Comprehensive School Improvement Plan


I. What do data tell us about our student-learning needs?

A. What data do we collect?
The district collects the following required data: (LRDA1)

  •  Trend line and subgroup data for ITBS/ITED reading and mathematics at grades 3-8 and 11
  •  Trend line data for ITBS/ITED science for grades 8 and 11
  •  Graduation rate
  •  Grade 7-12 dropout percentages (aggregate and by subgroup)
  •  Percentage of graduates planning to pursue postsecondary education
  •  Percentage of graduates completing the core curriculum (4 years of English, 3 years each of math, science, and social studies)
  •  Career and technical education (CTE) student data (e.g., 11th grade participants’ proficiency in reading and mathematics, program completers and concentrators, and occupational competency)
  •  Percentage of high school students achieving a score or status on a measure indicating probable postsecondary success. Our district uses the American College Test (ACT).
  •  Trend line data from the Iowa Youth Survey (grades 6, 8, and 11) (SDF1, SDF3, and SDF4)
  •  A comprehensive, community-wide needs assessment which includes input from community members, parents, administrators, staff, and students (completed once every five-years) (LC3)
  •  Data from Iowa Collaborative Assessment Modules (ICAMs) for reading and mathematics at grades 4, 8, and 11.
  •  Data from the SCASS science assessment (grades 5, 8, and 10)
  •  Participation rates for required district-wide assessments (grades 3-8, 11)
  •  Aggregate and subgroup attendance data (grades K-12)
  •  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary Skills (DIBELS) data in Grades K-1
  •  CBMs for grades 1-6
  •  Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) grades 1-6
  •  Cognitive Tutor testing (8th and 9-12th)
  •  Rational Numbers (6th-8th)
  •  Reading series assessment data (Grades K-6)

These data have been used to establish annual trend lines, which are updated annually and reported in our Annual Progress Report (APR). Using National Percentile Rank (NPR) information from the ITBS and ITED assessments, we also monitor the progress of each peer group over time in the areas of reading comprehension, mathematics, science, and social studies. (LRDA1)

The Preston district believes the required measures of academic achievement stated above do not provide a complete picture of students’ learning needs. In support of this belief, we asked ourselves this: “To what questions do we want the answers?” through our local DDL process and proceeded to collect and analyze information on a variety of other indicators including the following:

  •  District demographic data
  •  Climate surveys (random sampling of students 3-12)
  •  Basic Educational Data Survey (BEDS) data (e.g., course offerings and enrollment information by course/gender)
  •  ITBS/ITED data for other grade levels and subject areas (grades 3, 5, 6) and ITBS/ITED data for grade levels 7, 9,& 10 in reading, math , and science
  •  Instructional time allocations (grades K-12)
  •  Student work/course grades (grades 7-12)
  •  Student discipline data (e.g., office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions) (grades 4-12) (SDF1, SDF3)
  •  Student participation in the district’s breakfast and lunch program (grades K-12)
  •  Seminar Study Assignments (7-8 and 9 and 10-12)
  •  Reading Recovery Observation Survey (grade 1)
  •  Olweus Bullying Survey (Grades 3-11)
B. How do we collect and analyze data to determine prioritized student-learning needs?
District Leadership Team (DLT)
The district has established a District Leadership Team (DLT). The team is comprised of general education and special education teachers from each building, the principals, and the curriculum coordinator. District/building goals, test score data, new programs, and other school concerns are addressed by this team. In addition, information regarding the implementation of actions and activities to support current district goals is collected and analyzed to help identify future student learning and program needs. Decisions are made on what kinds of staff development are needed to meet the needs of our students. The curriculum director researches, through the AEA and other sources, options for staff development that would connect to those needs.

Implementation data on staff development activities are also collected and analyzed by the team. These data, along with implementation data from state and federal programs and services, are incorporated into annual conversations about supports for established student needs, adjustments to actions, programs and services, and progress toward district goals.

Inservice Teams
Each department or grade level in the district has a team that is responsible for the collection and analysis of thetest score data related to its level. Each team consists of teachers within that content area or grade level. The guidance counselor and specials teachers are included in the high school teams. Members examine ITBS/ITED item analysis information and frequency data (e.g., the number of special education students and low socioeconomic students scoring at or below the 40th percentile), as well as APR data (e.g., other grade level assessments, discipline data, graduation rate, and attendance). The teams do an item analysis and look at 3-4 year trend charts to review and compare previous scores. They determine downward trends and/or particular areas of concern and write goals and action plans to address those concerns.

