core experience a small percent of students will still need tier 2 and tier 3 supports for the development of social emotional skills. Similar to the tiered model of (academic) instruction outlined in Strategic Objective 2, Initiative 3, the district embarked on redesigning a tiered model for non-academic needs based on the MTSS framework during the summer of 2012. The tenets of data driven decision making, referrel to Instructional Support Teams, and progress monitoring written for the academic model of instruction applies to then non-academic needs as well. students in need of Tier 2 support. The tier 2 plans indicate instructional activities, time and duration of intervention, and protocols for progress monitoring. Instructional Support Teams provide regular feedback and check in’s with teachers to ensure students are moving appropriately across Tiers. Curriculum Accommodation Teams are formed for students not successful with Tier 2 support and include a broader group of experts such as instructional coaches, school psychologists, and ELL and Sped staff. This team provides direction and planning for more intensive interventions that require more frequent progress monitoring and more frequent feedback to teachers implementing the intervention to ensure students are moving appropriately across tiers. Staff delivering tiered instruction are observed and provided with regular feedback on performance. Feedback and observations should identify an improvement in instruction. Short Term Outcomes Students on tier 2 and tier 3 plans show an improvement in SEL skills as measured by selected instruments such as Developmental Studies Center Scales. Students on tier 2 and tier 3 show an increase in behaviour as measured by a 5% decrease in office referrals, suspensions, and individual student absenteeism, measured at least quarterly. Final Outcomes Students’ social emotional learning needs are being met within the tiered model of behaviour and therefore, the number of referrals to Special Education for emotional and behavioural disabilities concerns declines by 5%. Substaintally separate and Out of District placements will decrease by 5% and partial inclusion placements will increase by 5% for students with behavioral and emotional disabilities. Student on tier 2 and 3 non-academic support plans show an increase in academic performance as measured by an SGP greater than 51 in grades 4-8, 10 in Math and ELA or 5-10% increase in end of year summative assessments in ELA or Math for grades K-3, 9, and 11-12. Intiative 3. Both were based on the MTSS framework. Implementation is dependent upon effective teaming at the school level (see Strategic Objective 1, Intiative 2).
schools, and develop protocols as necessary March 2013 OOI Team triangulates district data with short term goal progress, and reports out to Superintendent and school based staff. Fran Roy 2013 2013 n/a March 2013 SRV Partners work with school based ILT to implement midcourse corrections and set short term goals for April, May, and June. Fran Roy March 2013 2013 n/a April 2013 Cycle III Begins: SRV Partners meet regularly with School ILT to assess progress toward short term goals. Office of Instruction (OOI) Team meets weekly to discuss progress of schools, and develop protocols as necessary. Fran Roy April 2013 June 2013 n/a June 2013 OOI Team triangulates district data with short term goal progress, and reports out to Superintendent and school based staff. Fran Roy June 2013 June 2013 n/a June 2013 SRV Partners support School Improvement Planning for SY 14 through analysis of SRV reports, MCAS preliminary data, and other sources. Fran Roy June 2013 August 2013 n/a Quarterly Progress Rating (QPR) of the Strategic Initiative Key: P = Process, O = Outcome September 2012 December 2012 January 2012 March 2013 June 2013 August 2013 P O It is critical to provide a separate rating for the process of implementation (activities) and outcomes (early evidence of change as well as short-term outcomes and final outcomes). District Strategic Objective 1: District systems developed and or strengthened during Recovery support effective school-based implementation of School Improvement Plans through enhanced leadership capacity and administrator quality. Overall Lead (Objective): Meg Superintendent
identifying short-term school-wide or goals and embedded PD. March 2013 Cycle III begins. Schools utilize rubric to provide feedback on school-wide walkthroughs and to individual teachers. SRV partners use rubric to collect observational data on classroom practice. SRV Partners March 2013 May 2013 n/a May 2013 Data from walkthroughs is compiled into SRV Report out of Cycle III, with specific attention to identifying short-term school-wide or goals and embedded PD. SRV Partners May 2013 May 2013 n/a June 2013 Data collected on instructional rubric is embedded to the School Improvement Plan for SY 14. Principals June 2013 June 2013 n/a September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 January 2013 March 2013 May 2013 August 2013 P O A. District Strategic Objective 2: Ensure success for all students through high quality, rigorous teaching and learning leading to high academic achievement. B. Overall Lead (Objective): Fran Roy, Chief Academic Officer C. Initiative Number and Description: SO2.3 Provide differentiated support to students based on