of the transformation model is that of looking at student growth. Thus we will have two ways to monitor and measure “growth” as we implement the components of our plan. Student growth means the change in achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. When looking at growth, we must use the state’s assessments as one indicator but can also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms, such as the common assessments teachers have indicated are needed.
Measure growth toward a standard
Some of the standards that students learn are naturals for monitoring growth. For example, we can determine how well students write at the beginning of the year and determine their growth at the end of the year. The same is true for things like math problem solving, scientific investigation, interpreting visual information, reading levels, and more.
Measure growth of moving from one grade level to the next
Another measurement of growth would be that of students who move from one grade level to the next – or from one course to the next by mastering the standards for the grade level or course.
Since not all of our students will cruise through their learning, we are going to establish a Academic Review Team at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. The purpose of this team is to help ensure we are applying the response to intervention model for all of the students we serve.
Questions to Answer About the Academic Review Team
1. What is the purpose of the Academic Review Team?
2. What will be the protocols?
3. What data will be used to determine which students need this additional level of support?
4. Will the student support team work with academic interventions for students or behavioral interventions, or both?
5. Who will manage the Academic Review Team?
6. Why are students struggling?
Professional Development Plan That Aligns to the National Staff Development Council Standards for Staff Development
Our professional development plan is embedded in our school improvement plan to ensure that what we do truly supports the direction of the school. All professional development has been selected based on whether or not it helps us achieve our goals of improving student achievement.
Our work meets the NSDC professional development standards in the following ways:
|National Staff Development Standards |Mount Clemens High School |
| |Evidence of Meeting Standards |
|CONTEXT STANDARDS |
|Staff development that improves the learning of all students. |
|Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned |Teachers from the junior and high school worked to thoroughly analyze |
|with those of the school and district. (Learning Communities) |data, complete the School Strategy Card alignment process, and |
| |identity climate issues that need to be addressed. The teachers |
| |worked by content area for this. During the school year, teachers |
| |will also work in teams to provide academic support for students. Our|
| |teachers will have opportunities to work with one another as they |
| |develop and deliver explicit/direct lessons. They will also work |
| |together as they figure out next steps for students who need |
| |additional help. |
| | |
|Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous |Our administrative staff is being trained in Charlotte Danielson’s |
|instructional improvement. (Leadership) |method of evaluating teachers. |
| |Administrators are participating in embedded professional development |
| |which includes guiding and evaluating instructional improvement. |
| |School leaders will attend all professional development activities |
| |held at the school and those that are possible held outside the |
| |school. |
|Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. |The resources vary from one professional development opportunity to |
|(Resources) |the next. We have built in opportunities for teachers to learn more |
| |about the practices of other teachers and also recognize the need |
| |for teachers to become better at their craft through outside |
| |professional development, such as that offered by the Macomb ISD. |
| |Substitutes will be made available so our teachers have opportunities |
| |for peer coaching and improvement. |
| |We have built in 12 early release days for the 2010-2011 school year |
| |to be used for professional development toward transformation. |
|PROCESS STANDARDS |
|Standards that improve the learning of all students. |
|Uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning |We use a number of data points to determine the priorities for our |
|priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement.|professional development. One of these data points is that of looking|
|(Data-Driven) |at the ACT strand data to determine which specific areas, as measure |
| |by the ACT, are issues for our students. |
|Prepares educators to apply research to decision making. |We have identified research-based strategies in our plan for |
|(Research-Based) |improvement. These include writing-to-learn strategies, |
| |reading-to-learn strategies, and explicit/direct instruction. |
|Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. (Design) |Our key goals are to improve reading, writing, and mathematics – and |
| |we will be prioritizing the standards for these goals in the first |
| |year. As we work throughout the year, we will use learning strategies|
| |toward the priority standards – ensuring that everything we do is |
| |immediately applicable. |
|Applies knowledge about human learning and change. (Learning) |We are being focused on what we do to help ensure that teachers have a|
| |chance to integrate their new learning into their classroom practices.|
|Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. |We have numerous protocols in place that support collaboration amongst|
|(Collaboration) |faculty members. We will be embedding much of what we do as a part of|
| |our natural work – we’ll learn to look at student work by looking at |
| |student work toward the priority standards. |
|CONTENT STANDARDS |
|Standards that improve the learning of all students. |
|Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create |In our plan this year, we have included the use of structured |
|safe, orderly and supportive learning environments, and hold high |protocols and routines that lead to a safe and orderly school |
|expectations for their academic achievement. (Equity) |environment. |
| |Our use of explicit and direct instruction is a valid and important |
| |technique to ensure that we give every student the opportunity to |
| |learn at high levels. |
|Deepens educators' content knowledge, provides them with |We have determined the areas where students are struggling as one |
|research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting |indicator of the need for support of content knowledge. |
|rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of|As we plan lessons and interventions, we will be working with teachers|
|classroom assessments appropriately. (Quality Teaching) |to help them match the right strategy or assessment to the right |
| |objective at the right cognitive level. |
|Provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and |We have a number of things to involve families and other stakeholders |
|other stakeholders appropriately. (Family Involvement) |in our work. These include: Parent University; |
| |Districtwide/Schoolwide Parent Involvement (1 per semester); Monthly |
| |SIT/Family Meeting (1 per month); District Parent Council; IB Parent |
| |Meeting; Superintendent Parent Advisory Council; CIS Mentoring |
| |Programs; Community Engagement Coordinator; Rotary Club member; |
| |Downtown Development member; Mount Clemens Community School District |
| |Newsletters (The Connector) quarterly; family newsletters (monthly); |
| |website |
We want our teachers to be independent learners; thus teachers will have a great deal of flexibility in how they meet their own professional development goals; they can learn in professional learning communities, take classes or workshops, conduct a short action research project, and participate in building-level professional development. A teacher’s professional development goals should come from looking at our data and identifying areas of weakness in our overall system of educating students and be tied to the district’s new evaluation plan.