Other types of data are used to determine student learning needs such as: student work, classroom assessments, teacher-parent-student surveys, and additional district-wide tests. From these, some specific student learning needs may be determined. These data are also brought to the DLT for review and discussion.

Stakeholder Groups
District and building information reviewed by the Curriculum Director, the District Leadership Team, and Inservice Teams is shared with various stakeholder groups, including the Preston school board, Preston School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC), district patrons, and various community organizations.

The SIAC studies and discusses data and summarizes the findings. The SIAC then makes recommendations to the board regarding district-wide prioritized needs, possible adjustments to CSIP goals, and the programs and services provided to students. The Preston school board may make decisions based on these recommendations.
C. What did we learn through this data analysis?
Through analysis of district and building data and comparisons with the state’s student performance trajectories, the following was learned: (LRDA1, LRDA2, LRDA3, and LRDA4)

ITBS/ITED
  •  4th grade scores continue to be high
  •  8th Grade Reading and Math scores for males and females decreased.
  •  11th grade reading and math scores greatly improved
  •  The majority of trend lines on the ITBS and ITED assessments show a pronounced dip between 4th and 6th grades in reading.
  •  One hundred percent of our students participated in all district-wide assessments. (grades 3-11)
  •  Performance (proficiency) of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) is below the state trajectory in reading . (grades 4, 8, & 11)


Other Indicators
  •  ACT scores indicate that our students are not being prepared in English and math if they are going on to college.
  •  Average ACT scores for Preston graduates are below both the state and the national scores in all areas.
  •  The average ACT score at Preston in 2008 was 19.9. The state average was 22.4
  •  ICAM results show that 8th grade reading proficiency isabove the state trajectory for the last 3 years.
  •  ICAM results show that 8th grade math proficiency is above the state trajectory.
  •  ICAM results show that 11th grade reading proficiency has decreased.
  •  Graduation rates are high for the all population of students.
  •  The number of high school students completing the core (4 years of English and 3 years each of mathematics, science, and social studies) was 100% in 2008. Only 3 out of 24 graduates did not pursue a post-secondary education.
  •  Students reporting that other students treat them with respect decreased from 58% in 1999 to 50% in 2005. (SDF2, SDF4)
  •  In 2002, 65% of 6th graders reported that other students treated them with respect compared to 59% in 2005. (SDF2, SDF4)
  •  In 2005, 35% of students in grade 11 reported at least occasional use of alcohol compared to 44% in 2002 (SDF2, SDF4)
  •  Percent of student body referred to the office for disruptive behavior increased in 7th-12th grades in 2006-07. (SDF2)

In November 2005, the district distributed a comprehensive, community-wide needs assessment survey to 800 individuals, including community members, parents, administrators, staff, and students. Two hundred of the surveys (25%) were completed and returned. Through analysis of the survey data, the district learned the following: (LC3)
  •  Generally speaking, the areas that parents, high school students, and community members felt the most comfortable with concerning Preston Community School District were:
    •  The competent, caring, friendly staff and administrators
        -approachable
        -respect for each other
        -helpful
    •  Small school atmosphere
        -small class size
        -good student/teacher ratio
        -very close knit
        -students are able to receive help
    •  Community atmosphere
        -everyone knows each other
        -boosters, parent involvement

  •  Generally speaking, the most common areas of concern that parents, high school students, and community members had were:
    •  Expanded class offerings
        -foreign language
        -advanced placement classes
        -college prep classes
    •  Keeping classes small
        -Student/teacher ratio
    •  Money
        -grant money
        -budget

In areas of:
  •  Curriculum: career education is adequate, should continue to add and update technology, parents are well informed on children’s academic and social performance, variety and number of elective courses could be better.
  •  Community/school relations: parents feel welcomed at school, they feel free to discuss concerns, adequately represented on district committees.
  •  School climate: most students like school, discipline is handled in a fair manner.
  •  Buildings/grounds: clean, well maintained, pleasant, safe.
  •  Technology: 183 had computers at home, 15 did not; Mac’s – 10, PCs – 130, other - 40
D. From the data analysis, what are our prioritized student needs?
Based on the data reviewed, we developed the following list of prioritized student needs: (LC4)
  •  Improve reading comprehension for 4th, 8th and 11th grade students.
  •  Increase our number of proficient IEP students in reading, math, and science.
  •  Improve the CTE students' test scores in reading and math.
  •  Improve our students' ACT scores in all areas.

  •  Improve the learning environment in grades 7-12.

