1 / 39

LEA Plan Background

Twin Rivers Unified School District 2013-2017 Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan Presented March 5, 2013. LEA Plan Background. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 5-Year p lan Updated annually Guide to f ederal and state f unded p rograms

afya
Download Presentation

LEA Plan Background

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Twin Rivers Unified School District2013-2017Local Educational Agency (LEA) PlanPresented March 5, 2013

  2. LEA Plan Background • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • 5-Year plan • Updated annually • Guide to federal and state funded programs • Basis for continuous cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation • Based on needs assessment

  3. District Program Improvement Year 3 • State Board of Education (SBE) Sanctions – November 2012 • Corrective Action #6 • Revise LEA Plan and submit by March 11, 2013 • Contract with Technical Assistance Provider/District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) • Full implementation plan for Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Roll-Out • DAIT to complete needs assessment • LEA to implement some DAIT recommendations

  4. WestEd4Four Dimensional District Study Needs AssessmentConducted Jan-Feb 2013

  5. WestEd Needs Assessment • Interviews • Focus Groups • Surveys • District Office Staff • School Site Staff • Classroom Observations • 17 sites • 345 classrooms • Documents

  6. Collaboration • Interim Superintendent • Associate Superintendents • Assistant Superintendents • Network Executive Directors • Directors • Coordinators • Trustees • C & I Program Specialists • Special Education • Principals • Parent Group • DAC • DELAC • Certificated & Classified Representatives • Teachers • Students

  7. District Site Leadership Team (DSLT) • District Site Leadership Team (DSLT) • 40 Representatives from across the district • Met 2 times to go over process, discuss and prioritize recommendations • Will continue the work in monitoring district goals • Revising LEA Plan, strategies and action steps • Increasing communication links across the district

  8. TRUSD ASSETS • Talented staff members at all levels of the district • Diverse student body • Active DELAC & DAC Committees • Very strong relationships connecting staff at the district office and at school sites

  9. TRUSD NEEDS • TRUSD CST scores are clearly below CA state averages • Observational data shows extreme variance in instructional practices across the district • Depth of Knowledge (DOK) rubric indicates that instructional level is largely at the recall level and skill/concept level rather than strategic and extended thinking • Common Core readiness • Trust

  10. CST English Language Arts • Two percentage point overall gain in the last four years • Subgroups achieved some growth since 2010 • English Learners scores have declined • Only one AYP target was met in 2012 (safe harbor) • Filipino subgroup • See following charts

  11. ELA Data 2011-12

  12. CST Mathematics • The district has grown by three percentage points over the previous four years • Achieved some growth in all sub-groups • No AYP targets were met in 2012. • See following data charts for math

  13. Math Data 2011/12

  14. Considerations • New format for LEA Plan • Goal 2 (Title III Plan EL) • Safe and Drug Free Schools no longer included • Evaluation Rubric from CDE to ensure compliance • Goals identified by CDE online template • High leverage focus areas vs. quantity of strategies and action steps • DSLT developed these areas of focus which became goal descriptors in the LEA Plan

  15. Goal 5A • Increase Graduation Rates • At least 70% of students from all subgroups graduate in four years • Page 17 of plan

  16. Goal 5B • Decrease Dropout Rates • 2011-12 dropout rate was 21% • Goal is to have fewer than 10% of students dropping out by spring of 2015. • Page 20

  17. Goal 1A • Proficiency in English Language Arts • Page 23

  18. Smart Goal ELA • In 2012, 44.1% of students scored proficient or advanced on the CST, a growth from 43.9 in 2010, over the next five years, students will grow by at least 4% (safe harbor) annually until reaching at least 55.0% by 2017. • Needs Assessment shows extreme variance in instructional strategies across the district. By 2017, this variance will be reduced by 50% as measured by classroom observations. using Danielson’s Rubric.

  19. Goal 1B • Proficiency in Mathematics

  20. SMART Goal Mathematics • In 2012, 48.8% of our students scored proficient or advanced on the Math CST, showing a 3 point growth in the last 4 years. For the next five years, students will grow by at least 4.7% annually until reaching 67.6% proficiency by 2017. • Page 30

  21. Goal 1C • Proficiency of High Priority Students

  22. SMART Goal High Priority Students • In 2012, 42.5% of our Asian students scored proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, a reduction from 59.1% in 2010. • The district’s Asian student subgroup will meet the criteria for safe harbor each year and grow to 61.2 % in 2013 until reaching at least 77% proficiency by 2017 • Page 37

  23. High Priority Students • In 2012, 39.3% of our Hispanic students scored proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, a growth from 39.0% in 2010. For the next five years, Hispanic students will meet the criteria for safe harbor each year and grow to 45.0% in 2013 until reaching at least 61.0% by 2017. • In 2012, 37.5% of our African American students scored proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, a growth from in 2010. For the next five years, African American students will meet the criteria for safe harbor each year and grow to 42.7% in 2013 until reaching at least 58.3% by 2017.

  24. High Priority Students • 47.7% of English Learner students scored proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, a decrease from 49.3% in 2010. For the next five years, EL students will meet the criteria for safe harbor each year, grow to 52.2% in 2013 and reach at least 65.7% proficiency by 2017. • In 2012, 29.4% of Students with Disabilities scored proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, a decrease from 30.7% in 2010. For the next five years, SWD will meet the criteria for safe harbor each year and grow to 35.5% in 2013 and reach at least 53.8 % by 2017.

  25. Goal 1D • Effective Teaching & Administration • Page 42

  26. Goal 1E • Involvement, Implementing, Monitoring • Page 45

  27. Goal 1F • Support Schools in Corrective Action • Page 48

  28. Program Improvement Schools • 26 of 47 schools are identified as PI year 3-5+ • Intensive, multifaceted support from central office and DAIT to provide targeted support for these schools • Data driven monitoring of instruction and program • Improved parent engagement • Adopt the new national framework for parent engagement

  29. Goal 3 • Highly Qualified Teachers

  30. DSLT Recommendations • The district will focus on 4 Key Areas: Trust, Professional Development, Common Core and Defined Autonomy to ensure improved outcome for students

  31. Common Core Implementation • Comprehensive • Collaborative • Cohesive As a vehicle for building trust

  32. TRUSD LEA Plan • Collaborative effort • Reflects Needs Assessment • Utilizes recommendations from DAIT provider • Provides comprehensive plan for CCSS • Meets the requirements of the CDE Rubric • Focuses on quality high leverage strategies Recommendation: The Board of Trustees approve the Twin Rivers Unified School District LEA Plan 2013-17. Thank you

More Related