We analyzed our data and determined a number of areas for embedded professional development. These are organized by curriculum, instruction, assessment, and school climate (e.g., attendance, social promotion, discipline, vision/mission, student and staff accountability, and parental involvement). The professional development plan for the 2010-2011 school year will focus on the following:
Curriculum
a) Aligning Curriculum Documents (e.g., Common Core standards, ACT College and Career Readiness Standards, MME)
b) Unpacking the Standards
c) Developing Content Cards
d) Identifying Core Vocabulary and Writing Descriptions
Instruction
a) Explicit Instruction
b) Vocabulary Development
c) Writing-to-Learn in the Content Areas
d) Reading-to-Learn in the Content Areas
e) Close and Critical Reading
Assessment
a) Developing Aligned Assessments to Unpacked Standards
b) Using Data From Assessments to Improve Student Learning
c) Using Quick Formative Assessment Strategies That Check for Understanding
d) Developing Common Assessments
e) Creating and Using High-Quality Rubrics
f) Using Data From ACT Materials to Improve Student Learning
Discipline
a) First Days of School - How to Organize Yourself and Your Classroom for High Student Achievement
b) How to Handle Discipline Issues in the Classroom
Professional Development
|Topic |Activity |Presenter |Audience |Research |
|Close and Critical Reading |ACT Reading in the Core |Macomb ISD |One teacher per core content|David Kurland |
| |Content Areas | |area. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Follow-up at school by these| |
| | | |content area teachers. | |
|Adaptive Schools |Adaptive School Training |Macomb ISD |Teacher Leaders |Robert Garmston and Bruce |
| | | | |Wellman, 2010 |
|Data Analysis |Using Data to Improve |Deborah Wahlstrom |All staff |Deborah Wahlstrom |
| |Student Achievement | | |Using Data to Improve |
| | | | |Student Achievement (2001), |
| | | | |Designing and Using |
| | | | |High-Quality |
| | | | |Paper-and-Pencil Tests |
| | | | |(2003), Designing and Using |
| | | | |High-Quality Rubrics for |
| | | | |21st Century Skills (2009) |
|Cultural Diversity |Cultural Responsiveness |TBD |All staff |Gary Howard |
School Personnel Who Will Oversee the School Improvement Grant
The following staff will oversee the implementation of the school improvement grant.
|Responsible Individual |Job Title |Percentage of Time Dedicated to |
| | |Oversight of the School |
|Dr. Charles Muncatchy |Superintendent |20% |
|Michael Bruce |Principal |80% |
|Karen Donahue |Director of Finance |20% |
|Sue Kotas |Curriculum Director |20% |
|Michael Gray |Accountability Officer |100% |
Technical Assistance
We will need technical assistance during this three-year grant period. Below is a summary of our technical assistance needs, most of which can be provided by our vendors.
1. Collecting, organizing, and analyzing data.
2. Curriculum development.
3. Using research-based instructional strategies.
4. Tying data to interventions.
5. Development of common assessments.
6. Monitoring student progress toward standards.
We plan to work with Successline Inc to provide the above technical assistance.
Supplemental Information in Support of our SIG Application
COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Staff from Mount Clemens High School with district staff and team members from Successline completed the required Comprehensive Needs Assessment. One of the keys to improving student achievement in a content area is to study the data by content area. Thus we adapted the Comprehensive Needs Assessment to reflect this. We call this the Comprehensive Needs Assessment with Steroids.
In the Mount Clements Comprehensive Needs Assessment, we start with a section that shows general data including attendance, discipline, suspensions, expulsions, and teacher data. General data spans the school and is not specific to just one content area. Our general data is placed at the beginning of the CNA.
Following the general data section, we place a thorough analysis for each content area including reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. In each content area, we reviewed available data including MME, ACT-PLAN, ACT-EXPLORE, AP Data, Survey Data, course grades, and more. We also provided basic information about each of the assessments that students take to help build understanding of the data in this section. We also redesigned charts and graphs so that we can build on the data throughout the next several years.
We have been careful to include all of the required components of the CNA.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
To determine the specific actions for the school improvement plans, staff members analyzed their state achievement data (MME/ACT-PLAN/ACT-EXPLORE) and also used a research-based School Strategy Card protocol. The purpose of the School Strategy Card protocol was to determine, for each content area, the specific actions and priorities that would further lead the school to higher student achievement.
As with the CNA, we developed the school improvement plan by content area. There are several reasons for this: (a) schools are held accountable by content area, (b) the content area is the natural area for implementation of improvement strategies, and (c) each content area is in a different place in terms of improvement. Again, we have made sure to include all of the components required by the MDE.
Based on the information from our Comprehensive Needs Assessment and our School Improvement Plan, we developed our transformation model.
ADDITIONAL SIG APPLICATION INFORMATION
In line with Michigan’s School Improvement rubrics, our transformation model is really about the processes that lead to higher student achievement and not a specific program. Interventions are based on the direct needs of the school to help ensure sustainability. It is the process and practices, and not a program that will lead to sustainability.
A structured protocol will be used to guide the improvement of student learning through the use of data. This protocol, called, The Path to Student Success, was designed to help ensure that the actions and tasks a school or district needs to work on, does. The Path to Student Success model is shown below.
[pic]
In summary, the model serves as a one-page guide for looking at different types of data and tightening alignment at the district, school, and classroom levels.
ALIGN BY DESIGN
In her book, Using Data to Improve Student Achievement, (Successline 2003), Deborah Wahlstrom talks about the critical alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Alignment is the process of ensuring that curriculum, instruction, and assessment all support one another. Alignment is key to having a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Alignment is not a random act.
Educators participating in studies related to data use, with a few exceptions, do not appear to be using input, process, or satisfaction data as frequently or as systematically as they use outcome data” (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). Why is this important? There is a relationship between tight curriculum alignment and high student achievement. When two groups perform dissimilarly, there is good chance that the difference in achievement is due to misalignment. The difference in achievement is called a gap. The National Center for Educational Accountability describes this as the avoidable gap in student achievement. (FWISD Workshop, April 2006).
The Center indicates that without alignment, 75-89% of variance in student achievement is explained by the education of the parents, community type (rich/poor), and the state poverty rate. The Center also indicates that “with alignment, 75-95% of variance is explained by School System Factors that are avoidable.” Failure to ensure that all students reach proficiency is a function of school system practices – not clientele. Thus, an important concept – and corresponding skills for teachers and administrators is that of knowing how to “do” alignment. The graph is one of our signature reports and presents the avoidable achievement gap for
Grade 6 mathematics.