identified academic needs. Our data indicates that we are not meeting the academic needs of far too many of our students. The Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS) provides a framework to help us identify “cracks” in the instructional system. The first of these is the implementation of a rigorous viable curriculum to all students. Strategic Objective 2, Initiatives 1 and 2 are targeting that goal. Even with consistent effective core instruction, some students (approximately 15%) need supplemental or differentiated support. This strategic initiative aims to outline the structures that need to be in place to ensure that the needs of all students, even D. term and Final Outcomes from the Initiative: Short Term Outcomes All District Benchmarks (K-12) show a 10-15% decrease in students scoring at the Warning Level, in the aggregate and for all subgroups. These Benchmarks are given regularly throughout the year and are compiled quarterly by the Office of Instruction and then are reported out at Principals’ Meetings and to the School Committee. ELL benchmark data from Keystones and Avenues show a 10-15% increase in performance (baseline 2012). Final Outcomes E. Overall Lead (Initiative): Pam Pacheco, Director of Professional Development Ivone Medeiros, Executive Director of Special Education
February 2013 SEL team continues to develop family engagement opportunities as needs arise. Wraparound Zone Coordinator February 2013 N/A May 2013 Family engagement survey re-administered to monitor program success or need for adjustment. Wraparound Zone Coordinator May 2013 May 2013 Survey Tool Quarterly Progress Rating (QPR) of the Strategic Initiative Key: P = Process, O = Outcome Oct 2011 Jan 2012 April 2012 July 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 April 2013 July 2013 Oct 2013 P O It is critical to provide a separate rating for the process of implementation (activities) and outcomes (early evidence of change as well as short-term outcomes and final outcomes). District Strategic Objective 3: Ensure success for all students through the development of students’ social and emotional wellness. B. Overall Lead (Objective): Fran Roy, Academic Officer C. Initiative Number and Description SO3.3 Develop and enhance positive youth development. Positive Youth Development (PYD) activities is crucial to child and adolescent development. Sports, the arts, academic clubs, and civic engagement opportunities are positive youth development opportunities in areas such as sports, health and fitness activities, the arts, leadership opprotunities and civic engagement activities will afford students a greater opprotunity to connect and identify with their school and the larger community as they develop individual social competencies. As of now the district offers many PYD opportunities but they are not necessarily equitable across schools nor is participation monitored. Elementary and Middle schools participating in the WAZ plan will begin to pilot Positive Youth Development Plans, D. Short term and Final Outcomes from the Initiative: Short Term Outcomes: Students on PYD Plans show a 10% improvement in SEL Skills, as measured by Developmental Studies Center Child Development Project Scales. Long Term Outcomes: Office referrals, suspensions, and tardies decline by 5%, annually. 100% of students attend school 95% of time. Students, district wide, show a 5% improvement in SEL Skills, as measured by Developmental Studies Center Child Development Project Scales. The number of referrals to SPED for Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities decline by 5%. E. Overall Lead (Initiative): District Wrap Around Zone Coordinator
November 2012 SEL teams and SSC team will develop a Positive Youth Development Plan to be piloted at the WAZ schools. District Wrap Around Zone Coordinator November 2012 November 2012 n/a Jan 2013 SEL monitor PYD activities for quality and sustainability. District Wrap Around Zone Coordinator January 2013 On-going n/a May 2013 Students administered Developmental Studies Center Development Project Scales District Wrap Around Zone Coordinator May 2013 May 2013 Developmental Studies Center Child Development Project Scales (QPR) of the Strategic Initiative Key: P = Process, O = Outcome Oct 2011 Jan 2012 April 2012 July 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 April 2013 July 2013 Oct 2013 P O It is critical to provide a separate rating for the process of implementation (activities) and outcomes (early evidence of change as well as short-term outcomes and final outcomes). District Strategic Objective 3: Ensure success for all students through the development of students’ social and emotional wellness. B. Overall Lead (Objective): Ivone Medeiros, Executive Director of Special Education C. Initiative Number and Description: SO3.4 Provide differentiated support to students based on identified social emotional needs. The above wraparound zone initiatives (positive youth development, positive school and classroom climate, and home-school connections) represent core or tier 1 learning conditions in non-academic areas of focus. We understand that even with a sound core experience a small percent of students will still need tier 2 and tier 3 supports for the D. Short term and Final Outcomes from the Initiative: Short Term Outcomes Students on tier 2 and tier 3 show an improvement in SEL skills as measured by selected instruments such as Developmental Studies Center Scales. Students on tier 2 and tier 3 plans show an increase in pro-social behaviour as measured by a 5% decrease in office referrals, suspensions, E. Overall Lead (Initiative): District Wrap Around Zone Coordinator