E. How will we develop goals and actions based upon the prioritized needs?
The district leadership team, building level teams, and the Preston SIAC will use the prioritized needs to generate and recommend goal statements to the board for adoption. The district and building level teams in collaboration with community stakeholders as appropriate will design strategies and actions that align with and support the established goals.

...

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan
II. What do/will we do to meet student-learning needs?
A. What long-range goals have been established to support prioritized student needs?
Based upon recommendations of the District Leadership Team and the School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC), the school board has adopted district goals aligned with student needs. (LC5)

District Student Learning Goals
Preston’s student learning goals are the general expectations for all its graduates. Students graduating from Preston Community School District will be able to do the following: (LC6)
  •  Communicate effectively in various situations by various means
  •  Recognize, understand, and appreciate contributions of the world’s cultures
  •  Use academic skills and technologies solve problems
  •  Use leadership skills to develop positive relationships and work collaboratively
  •  Demonstrate skills and habits necessary to lead healthy lives and contribute to society

District Long-Range Goals
Preston’s long-range goals define the desired targets to be reached over an extended period of time. These long-range goals serve two purposes: 1) to meet locally determined student needs goals and 2) to address state and federal student accountability.

Goal 1:    All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in reading comprehension, prepared for success beyond high school. (LRG1, MCGF3, AR6, EIG1)
   
The following indicators will measure district progress with Goal 1:
1a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above using national norms) on the ITBS Reading Comprehension Test in grades 3 through 8 and the ITED Reading Comprehension Test in grade 11, including data disaggregated by subgroup.
1b. Percentage of students in grades 4, 8, and 11 who achieve at the intermediate level or above on the Iowa Collaborative Assessment Modules.

Goal 2: All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in mathematics, prepared for success beyond high school. (LRG2, AR6, EIG1, MCGF3)
   
The following indicators will measure district progress with Goal 2:
2a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above using national norms) on the ITBS Mathematics Total Test in grades 3 through 8 and the ITED Mathematics Test in grade 11, including data disaggregated by subgroup.
2b. Percentage of students in grades 4, 8, and 11 who achieve at the intermediate level or above on the Iowa Collaborative Assessment Modules.

Goal 3: All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in science, prepared for success beyond high school. (LRG3, MCGF3, AR6)

The following indicators will measure district progress with Goal 3:
3a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above using national norms) on the ITBS Science Test in grades 5 and 8 and the ITED Science Test in grade 11, including data disaggregated by subgroup.
3b. Percentage of students in grades 5, 8, and 10 who achieve at the proficient level or above on the SCASS assessment.

Goal 4:    All K-12 students will use technology in developing proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science. (FTP1, MCGF3)

The following indicators will measure district progress with Goal 4:
4a. The indicators identified for Goals 1, 2, and 3.
4b. Percentage of students at grade 8 who score at the proficient level or above on a locally developed technology assessment.

Goal 5: All students will feel safe at and connected to school. (AR6, MCGF3)

The following indicators will measure district progress with goal 5:
5a. Attendance rate as measured by the average daily attendance data calculated and reported on the Certified Annual Report (CAR).
5b. Graduation rate as calculated by the Iowa Department of Education using data from the spring BEDS report.
5c. Percentage of student body in junior high and high school that receives any discipline referrals (i.e., office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions). (SDF5, SDF6, SDF7)
5d. Percentage of students in grades 6, 8, and 11 that report that they have used alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs on the triennial Iowa Youth Survey. (SDF5, SDF6, SDF7)
B. What process will be used to determine what we will do to meet the long-range goals?
The stakeholders impacted by our goals should have a voice in determining how to meet them. As a result, the District Leadership Team, building level teams, and the SIAC will identify stakeholder groups most directly impacted, and they will meet to determine actions and strategies to meet the goals. Our district will use the Iowa Professional Development Model process to develop its District Professional Development Plan and an action research design to guide conversations and assist making goal progress. As actions are developed to support each goal, implementation plans will be developed at the appropriate levels (e.g., elementary, Junior High, and High School) to provide K-12 system alignment of efforts.
C. What is our current practice to support these long-range goals?
1. Instructional Strategies Currently Used in the District
      •  Hands-on science (K-12)
      •  Inquiry-based science (4-12)
      •  Daily Oral Language (1-6)
      •  Flexible small group instruction in reading (K-4)
      •  Standards-Based Instruction (K-12)
      •  Marzano’s Instructional Strategies that Work (7-12)
      •  6+1 Traits of Writing (K-12)
      •  Balanced Literacy (K-6)
      •  Math Manipulatives (K-12)
      •  Exploratory in Tech (4-8)