[pic]
In Strand I (Teaching for Learning) of Michigan’s School Improvement Framework, there is a push for alignment. “The school holds high expectations for all students, identifies essential curricular content, makes certain it is sequenced appropriately and is taught effectively in the available instructional times. Assessments are aligned to curricular content and are used to guide instructional decisions and monitor student learning.
“When content, instruction, and local and state assessments are aligned, they become powerful forces that contribute to the success of student achievement.”
Michigan Curriculum Framework, Michigan Department of Education
A key issue that was revealed during the faculty’s two-day work session (June 30th and July 1st) is that there is a need for tighter alignment at this school.
Curriculum Development
In order to have high student achievement, it is critical that a guaranteed and viable curriculum be in place. Thus a key part of this project is ensuring a career and college-ready curriculum for students served by Mount Clemens High School. The graphic below provides a quick overview of actions that need to occur at Mount Clemens High School in relation to curriculum development.
[pic]
Specific actions related to curriculum development include:
1. Determine the best format (e.g., web, paper, database) for delivering the curriculum so the format can be used during curriculum development work.
2. Determine the priority standards in each core content area. To do this, we will: (a) review the lists of power standards developed by various ISD’s in the state, (b) determine the standards that school data showed to be an issue for students, (c) determine which courses are taught in high school and which power standards match those courses, (d) align the power standards to the ACT College and Career Readiness Skills and the Common Core standards. Additionally, since the ACT is a key assessment for the MME, we will crosswalk the ACT to the Common Core standards and the High School Content Expectations.
3. Unpack the priority standards. A priority standard is one that teachers identified as part of their data analysis and school strategy card process. Each subject area has at least five or so priority standards. Tools for unpacking the priority standards will include, but not necessarily limited to: MME data, ACT-PLAN data, ACT-EXPLORE data, past released test items or samples of test items, Common Core standards, and ACT’s College and Career Readiness standards.
4. Create concept cards for each priority standard. Based on research related to the importance of teachers knowing the expectations for what they are to teach, the concept cards serve as a reminder of the core concepts, content, and skills that are associated with a standard. They are one-page graphic organizers of the core information students should learn.
5. Identify the cognitive levels of thinking for each priority standard. Use this to ensure that teachers have a way to accurately match the unpacked standards to classroom activities and assessments.
6. Develop content-area vocabulary lists and descriptions for each content area. When developing content-area vocabulary we will use the Reading First model for classifying words which includes these levels: basic, academic, and content. Basic words are those that students have to know in order to communicate with others. These are usually the words they learn in early elementary school. Academic words are words that students need to know that apply to any class they are in. Examples of academic words are classify, organize, discuss, mentor, analyze, and distinguish. Content word examples include photosynthesis, respiration, persuasive essay, array, and revolution. This framework is a natural fit for secondary schools as it helps to divide the responsibility for the teaching of the vocabulary. All teachers can help teach the academic words, but content area teachers are responsible for directly teaching the content words.
7. Develop feedback loop for teachers to respond to the curriculum during its iterative development.
8. Prepare a rollout of the standards based on the timeframe for implementation in the curriculum – where it is naturally taught.
INSTRUCTION – RESEARCH-BASED AND ENGAGING
As a part of the School Strategy Cards alignment process, teachers determined a number of areas that need to be addressed in the area of Instruction. The model below shows an overview of the core implementation strategies including explicit instruction, writing-to-learn in the content area, reading-to-learn in the content area, and vocabulary development.
[pic]
As a natural part of the teaching and learning process, we’ll also call on many other research-based strategies where appropriate to the curriculum and help teachers make connections. For example a compare and contrast strategy is also a writing-to-learn strategy that helps students when they are asked to, well, compare and contrast two or more things. Summarizing is also a reading-to-learn and a writing-to-learn strategy.
Research shows that explicit instruction helps students learn at higher levels and thus will be one of our most important protocols for ensuring high student achievement, especially in our school which has many struggling learners.
1. Ensure that each teacher has an overview of explicit instruction.
2. Determine and agree on a model for explicit instruction so we all are using the same one.
3. Complete lesson plans in “the” format. There is a relationship between student achievement and the thoroughness of teacher planning.
4. Talk about student work after using explicit instruction. How does the protocol work for teachers? For students? Does the protocol help us help more students be successful?
5. Talk about the implementation of the explicit instruction model to ensure strong implementation by each teacher.
6. Determine resources to provide direct and individual support to teachers: (a) links to examples of lessons using explicit instruction, (b) links to You Tube/Teacher Tube videos using explicit instruction, (c) Book – Explicit Instruction, (d) flip cameras to capture explicit instruction lessons by Mount Clemens teachers.
In the area of instruction, we also recognize the importance of using research-based strategies. We will survey teachers to determine the kinds of strategies with which they are already comfortable, and build on strategies from there. Some of the research-based strategies and techniques we will use include reading-in-the-content areas, writing-in-the-content areas and tying data to interventions.
ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT
The work we will do in year one will lay the foundation for the next three years. As we move into year three of our project, we anticipate having a curriculum based on the common core standards, and tools that help explain that curriculum to teachers, students, and parents. Additionally, we anticipate knowing how to better communicate achievement toward the standards to our stakeholders, including students.
[pic]
In the area of assessment, specific tasks include:
1. Review curriculum slippage concepts and ensure that each teacher knows how to choose and/or design aligned assessments.
2. Review all materials already on hand for assessment use. These include end-of-course assessments and other assessments that are in the Data Director system and any assessments teachers now use for exams. For the materials, determine how they are currently being used and determine any concerns about the assessments.
3. Develop the protocols for developing and using assessments. With the school’s priority standards, teachers will choose aligned assessments based on the cognitive levels of the standards. After students take the assessments, we’ll look at the data and group students into two categories: Those who “have it” and “those who don’t.” Use power quizzes and checking-for-understanding techniques on a regular basis to ensure we know how students are progressing. (A power quiz is a quick quiz that has several questions related to one objective. Its purpose is to determine the learning of students toward a specific objective.)
4. Determine interventions for students who still struggle with the concepts.
5. Determine if the interventions worked.
6. Develop protocols for designing and using common assessments. The protocols will include such things as: (a) which courses will have common assessments, (b) how often common assessments will be given, (c) standardization rules for the common assessments so that the tests are standardized from one class to another, (d) how the data from common assessments will be used.
7. Develop a variety of strategies for checking for understanding – a formative assessment technique. Examples include the use of clickers, index cards, popsicle sticks, clothespins, random generator from SmartBoard program, and more.