September 2012 Evaluators review Professional Practice Goals (PPG) for alignment with Improvement plans and district priorities and approve goals. Principals September 2012 Pending SIPs, AIP October 2012 OOI reviews PPG growth goals to check for alignment with PD activities—will activities lead to accomplished goals? SRV partners October 2012 October 2012 n/a November 2012 District level Professional Development Committee is convened examine evaluations of PD offerings, catalogue existing PD according to Teacher Standards and Level of Plan directed, etc.) as defined in Educator Evaluation Handbook, and to define gaps in PD system based on cited needs and goals of educators. Director of Professional Development November 2012 December 2012 n/a December 2012 Newly aligned catalogue of PD offerings are made available to staff electronically. Director of Professional Development December 2012 December 2012 n/a January 2013 Evaluators conduct formative evaluations with teachers in order to review progress on and/or revise PPG and Student Learning Goals. Data is compiled by SRV partner to identify teachers that are in need of more support and ensure proposed PD activities will meet intended outcomes. Executive Director of HR & SRV Partner January 2013 February 2013 n/a March 2013 PD Committee review mid-cycle evaluation data, PD evaluations, and other documentation to identify needed additions/changes to PD offerings for Spring and Summer 2013. Pan Pacheco March 2013 2013 n/a 2013 Newly aligned catalogue of spring and summer PD offerings are made available to staff electronically. Director of Professional Development April 2013 April 2013 n/a June 2013 Summer PD offerings, are aligned with district priorities and teachers’ needs, and are made available to teachers. Director of Professional Development June 2013 August 2013 Stipends for teachers and funding for PD providers. Quarterly Progress Rating (QPR) of the Strategic Initiative Key: P = Process, O = Outcome September 2012 December 2012 January 2012 March 2013 June 2013 August 2013
Quarter I. Activities to Achieve the Outcomes for the Initiative J. Who will Lead? K. When will it L. When will it be Complete? M. What Resources are Needed? August 2012 Novice teachers receive three day orientation and formally assigned a district mentor. Mentor Coordinator August 2012 August 2012 n/a August 2012 Teacher teams convene for school and district based initiatives (e.g., vertical teams, see SO1.2. RTI see SO2.3) Principals and OOI August 2012 June 2013 stipends Novice teachers meet bi-weekly with mentor for support and feedback. Mentor Coordinator September 2012 June 2013 n/a October 2013 Mentors submit monthly collaborative assessment logs to Mentor Coordinator for feedback. Mentor Coordinator and October 2012 May 2013 n/a January 2013 HR compiles formative evaluations of novice teachers to identify novice teachers in need of more support. HR connects with Mentor Coordinator to ensure support plans are meeting needs of novice educators. Executive Director of HR January 2013 January 2013 n/a June 2013 HR compiles summative evaluation ratings for novice teachers and works with Mentor Coordinator to improve mentor/induction process for upcoming year. Executive Director of HR June 2013 August 2013 n/a August 2013 The Human Resources department compiles a report on retention of effective educators (proficient or exemplary). Report is delivered to Superintendent and any teacher voice participation opportunities are redesigned. Executive Director of HR August 2013 August 2013 n/a Quarterly Progress Rating (QPR) of the Strategic Initiative Key: P = Process, O = Outcome
Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) 25 Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) 25 25 Mathematics Narrowing proficiency gaps (Composite Performance Index) 50 50 25 75 Growth (Student Growth Percentiles) 75 50 50 100 Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) 25 25 credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) 25 25 Science Narrowing proficiency gaps (Composite Performance Index) 50 25 75 Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) 25 25 Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) 25 25 High School Cohort Graduation Rate 75 75 25 50 Annual Dropout Rate 50 50 50 100 Points awarded for narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, and high school indicators 375 350 225 575 Points awarded for extra credit 75 25 25 150 points awarded 450 375 250 725 Number of proficiency gap narrowing, growth, and high school indicators 7 7 6 7 Actual 2010, 2011, 2012, & Projected 2013 Annual PPIs = (Total points / number of indicators) 64 54 42 104 Cumulative PPI Weighting 10% 20% 30% 40% Projected 2013 Cumulative PPI = (2010*1 + 2011*2 + 2012*3 + 2013*4 / 10) 71 Did Not Meet Target NOTE: Annual and cumulative PPI figures may not be identical to figures displayed in 2012 accountability data due to rounding. If you have questions about these calculations, please email esea@doe.mass.edu or call 781-338-3550.