2. Instructional Programs/Services Supports Currently Used in the District
      •  District Career Development Plan (Professional Development Program, K-12)
      •  At-risk Program/Services (K-12)
      •  Gifted and Talented Program/Services (TAG) (K-12)
      •  Special Education Program/Services (K-12)
      •  Mentoring and Induction Program
      •  EveryDay Math (K-5)
      •  Computer Math (K-6)
      •  Cognitive Tutor (7-11)
      •  Connected Math (6)
      •  Alternative High School (9-12)
      •  Student service partnerships (e.g., mental health services and community health services) (K-12)
      •  Reading Recovery (1st grade)
      •  Character Counts (K-6)
      •  AEA Student Assistance Team (K-12)
      •  Environmental Awareness (K-6)
      •  Human Growth & Development (K-12)

Preston delivers the following programs and accesses these program funds as a result of identified student need:
      •  Perkins: Vocational and Technical Education Programs (9-12)
      •  Title I, Part A: Reading Program/Services (1-3)
      •  Title II, Part D: Technology Usage (Cognitive Tutor 7th-11th)
      •  Title IV: Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program/Services (K-12)
 
3. System-wide Management Supports Currently Used in the District
      •  Resource allocation (e.g., financial and personnel)
      •  Technology (e.g., data management system and infrastructure)
      •  Policy development
      •  Personnel evaluation systems (includes administrators, teachers, and support staff)
      •  Curriculum development
      •  Iowa Technical Adequacy Project (ITAP) (curriculum/assessment alignment)
      •  Leadership for CSIP implementation (administrative team, SIAC, School Board)
      •  K-12 Curriculum mapping and alignment with district standards/benchmarks in conjunction with AEA
D. How is our current practice aligned with or supported by the research base?
Using an action research process, we considered the available research base and local student data. Both the research and local data indicate our current practices should contribute (or have contributed to) positive student results. We relied upon the Iowa Content Area Networks, the AEA, and local content area experts to access information about practices supported by scientifically-based research.

Current Practices Supported by Research and/or Local Data.
The district has determined that research and/or local student data support the use of several of our current practices related to the goal areas. These practices include the following: (AMN1, AMN2)
Reading:       Strategies that integrate Balanced Literacy
                  Reading Recovery
                  Reading Across the Content Areas
                  Read Naturally
                  KU Strategies
Mathematics:   Problem-centered instruction using multiple representations
                  Everyday Math
                  Cognitive Tutor
                  Connected Mathematics
Environment:   Character Counts
                  Second Step
                  Olweus Bullying Prevention Program       

Research Needed.
Our District Leadership Team was formed to collect and review the literature base on practices beyond reading and mathematics. This committee will establish timelines within the next five years for each of the following areas of study. (AMN3, FTP2, AR7, SDF9)
Science:       Inquiry-based science instruction
Technology:     Using technology to enhance instruction in reading, mathematics, and science
Environment:   Alternative high school programming
Curriculum:     Model Core Curriculum

Program/Services Current Practice.
The team will also use a goal-oriented approach to program evaluation (clear expectations, results data, and targeted program/service evaluation) to determine program effectiveness relative to CSIP goals and other program goals.
E. What gaps exist between our current practice to support long-range goals and the research base (include curriculum and instruction)?
Curriculum/Assessment Alignment.
We have developed standards and benchmarks in all content areas. Over the past year, we have focused on aligning our reading, mathematics, and science curriculumwith district standards and benchmarks.

We will be working with AEA consultants, beginning in the fall of 2006, to map our K-12 reading curriculum (both vertically and horizontally) and align with district standards/benchmarks. We will continue to map math and science the following two years.  

Instructional Strategy Decisions.
In reviewing our instructional practices, it became apparent that we have some practices with a documented research base, some practices with a weak research base, and some practices with no research base. Within the next five years, we must address the following two issues:
1) The discontinuation of practices not supported by research or that have not produced evidence of contributing to positive student results, and
2) The consistent implementation of strategies that are research-based and/or that have contributed to gains in student achievement.