8. Survey teachers to determine what kinds of materials they already have on hand for assessment, both summative and formative. Use this list to determine additional instructional materials that teachers may need. For example, does the school have scanners? A way to digitize results of writing? A way to conduct online testing?
WRITING-TO-LEARN
Writing is one of those skills that dramatically improves the thinking of students in any content area.
1. Determine key writing-to-learn techniques that every faculty member will use such as Type II writing (Collins writing model) which encourages students to write about the content they are learning.
2. Provide embedded professional development for these techniques.
VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
In the area of curriculum we will have determined the core vocabulary for each course. But identifying the words is not enough. It is important that we directly teach content words to students to help them build critical background knowledge (Marzano). This also ties in to our explicit and direct instruction – and is not separate from that.
1. Identify the core content vocabulary for each course. Use the following resources: Common Core standards, ACT College and Career Readiness Skills, MME Information, ACT-PLAN, ACT EXPLORE.
2. Identify the core content words.
3. Write descriptions for each term.
4. Develop/choose/agree on a process to directly teach the vocabulary words to students and make it part of our explicit teaching model.
5. Use five-star words technique with students.
6. Develop games and other review strategies to help students work with words.
Resources for Vocabulary Development: (a) magic markers, (b) index cards, (c) zippy bags, (d) binder rings, (e) other resources as determined by teachers.
PROJECT-EMBEDDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Teachers improve their craft through frequent feedback, coaching, and collaborative support. Our goal is to help develop collaborative and personalized professional development. The best way for teachers to learn a new skill is to just get in there and begin to use it. This model of professional development supports teaches as they work in a culture of professional inquiry.
We will develop and use an online progression chart for teachers to “watch” their growth as they integrate new ideas and skills into the “toolkits” they already use. We’ll look at teacher data from the beginning of the year to the end in at least quarterly intervals.
1. Develop a teacher checklist or continuum for implementing agreed-upon strategies.
2. Develop a way for teachers to track their own development and learning.
3. Have teachers write one article for our learning blog to answer questions such as: What have you tried? How is it working for you? How is it working for students? What are your evidences that it is working?
Our model fully supports and is guided by the Standards for Professional Development of the National Staff Development Council.
DISCIPLINE
Good discipline is a perquisite for good classroom instruction. Discipline provides order for the day and ensures a viable learning experience for all students.
Resources to Support Discipline Initiative
A. Book, The First Days of School (Harry Wong). 1 per staff member including teachers, administrators, parapros, long-term substitutes, etc.
B. 1 Accountability Officer
C. Discipline Banners/Charts for each classroom/common area in the school
D. Student Planners
E. Software to track student discipline – online or on a palm/blackberry
WRITING ASSESSMENTS
We are also committed to doing a better job of determining how well each of our students write.
• Grades 8 and 11 – or released Michigan items
• Teachers trained to score the writing (grades 7-12).
• Choose three prompts (e.g., beginning, middle, end-of-year).
• Choose examples of writing questions (multiple choice)
• Enter results into database
• Develop protocols for giving the writing test
• Develop protocols for scoring the writing tests
• Rubric – holistic or analytic
• Writing prompts – booklets paper on which students write
• Time for teachers to score papers
• 20-30 teachers per scoring session
DOLCH WORD LIST ASSESSMENT
Students in Michigan are expected to know the DOLCH 1000 word list by the end of their 5th grade year. Since teachers have indicated that many of their students are several years below grade level in reading, we’ll include the DOLCH list as one of our assessment indicators and data points to better serve students.
OPENING OF SCHOOL ASSEMBLY
Purposes
• Build a sense of purpose (e.g., graduation music to remind students that we want them all to be high-achieving graduates)
• Establish routines for school/classes so that all students hear the same message
• Uniform dress (what’s okay; what’s not)
• Introduction of student leaders
ADULTS SETTING THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS
In our work, we have four core groups of adults who will work together collaboratively to set the conditions for success for all students. These groups include the Board of Education, Central Office Leadership, Mount Clemens High School staff, and Macomb ISD staff.
The following chart shows the roles and responsibilities for these transformation relationships.
Section IV: Fiscal Information
Individual grant awards will range from not less than $50,000 to not more than $2,000,000 per school, with grants averaging around $500,000.
The MDE has asked for a waiver of section 421(b) of GEPA to extend the period of availability of the SIG funds, that waiver automatically applies to every LEA in the State seeking SIG funds. Accordingly, if an SEA is granted this waiver, an LEA must create a budget for the full period of availability of the funds, including the period granted by the waiver.
An SEA that requests a waiver of section 421(b) of GEPA to extend the period of availability of SIG funds may seek to make the funds available for up to two years beyond the regular period of availability. For example, without a waiver, FY 2009 SIG funds will be available until September 30, 2011. Through a waiver, those funds could be made available for up to two additional years – until September 30, 13.
USES OF FUNDS
School Improvement Grant – Section 1003(g) funds must be used to supplement the level of funds that, in the absence of the Title I monies, would be made available from non-federal sources for the education of children participating in Title I programs. Therefore, funds cannot supplant non-federal funds or be used to replace existing services.
Improvement funds must be tracked separately from the Title I Basic Grant and the Section 1003(a) School Improvement Grant. Local fiscal agents are to place improvement funds in a Title I account assigned for school improvement. (This funding number must not be the same number as is used for the Title I Basic Grant award or Section 1003(a) School Improvement Grant.)
Intensive monitoring of grant implementation and evaluation will be required.
Since these are school improvement funds, districts may not combine funds into one account, and the amount awarded to each school must be spent on implementing one of the four turnaround models at the school.
The CFDA (Code of Federal Domestic Assistance) Number for this grant is #84.377A; 84.388A.
For a listing of allowable uses of funds, go to the guidance document listed on the USED website.