Strategies that integrate Balanced Literacy. In the process of considering possible gaps in reading practices in grades K-5, we studied the Balanced Literacy Process (Fountas and Pinella). We reviewed the literature base and are confident the strategies are grounded in research. We examined implementation data to determine if teachers were implementing the process with fidelity and found evidence that it is being implemented sporadically in grades K-4. As a result, we met as a building team and decided to research a variety of reading series. Through our search the team chose a reading series. In 2006-07, K-3 implemented the series, with 4th-6th implementation in 2007-08. (LRG1, MCGF3, EIG1, IEI1)

Reading Recovery. We also studied research related to Reading Recovery. Although the research base on Reading Recovery is less conclusive, our local program evaluation data indicated the program is effective in moving students toward reading at grade level and sustaining that growth over time. (LRG1, MCGF3, EIG1, AR7, IEI1)

Scholastic Reading Inventory/Read Naturally. These programs are being implemented to integrate technology into the reading content area. We are currently in the process of collecting data on its effectiveness. (LRG1, LRG4, MCGF3)

Reading Across the Content Areas. In the process of considering possible gaps in reading and mathematics practices, we studied Marzano’s Instructional Strategies. We reviewed the literature base and are confident the strategies are grounded in the research literature. We examined implementation data to determine if teachers were implementing them with fidelity and found evidence the strategies are being implemented sporadically across the content areas in grades 6-12. As a result, these strategies will be part of our district professional development plan. (LRG1, LRG2, LRG3, MCGF3)

Problem-centered mathematics Instruction. The research base in mathematics indicates student achievement will improve if instruction is problem-centered, using multiple representations while improving computational skills. Current practice in mathematics does reflect these strategies; however, these strategies will continue to be part of our district professional development plan as we study the Connected Math/EveryDay Math programs. (LRG2, MCGF3)

Cognitive Tutor. This program is being implemented to integrate technology into the math content area. We are currently in the process of collecting data on its effectiveness. (LRG2, FTP5, MCGF3)

Character Counts/Second Step. Our grades K-6 are using these strategies now, but we need to determine if there is scientifically based research that indicates these interventions are effective in reducing discipline problems. (LRG5, MCGF3, AR7, EIG1, IEI1)
F. What actions/activities will we use to address prioritized needs, established goals, and any gaps between current and research-based practice?
Actions for CSIP Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4. (CONTENT AREAS)

1. Implement the district AMN1, AMN2, IEI1, PERK1, SPED1, TQ7)

Our district PD6, TQ1, TQ2) The plan describes a cycle in which professional development efforts will be targeted at student learning and sustained until student gains are acquired. At least 80 percent of professional development time and resources will be focused on increasing rigor and relevance in our instruction, curriculum alignment, and creation of a safe learning environment. (TQ3, TQ4, FTP3)

Research-based Strategies. Our District Leadership Team, consisting of representatives from the buildings and district, reviewed research on the strategies below and found that they have resulted in significant student achievement gains. In addition, we applied the following federal criteria to determine if a program/strategy has a quality research base:
a) Evidence of positive student results demonstrated by research that employed systematic empirical methods and
b) The research was described in studies that demonstrated the use of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. (PD5, SDF9)

Participation. All teachers will be engaged in training, including those responsible for Title I, Special Education, At-Risk, and Gifted and Talented. The principals and central office staff will also be actively involved. We will work with the AEA so that teachers can receive licensure renewal credits for participation in district-wide and building-wide professional development meetings and for their work with implementation of new strategies within their classrooms. (PERK1, SPED1, TQ8)

Professional Development Content.
Beginning with 2007-08 school year, professional instructional staff will implement the following instructional strategies: (FTP2, FTP4, FTP5)
a) Balanced Literacy processes that integrate reading and writing strategies (K-6);
b) Problem-centered approach to mathematics instruction and instruction in the use of mathematics representations and computation (6-8);
c) Reading Across the Content Area techniques (7-12) and;
d) Technology integration into classroom instruction (K-12).

Alignment with the Iowa Teaching Standards. These professional development actions align directly with the following Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria: (TQ5)
  •  Standard #2    Demonstrates competence in content knowledge (specifically criteria 2a, 2b, and 2d)
  •  Standard #3     Demonstrates competence in planning and preparation for instruction (specifically criteria 3a, 3b, 3d, and 3e)
  •  Standard #4     Uses strategies to deliver instruction that meet the multiple learning needs of students (specifically criteria 4a, 4b, and 4f)
  •  Standard #7     Professional Development (specifically criteria 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d)

Professional Development Learning Opportunities. Implementation of the district TQ8):
  •  Common training sessions on five all-day inservice days during the school year and fourteen early release days per year for learning opportunities (theory presentations, reading literature, discussions)
  •  Bi-monthly meetings of the District Leadership Team (planning next building meeting; collecting, organizing, and analyzing data; practicing demonstrations)
  •  Teachers working in collaborative teams on a bi-monthly basis
  •  Building level meetings (observing demonstrations, working with data, developing lessons, reviewing theory)