Mount Clemens Community School District
School Improvement Grant
2010-11 Expenses
|Activity |Support |Position/ |Cost Estimate |Provider |
| | |Materials/ | | |
| | |Supplies/ | | |
| | |Equipment/ | | |
| | |Support | | |
|Professional Development programs|Increased capacity of teachers and |Support |$9,716 programs |MISD |
|and stipends for professional |support staff | |(1st year only) | |
|development | | | |Professional |
| | | |$116,100 compensation |Development |
| | | | |contracted |
| | | | |consultants |
|Scholastic Reading Inventory |Reading |Materials/ |$7,000 |Scholastic |
| | |Supplies/ | | |
| | |Software | | |
|Read 180 |Reading Intervention Teacher |Position |$63,260 | MTC Teacher (New |
| | |Covering 6 classes | |hire) |
| | |1 FTE | |(5 Read 180 |
| | | | |Intervention (Grade |
| | | | |9-11) & 1 Corrective|
| | | | |(Grade 9) |
|Saturday School – 2 certified |Math & ELA |Position |$6,958 |MTC Teachers |
|teachers (4 hours per day for 30 | | | | |
|weeks @ $22.65 per hour) | | | | |
|ACT Quality Core Curriculum |Math & ELA |Software |$7,600 |ACT |
|End of Course Testing | |400 students X $19 | | |
|ACT Online Prep Services for |Math & ELA |Software |$7,600 |ACT |
|students after school hours | |400 students X $19 | | |
|KeyTrain Onlne ACT WorkKeys Prep |Math & ELA |Software |$7,600 |ACT |
|System | |400 students X $19 | | |
|ACT Flash Card Study System for |Math & ELA |400 students x $57 |$22,800 |ACT |
|Grade 9, 10, 11 students | | |(1st year only) | |
|Corrective Reading |Reading |Curriculum |$20,000 |McGrawHillSRA |
|Data Entry Support – to assist in| |Position |$12,096 |PCMI |
|working with the data for the | | | | |
|school improvement project (20 | | | | |
|hours per week for 36 weeks @ $15| | | | |
|per hour) | | | | |
|Small Learning Community, | |Position |$57,508 |MTC Teacher |
|Freshman Academy Teacher | |.5 FTE | | |
|Certified Parapro to assess | |Position |$1,200 |PCMI |
|students prior to beginning | | | | |
|school year (10 days, 6 hours per| | | | |
|day @ $18 per hour) | | | | |
|Consultant to offer PD on Common | |Support |$11,6676 | |
|Core, ACT, College & Career | | | | |
|Readiness, MME | | | | |
|Contracted Services to develop | |Support |$20,000 | |
|SIG and provide PD training (20 | | | | |
|days x $1,000 per day) | | | | |
|Extra Support Math Class |Math |Covering 6 classes |$63,260 |MTC Teacher (New |
|“Double Dose” |Intervention Teacher |1 FTE | |hire) |
|Carnegie “Bridges to Algebra” |Math |Curriculum/ |$4,200 |Carnegie |
|Curriculum - 100 students x $42 | |Software | | |
|per student | | | | |
|Literacy Coach – Certified |English |.5 FTE |$24,000 |MISD |
|teacher | | | | |
|Math Coach – Certified teacher |Math |.5 FTE |$24,000 |MISD |
|Math Para Professionals – 1 |Math |1.0 FTE |$21,775 |PCMI |
|certified teachers (6 hours per | | | | |
|day @ $18 per hour /180 days) | | | | |
|English Para Professionals – 1 |English |1.0 FTE |$21,775 |PCMI |
|certified teachers (6 hours per | | | | |
|day @ $18 per hour /180 days) | | | | |
|Scoring Team – 20 to 30 teachers | | |$11,520 |MTC Teachers |
|per scoring session to score | | | | |
|school-wide writing tests and | | | | |
|enter data from test results (3 | | | | |
|Saturdays per year - #100 per day| | | | |
|x 30 teachers x 3 days) | | | | |
|Technical Assistance to create | | |$20,000 |Successline, Inc. |
|data warehouse for Our HS and to | | | | |
|monitor and record all aspects of| | | | |
|our school improvement plan (20 | | | | |
|days X $1,00 per day) | | | | |
1st Year - $558,034
2nd Year - $529,119
3rd Year - $529,119
TOTAL $1,616,272
Mount Clemens Community School District
High School Reform
2010-11 Expenditures
|Activity |Description |Cost Estimate |Provider |Funded |
|Drop Out Prevention/ | | | | |
|Graduation Rate Increase/ | | | | |
|Credit Recovery | | | | |
|Education 20/20 |Software |$13,000 |Education 20/20 |31A |
|Education 20/20 Credit Recovery Class (1 |Curriculum |$33,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|Teachers) |.5 FTE | | | |
|College Resource Center |Position (.5) |$15,000 |PCMI |AAE |
| |(certified teacher) | | | |
|Accountability Officer |Position |$108,400 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teacher/Admin | | | |
|Data Director |Student License Fee (500 x $4.90) |$2,450 |MISD |31A |
|Alternative Ed Supervisor |Position |$100,000 |MTC Staff |MI Works (.5) |
| |(certified teacher) | | |General (.5) |
|Alternative Ed/Credit Recovery |Positions |$215,000 |PCMI |31A Funds |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Attendance/Discipline |Position |$130,000 | |31A |
| |(certified teacher) | | | |
|Intervention Staff |Positions |$70,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Behavior Coach |Position |$100,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
| |(certified teachers) | | | |
|Community In Schools Liaison |Position |$70,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|Social Worker |Position (certified) |$100,000 |MTC Staff |31A |
|West Ed Reading Apprenticeship |Curriculum |$28,320 |West Ed |Title IIA |
|Professional Development | | | | |
|Professional Development |Conferences/ |$40,000 |Various |Title IIA |
| |Supplies/Stipends | | | |
|Professional Development |Consultants |$40,000 |Danielson/ |Title IIA |
| | | |Various | |
|Sub Teachers for Professional | |$10,000 | |Title IIA |
|Development | | | | |
|TOTAL | |$1,075,170 | | |
MOUNT CLEMENS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
LEA Application
Part III
ATTACHMENT VI
Policies and Practices Change Analysis to Implement the SIG Final Requirements
Depending on the intervention model selected by the LEA, some policy and practice changes may need to be implemented. Please indicate below which are already in place, which are under consideration, and which are not needed.
*Modified from Making Good Choices – A Guide for Schools and Districts, NCREL, c2002, 1998
References
Chen, E., Heritage, M. & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students’ learning needs with technology, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 309-332.
Croft, A., Coggshall, J.G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J. (2010). Job-embedded professional development: what it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center, National Staff Development Council.