Professional Development Providers. AEA consultants will serve as the professional development provider for the district. The Iowa Department of Education accredits this provider. (TQ6)

2. Enhance instructional materials and resources.   
  •  Increase the number of the non-fiction books available for student use at grades K-8. (AMN1)
  •  Complete curriculum mapping in the area of math and reading and science. (AMN1, AMN2)
  •  Upgrade technology. (FTP3)

3. Provide supports that will address CTE students’ achievement in reading and mathematics.
  •  Integrate reading and mathematics skill development into the career and technical education curriculum. (PERK1)

4. Provide supports that will address ELL students’ achievement. (LEP1)
Currently no ELL students reside in our district. At the beginning of each year, the following process will be used to determine ELL students within our district:
  •  Implement annual identification and provision of appropriate services to ELL students to increase language proficiency and academic achievement.
  •  Implement programs and support services necessary to increase language proficiency, academic achievement, and social interactions.

Actions for CSIP Goal 5 (ENVIRONMENT)

1. Support students and families in order to increase student participation, attendance, and graduation.
  •  Increase the number/type of community adult education opportunities, GED classes, and community college courses.
  •  Implement an alternative education support for at-risk students at the elementary and Junior High. (AR7)
  •  Implement an electronic student portfolio that includes performance tasks for monitoring progress toward proficiency and graduation requirements. (FTP2)
  •  Institute a follow-up procedure with parents at the elementary school, when absenteeism is a concern. For chronic absenteeism provide a family interview and follow-up support that may include a truancy referral to law enforcement when needed.

2. Create a learning environment that is safe, supportive, and conducive to learning (a culture of achievement and respect).
  •  Expand the tutoring program for students in the Junior High. (AR7)
  •  Implement Character Counts activities at the Junior High. (AR7, SDF9)
G. How will we support implementation of the identified actions?
We will devise implementation plans for the actions previously described for CSIP goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Implementation plans will address the following components:
  •  Clear expectations at the district, building, and classroom levels.
  •  Baseline data for each action, if available
  •  Resources to support each action including timelines, personnel, and budget (including state and federal programs support as necessary)
  •  Specific implementation outcomes for action steps
  •  Persons responsible for oversight of implementation
  •  Evaluation of action implementation effectiveness

...

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan
III. How do/will we know that student learning has changed?
A. How will we know student learning has changed over time in relation to our long-range goals?
Preston will use multiple data sources to determine if student learning has changed, including a combination of district-wide standardized assessments, grade level and classroom assessments, and perceptual data (e.g., surveys). The Inservice Teams will ensure that data from these assessment measures are collected, analyzed, and shared with the District Leadership Team as outlined in Question 1B. The district will continue to ensure that all students enrolled at the specified grade level are included in district-wide assessments. (DWAP1)

Monitoring Progress with Long-Range CSIP Goals
As stated previously (see Question #2A), Preston will monitor progress on its long-range goals through analysis of aggregate and disaggregated trend line data from the following sources:
  •  ITBS reading comprehension, mathematics, and science tests at grades 3-8 (Goals #1-3) (DWAP1)
  •  ITED reading comprehension, mathematics, and science tests at grade 11. (Goal #1-3) (DWAP1)

  •  DIBELS at K-1 (DWAP6, DWAP3, DWAP4)
  •  Reading series assessments at grades K-6. (Goal #1) (DWAP6, DWAP3, DWAP4)
  •  ICAM mathematics and reading modules at grades 4, 8, and 11 (Goal #1-2) (DWAP6, DWAP7)
  •  District Developed Science Assessment at grades 5, 8, and 10 (Goal #3) (DWAP8)
  •  District Developed Technology Assessment at grade 8 (Goal #4) (FTP6)
  •  Attendance data from district’s student information management system (Goal #5) (LRDA3)
  •  District graduation data as calculated by the Iowa Department of Education (based on the spring BEDS report) (Goal #5) (LRDA2)
  •  The percentage of the students in grades 6, 8, and 11 that report having used alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs as reported through the Iowa Youth Survey (Goal #5) (SDF4)
  •  The percentage of the middle school and high school student body that receives a discipline referral (i.e., office referral, suspension, and/or expulsion) (Goal #5) (LRDA2)

Alignment of Standards and Assessments—Iowa Technical Adequacy Project (ITAP)
To make certain the assessments used to monitor progress on long-range achievement goals are aligned with the district’s curriculum, Preston will be mapping curriculum and aligning district standards/benchmarks with that curriculum over the next three years. Preston will also work in conjunction with neighboring district to align curriculum in those shared courses.

Student Indicator Data Used for Evaluation of Programs and Services
The same student indicator data used to measure progress with CSIP goals will also be used to help inform decisions regarding the effectiveness of the following programs and services provided by Preston:
  •  Professional development for teachers and principals (e.g., District Career Development Plan and Title II, Part A) (TQ5)
  •  Supplemental reading and mathematics services for eligible students (e.g., Title I, Part A) (AMN1)
  •  Use of technology to improve student achievement (e.g., Title II, Part D) (FTP3)
  •  Drug and violence prevention program (Title IV, Part A) (SDF4)
  •  Early Intervention program for grades K-3 (IEI1)
  •  K-12 at-risk program (AR7)
  •  K-12 gifted and talented (TAG) program (GT2)
  •  Special education services (SPED1)
  •  Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs (PERK2, PERK3)

Note: More specific details regarding Preston’s program/service evaluation process are included in the next section of the CSIP.

Additional Data Gathering and Analysis
To help provide a more complete picture of student learning needs, Preston will continue to monitor the following data sources:
  •  All data points included in the district’s Annual Progress Report (APR) (LRG1, LRG2, LRG3)
  •  The percentage of students who participate in district-wide assessment (LRG2)
  •  The percentage of students in the lowest (at-risk or deficit) category on DIBELS in Kindergarten and first grade. (DWAP3, DWAP4, DWAP6)
  •  The percentage of students in the lowest (at-risk or deficit) category on reading series assessments in grades 1-6. (DWAP3, DWAP4, DWAP6)
  •  Student performance on the ICAM reading and math modules at grades 4, 8, and 11 (DWAP6, TQ1)
  •  Annual cohort performance from grade 3-8 and grade 11 as measured by the ITBS and ITED in the areas of reading, mathematics, and science. (LRDA1)
  •  Career and technical education student data from the end-of-year program report (Perkins report) (PERK2)
  •  The percentage of students indicating a safe learning environment and that other students treat them with respect as reported through the Iowa Youth Survey (SDF1)

Future Data Gathering
Preston is aware it will need to collect additional information to allow for more informed evaluation of programs and services. Currently, the district plans to add the following measures:

During the 2008-09 school year:
  •  DIBELS in grades K-1, CBMs in grades 1-6, and use of reading series assessments to help monitor student achievement.
  •  PLAN test given to all sophomores.
  •  Second Chance Reading Implemented for grade 6
  •  Iowa Youth Survey grades 6, 8, and 10

During the 2009-10 school year:
  •  Second Chance Reading Program implemented for grades 7-8.
  •  DRA assessment given to grades k-2 in place of DIBELS
  •  Yopp-Singer assessment given to all K students
  •  BRI assessment given to 3-6 grade students.
  •  Needs assessment of the community

During the 2010-11 school year:
  •  Science curriculum and materials updated.
  •  The district does not currently serve any ELL students. An ELL assessment tool is being looked into for use in future years. LEP2

...

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan
IV. How will we evaluate our programs and services to ensure improved student learning?
A. What strategies/process will we use to evaluate how well the activities included in Constant Conversation Question 2 (What do/will we do to meet student learning needs?) were implemented?
Goal-Oriented Approach to Program Evaluation
Preston has adopted a goal-oriented approach to formally evaluate the programs and services it offers to meet prioritized student needs as identified in its CSIP. (ECSIP1) This goal-oriented approach to program evaluation includes the following components:
  •  Identification of programs that contribute to progress with CSIP goals (program expectations)
  •  Identification of any additional program goals (program expectations)
  •  Identification of variables which affect performance
  •  Identification of the indicators by which program effectiveness will be judged relative to performance
  •  Development of procedures for collecting information about performance
  •  Collection of performance data
  •  Comparison of the information regarding performance with the expected CSIP/program goals
  •  Communication of results of the comparison to appropriate audiences

Preston will use a combination of formative and summative evaluation processes within the program evaluation process. (TQ12) The district will also determine the frequency of the formative and summative evaluation processes for each of the programs/services by two factors: 1) legal mandates and 2) local data. At a minimum, an in-depth formal summative evaluation for all of the programs that Preston incorporates into its CSIP will occur within a five-year rotation (Preston will submit, as required, any annual evaluation/reporting data for state and federal programs).