Danielson, C. (2006).Enhancing Professional Practice, A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. Council of Chief State School Officers, (2010). Performance counts: assessment systems that support high-quality learning. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Enhancing RTI: how to ensure success with effective classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria: ASCD.
Henderson, S., Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., & Hamilton, S. (2007). Measuring how benchmark assessments affect student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 039). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from .
Herman, J. & Gribbons, B. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: final report to the stuart foundation. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, 2001.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Lachat, M.A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10(3), 333-349.
Learning Point Associates. (n.d.) School improvement through data-driven decision making. Available at .
Light, D., Wexler, D., & Heinze, J. (n.d.). Keeping teachers in the center: a framework of data-driven decision-making. Available online at . . . .
Love, N. (2004).Taking data to new depths. Journal of Staff Development 25(4), 22-26.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marsh, J.A., Pane, J.F., & Hamilton, L.S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. RAND Occasional paper.
Mason, S. (2002). Turning data into knowledge: lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2002.
Perlman, C.L., & Redding, S. editors. (2009). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement.
Rabinowitz, S. N. (2010). Next-generation assessment systems. Education Week, 29(22), 26, 36. Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11, 205-235.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Furtak, E.M. (2006)
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now: how we can achieve unprecedented results in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sharkey, N.S., & Murnane, R.J. (2003). Learning from student assessment results. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 77-81.
Squires, D.A. (2009). Curriculum alignment: Research-based strategies for
increasing student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
St. John, M., & Stokes, Laura. (Producer). (2010).Understanding the national writing project. [Web].
Supovitz, J.A, & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: how innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
Wahlstrom, D. (2007). Designing and using high-quality paper-and-pencil tests. Suffolk, VA: Successline Inc.
Wahlstrom, D. (2009). Designing and using high-quality rubrics for 21st century skills. Suffolk, VA: Successline Inc.
Wahlstrom, D. (2003). Using data to improvement student achievement. Suffolk, VA: Successline Inc.
Please see attached Appendix:
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Evidence of Teaching for Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy
|Unsatisfactory |Basic |Proficient |Distinguished |
|Teacher’s plans and practice display little knowledge of |Teacher’s plans and practice reflect some |Teacher’s plans and practice reflect solid knowledge |Teacher’s plans and practice reflect extensive |
|the content, prerequisite relationships between different|awareness of the important concepts in the |of the content, prerequisite relations between |knowledge of the content and of the structure of the |
|aspects of the content, or of the instructional practices|discipline, prerequisite relations between them |important concepts and of the instructional practices|discipline. Teacher actively builds on knowledge of |
|specific to that discipline. |and of the instructional practices specific to |specific to that discipline. |prerequisites and misconceptions when describing |
| |that discipline. | |instruction or seeking causes for student |
| | | |misunderstanding. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component 1b. Demonstrating knowledge of students. |
|Teacher demonstrates little or no knowledge of students’ |Teacher indicates the importance of understanding|Teacher actively seeks knowledge of students’ |Teacher actively seeks knowledge of students’ |
|backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, |students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language|backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, |backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, |
|interests, and special needs, and does not seek such |proficiency, interests, and special needs, and |interests, and special needs, and attains this |interests, and special needs from a variety of |
|understanding. |attains this knowledge for the class as a whole. |knowledge for groups of students. |sources, and attains this knowledge for individual |
| | | |students. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component 1c. Setting instructional outcomes |
|Instructional outcomes are unsuitable for students, |Instructional outcomes are of moderate rigor and |Instructional outcomes are stated as goals reflecting|Instructional outcomes are stated as goals that can |
|represent trivial or low-level learning, or are stated |are suitable for some students, but consist of a |high-level learning and curriculum standards. They |be assessed, reflecting rigorous learning and |
|only as activities. They do not permit viable methods of |combination of activities and goals, some of |are suitable for most students in the class, |curriculum standards. They represent different types |
|assessment. |which permit viable methods of assessment. They |represent different types of learning, and are |of content, offer opportunities for both coordination|
| |reflect more than one type of learning, but |capable of assessment. The outcomes reflect |and integration, and take account of the needs of |
| |teacher makes no attempt at coordination or |opportunities for coordination. |individual students. |
| |integration. | | |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 1d. Demonstrating knowledge of resources |
|Teacher demonstrates little or no familiarity with |Teacher demonstrates some familiarity with |Teacher is fully aware of the resources available |Teacher seeks out resources in and beyond the school |
|resources to enhance own knowledge, to use in teaching, |resources available through the school or |through the school or district to enhance own |or district in professional organizations, on the |
|or for students who need them. Teacher does not seek such|district to enhance own knowledge, to use in |knowledge, to use in teaching, or for students who |Internet, and in the community to enhance own |
|knowledge |teaching, or for students who need them. Teacher |need them. |knowledge, to use in teaching, and for students who |
| |does not seek to extend such knowledge | |need them. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component e. Designing coherent instruction |
|The series of learning experiences are poorly aligned |The series of learning experiences demonstrates |Teacher coordinates knowledge of content, of |Teacher coordinates knowledge of content, of |
|with the instructional outcomes and do not represent a |partial alignment with instructional outcomes, |students, and of resources, to design a series of |students, and of resources, to design a series of |
|coherent structure. They are suitable for only some |some of which are likely to engage students in |learning experiences aligned to instructional |learning experiences aligned to instructional |
|students. |significant learning. The lesson or unit has a |outcomes and suitable to groups of students. The |outcomes, differentiated where appropriate to make |
| |recognizable structure and reflects partial |lesson or unit has a clear structure and is likely to|them suitable to all students and likely to engage |
| |knowledge of students and resources. |engage students in significant learning. |them in significant learning. The lesson or unit’s |
| | | |structure is clear and allows for different pathways |
| | | |according to student needs. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component 1f. Designing student assessment |
|Teacher’s plan for assessing student learning contains no|Teacher’s plan for student assessment is |Teacher’s plan for student assessment is aligned with|Teacher’s plan for student assessment is fully |
|clear criteria or standards, is poorly aligned with the |partially aligned with the instructional |the instructional outcomes, using clear criteria, is |aligned with the instructional outcomes, with clear |
|instructional outcomes, or is inappropriate to many |outcomes, without clear criteria, and |appropriate to the needs of students. Teacher |criteria and standards that show evidence of student |
|students. The results of assessment have minimal impact |inappropriate for at least some students. |intends to use assessment results to plan for future |contribution to their development. Assessment |
|on the design of future instruction. |Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan|instruction for groups of students. |methodologies may have been adapted for individuals, |
| |for future instruction for the class as a whole. | |and the teacher intends to use assessment results to |
| | | |plan future instruction for individual students. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
Evidence of Teaching for Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Component 2a. Creating an environment of respect and rapport
|Unsatisfactory |Basic |Proficient |Distinguished |
|Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and |Classroom interactions, both between the teacher |Classroom interactions, between teacher and students |Classroom interactions among the teacher and |
|students and among students, are negative, inappropriate,|and students and among students, are generally |and among students are polite and respectful, |individual students are highly respectful, |
|or insensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds, and |appropriate and free from conflict but may be |reflecting general warmth and caring, and are |reflecting genuine warmth and caring and |
|characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict. |characterized by occasional displays of |appropriate to the cultural and developmental |sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of |
| |insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to |differences among groups of students. |development. Students themselves ensure high |
| |cultural or developmental differences among | |levels of civility among members of the class. |
| |students. | | |
|Evidence |
|Used students names—don’t eat the bears sign—now you can eat the bears |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 2b. Establishing a culture for learning |
|The classroom environment conveys a negative culture for |Teacher’s attempt to create a culture for |The classroom culture is characterized by high |High levels of student energy and teacher passion|
|learning, characterized by low teacher commitment to the |learning are partially successful, with little |expectations for most students, genuine commitment to|for the subject create a culture for learning in |
|subject, low expectations for student achievement, and |teacher commitment to the subject, modest |the subject by both teacher and students, with |which everyone shares a belied in the importance |
|little or no student pride in work. |expectations for student achievement, and little |students demonstrating pride in their work. |of the subject, and all students hold themselves |
| |student pride in work. Both teacher and students| |to high standards of performance, for example by |
| |appear to be only “going through the motions.” | |initiating improvements to their work. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component 2c. Managing classroom procedures |
|Much instructional time is lost due to inefficient |Some instructional time is lost due to only |Little instructional time is lost due to classroom |Students contribute to the seamless operation of |
|classroom routines and procedures, for transitions, |partially effective classroom routines and |routines and procedures, for transitions, handling of|classroom routines and procedures, for |
|handling of supplies, and performance of |procedures, for transitions, handling of |supplies, and performance of non-instructional |transitions, handling of supplies, and |
|non-instructional duties.. |supplies, and performance of non-instructional |duties, which occur smoothly. |performance of non-instructional duties. |
| |duties. | | |
|Evidence |
|Bears were in plastic bags-- |
| |
|Component 2d. Managing student behavior |
|There is no evidence that standards of conduct have been |It appears that the teacher has made an effort to|Standards of conduct appear to be clear to students, |Standards of conduct are clear, with evidence of |
|established, and little or no teacher monitoring of |establish standards of conduct for students. |and the teacher monitors student behavior against |student participation in setting them. Teacher’s|
|student behavior. Response to student misbehavior is |Teacher tries, with uneven results, to monitor |those standards. Teacher response to student |monitoring of student behavior is subtle and |
|repressive, or disrespectful of student dignity. |student behavior and respond to student |misbehavior is appropriate and respects the students’|preventive, and teacher’s response to student |
| |misbehavior. |dignity. |misbehavior is sensitive to individual student |
| | | |needs. Students take an active role in monitoring|
| | | |the standards of behavior. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 2e. Organizing physical space |
|The physical environment is unsafe, or some students |The classroom is safe, and essential learning is |The classroom is safe, and learning is accessible to |The classroom is safe, and the physical |
|don’t have access to learning. There is poor alignment |accessible to most students, and the teacher’s |all students; teacher ensures that the physical |environment ensures the learning of all students,|
|between the physical arrangement and the lesson |use of physical resources, including computer |arrangement is appropriate to the learning |including those with special needs. Students |
|activities. |technology, is moderately effective. Teacher may |activities. Teacher makes effective use of physical |contribute to the use or adaptation of the |
| |attempt to modify the physical arrangement to |resources, including computer technology. |physical environment to advance learning. |
| |suit learning activities, with partial success. | |Technology is used skillfully, as appropriate to |
| | | |the lesson. |
|Evidence |
|Students arranged in pods of 4 |
Evidence of Teaching for Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a. Communicating with students
|Unsatisfactory |Basic |Proficient |Distinguished |
|Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and|Expectations for learning, directions and |Expectations for learning, directions and procedures,|Expectations for learning, directions and |
|explanations of content are unclear or confusing to |procedures, and explanations of content are |and explanations of content are clear to students. |procedures, and explanations of content are clear|
|students. Teacher’s use of language contains errors or is|clarified after initial confusion; teacher’s use |Communications are appropriate to students’ cultures |to students. Teacher’s oral and written |
|inappropriate to students’ cultures or levels of |of language is correct but may not be completely |and levels of development |communication is clear and expressive, |
|development. |appropriate to students’ cultures or levels of | |appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of |
| |development. | |development, and anticipates possible student |
| | | |misconceptions. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
|Component 3b. Using questioning and discussion techniques |
|Teacher’s questions are low-level or inappropriate, |Some of the teacher’s questions elicit a |Most of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful |Questions reflect high expectations and are |
|eliciting limited student participation, and recitation |thoughtful response, but most are low-level, |response, and the teacher allows sufficient time for |culturally and developmentally appropriate. |
|rather than discussion. |posed in rapid succession. Teacher’ attempts to |students to answer. All students participate in the |Students formulate many of the high-level |
| |engage all students in the discussion are only |discussion, with the teacher stepping aside when |questions and ensure that all voices are heard. |
| |partially successful. |appropriate. | |
|Evidence |
|So what does x rep how about y |
|What was the difference between 1st pattern and the 2nd pattenr--Jimmy-what would you expect the equation to look like |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 3c. Engage students in learning |
|Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of |Activities and assignments, materials, and |Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings |Students are highly intellectually engaged |
|students are inappropriate to the instructional outcomes,|groupings of students are partially appropriate |of students are fully appropriate to the |throughout the lesson in significant learning, |
|or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, |to the instructional outcomes, or students’ |instructional outcomes, and students’ cultures and |and make material contributions to the |