The District Leadership Team recommended the following program rotation and timelines for a summative program evaluation, using both student achievement data and teacher implementation data: *

Program    Program Evaluation Rotation
Professional Development Program (District Career Development Plan)    Annually, beginning in 2007 (TQ10, TQ11)*
Title II, Part A (Teacher and Principal Training/Recruiting)    Note: Title II, Part A is embedded into Preston’s district career development plan.    Annually, beginning in 2007-08 (TPTR1)*
Title I, Part A (Parent Involvement)       Annually, beginning in 2006 (TITL1)*
Title II, Part D (E2T2)                 Every two years, beginning in 2005 (FTP6)
Title III                         No program currently in place (LEP3)
Title IV (Safe and Drug Free Schools)     Every three years, beginning in 2007-8 (SDF10)
Mentoring and Induction Program           Every three years, beginning in 2006 (TQ9)*
Talented and Gifted Program             Every five years, beginning in 2007 (GT2)
Perkins (Vocational/Career and Technical Education Programs)       Every five years, beginning in 2007 (PERK2, PERK3)*
At-risk Program                       Every five years, beginning in 2008 (AR4)*
Special Education Programs and Services       Every five years, beginning in 2008 (ESPE1, ESPE2)*

Preston will collect formative evaluation data for each program on an annual basis. However, the district will collect data regarding some programs, such as the professional development program (district professional development plan), more frequently. Progress toward meeting program/service expectations will be reported to the District Leadership Team, the Board of Education, and the School Improvement Advisory Council.
B. What implementation/student data will we collect, analyze, and use to determine how well each program/service described in Question 2 has been implemented to support our CSIP goals?
CSIP Indicator Data to Measure Program Effectiveness
Preston will evaluate the effectiveness of the majority of its instructional programs and services, at least partially, through examination of the indicator data, disaggregated by program participants, for each of the goals listed in CSIP Constant Conversation Question #2. Based on input from the program providers, Inservice Leadership Teams, and District Leadership Team, the district has decided evaluation of these data is sufficient at this time to assist in determining the effectiveness of the following programs:
  •  Professional Development Program (district professional development plan) (TQ11)
  •  At-Risk Program (AR4)
  •  Perkins (Vocational/Career and Technical Education Programs) (PERK2, PERK3)
  •  Mentoring and Induction Program (TQ9)
  •  Special Education Programs and Services (ESPE2)
  •  Title I, Part A (Parental Involvement Program) (TITL1)
  •  Title II, Part A (Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Program) (TPTR1)
  •  Title II, Part D (E2T2, FTP6)
  •  Title IV (Safe and Drug Free Schools) (SDF10)

Additional Indicator Data to Measure Program Effectiveness
The district decided additional information is needed to determine the effectiveness of some of its programs. In addition to the indicator data associated with the CSIP goals listed in the responses to Constant Conversation #2, the district will also collect, analyze, and use the following data to inform effectiveness of the following programs:

Professional Development Program and Title II, Part A (TQ10, TQ11, TQ12, TPTR1)
  •  Percentage of faculty responsible for instruction who participate in district and building career development opportunities
  •  Percentage of K-12 teachers who accurately use the strategies as measured by observations and implementation data.
  •  Percentage of K-12 teachers who implement their grade level technology curriculum.
  •  Percentage of K-3 students who are independent at grade level on the reading series assessments.
  •  Percentage of 8th grade students who improve on district-developed technology performance tasks

Gifted and Talented Program (GT2)
Rather than judging the effectiveness of the gifted and talented program through CSIP goal indicators, since Preston does not believe disaggregating its district-wide assessment data by gifted and talented student participants provides meaningful information, Preston is going to use the following indicator to determine effectiveness of its gifted and talented program:
  •  Percentage of all students participating in the gifted and talented program who meet the program goals

Perkins (Vocational/Career and Technical Education Programs) (PERK2, PERK3)
  •  Percentage of students by special population subgroups in career and technical programs who are proficient in occupational skills
  •  Percentage of graduates by special population who were program concentrators who receive a high school diploma or equivalent
  •  Percentage of senior program completers by subgroups who participate in career and technical programs who indicate their intention to continue their education, non-military employment, or military employment

Mentoring and Induction Program (TQ9)
  •  Percentage of beginning teachers participating in the mentoring and induction program who meet goals of the district career development plan, as appropriate to their teaching assignment
  •  Percentage of beginning teachers participating in the mentoring and induction program who demonstrate competency in classroom management skills

Special Education Programs and Services (ESPE1)
  •  Percentage of all students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who meet their IEP goals

Title I, Part A, Parental Involvement (TITL1)
  •  Percentage of parents who participate in the annual evaluation of the parental involvement component in improving the academic quality of schools served under Title 1, Part A