|resulting in little intellectual engagement. The lesson |cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in|levels of understanding. All students are engaged in |activities, student groupings, and materials. The|
|has no structure or is poorly paced. |moderate intellectual engagement. The lesson has |work of a high level of rigor. The lesson’s structure|lesson is adapted as needed to the needs of |
| |a recognizable structure but is not fully |is coherent, with appropriate pace. |individuals, and the structure and pacing allow |
| |maintained. | |for student reflection and closure. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 3d. Using assessment in instruction |
|Assessment is not used in instruction, either through |Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, |Assessment is regularly used in instruction, through |Assessment is used in a sophisticated manner in |
|students’ awareness of the assessment criteria, |through some monitoring of progress of learning |self-assessment by students, monitoring of progress |instruction, through student involvement in |
|monitoring of progress by teacher or students, or through|by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students|of learning by teacher and/or students, and through |establishing the assessment criteria, |
|feedback to students. |is uneven, and students are aware of only some of|high quality feedback to students. Students are |self-assessment by students and monitoring of |
| |the assessment criteria used to evaluate their |fully aware of the assessment criteria used to |progress by both students and teachers, and high |
| |work. |evaluate their work. |quality feedback to students from a variety of |
| | | |sources. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 3e. Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness |
|Teacher adheres to the instruction plan, even when a |Teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed|Teacher promotes the successful learning of all |Teacher seizes an opportunity to enhance |
|change would improve the lesson or of students’ lack of |and to respond to student questions, with |students, making adjustments as needed to instruction|learning, building on a spontaneous event or |
|interest. Teacher brushes aside student questions; when |moderate success. Teacher accepts responsibility |plans and accommodating student questions, needs and |student interests. Teacher ensures the success of|
|students experience difficulty, the teacher blames the |for student success, but has only a limited |interests. |all students, using an extensive repertoire of |
|students or their home environment. |repertoire of strategies to draw upon. | |instructional strategies. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
Evidence of Teaching for Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Component 4a. Reflecting on teaching
|Unsatisfactory |Basic |Proficient |Distinguished |
|Teacher does not accurately assess the effectiveness of |Teacher provides a partially accurate and |Teacher provides an accurate and objective |Teacher’s reflection on the lesson is thoughtful |
|the lesson, and has no ideas about how the lesson could |objective description of the lesson, but does not|description of the lesson, citing specific evidence. |and accurate, citeing specific evidence. Teacher|
|be improved. |cite specific evidence. Teacher makes only |Teacher makes some specific suggestions as to how the|draws on an extensive repertoire to suggest |
| |general suggestions as to how the lesson might be|lesson might be improved. |alternative strategies and predicting the likely |
| |improved. | |success of each. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 4b. Maintaining accurate records |
|Teacher’s systems for maintaining both instructional and |Teacher’s systems for maintaining both |Teacher’s systems for maintaining both instructional |Students contribute to the maintenance of the |
|non-instructional records are either non-existent or in |instructional and non-instructional records are |and non-instructional records are accurate, efficient|systems for maintaining both instructional and |
|disarray, resulting in errors and confusion. |rudimentary and only partially successful. |and successful. |non-instructional records, which are accurate, |
| | | |efficient and successful. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 4c. Communicating with Families |
|Teacher communication with families, about the |Teacher adheres to school procedures for |Teacher communicates frequently with families and |Teacher’s communication with families is frequent|
|instructional program, or about individual students, is |communicating with families and makes modest |successfully engages them in the instructional |and sensitive to cultural traditions; students |
|sporadic or culturally inappropriate. Teacher makes no |attempts to engage families in the instructional |program. Information to families about individual |participate in the communication. Teacher |
|attempt to engage families in the instructional program. |program. But communications are not always |students is conveyed in a culturally appropriate |successfully engages families in the |
| |appropriate to the cultures of those families. |manner. |instructional program; as appropriate. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 4d. Participating in a professional community |
|Teacher avoids participating in a professional community |Teacher becomes involved in the professional |Teacher participates actively the professional |Teacher makes a substantial contribution to the |
|or in school and district events and projects; |community and in school and district events and |community, and in school and district events and |professional community, to school and district |
|relationships with colleagues are negative or |projects when specifically asked; relationships |projects, and maintains positive and productive |events and projects, and assumes a leadership |
|self-serving, |with colleagues are cordial. |relationships with colleagues. |role among the faculty. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 4e. Growing and developing professionally |
|Teacher does not participate in professional |Teacher participates in professional development |Teacher seeks out opportunities for professional |Teacher actively pursues professional development |
|development activities, and makes no effort to |activities that are convenient or are required, and |development based on an individual assessment of |opportunities, and initiates activities to contribute to |
|share knowledge with colleagues. Teacher is |makes limited contributions to the profession. |need, and actively shares expertise with others. |the profession In addition, teacher seeks out feedback |
|resistant to feedback from supervisors or |Teacher accepts, with some reluctance, feedback from |Teacher welcomes feedback from supervisors and |from supervisors and colleagues. |
|colleagues. |supervisors and colleagues. |colleagues. | |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Component 4f. Demonstrating professionalism |
|Teacher has little sense of ethics and |Teacher is honest and well-intentioned in serving |Teacher displays a high level of ethics and |Teacher is proactive and assumes a leadership role in |
|professionalism, and contributes to practices |students and contributing to decisions in the school,|professionalism in dealings with both students |ensuring the highest ethical standards, and seeing that |
|that are self-serving or harmful to students. |but teacher’s attempts to serve students are limited.|and colleagues, and complies fully and |school practices and procedures ensure that all students,|
|Teacher fails to comply with school and district |Teacher complies minimally with school and district |voluntarily with school and district regulations.|particularly those traditionally underserved, are honored|
|regulations and timelines. |regulations, doing just enough to “get by.” |Teacher complies fully with school and district |in the school. Teacher takes a leadership role in seeing |
| | |regulations. |that colleagues comply with school and district |
| | | |regulations. |
|Evidence |
| |
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------
Creative Arts and Communication Academy
2009-2010
Medical Bioscience Academy
2010-2011
Partnership with Michigan State Osteopathic Medical School in Macomb County
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- application analysis definition
- sample high school application essay
- application analysis tools
- back to school needs list
- high school application essay example
- private high school application essays
- high school application essays sample
- high school application essays
- sample graduate school application essay
- high school application forms
- summer school application nyc doe
- high school application form online