Educational Improvement Plan for Twin Rivers Unified School District 2013-2017

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

16. 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

17. Math Data 2011/12

21. 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

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

23. 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

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

25. 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.

26. Goal 1B • Proficiency in Mathematics

27. 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

28. Goal 1C • Proficiency of High Priority Students

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

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

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

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

35. 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

36. Goal 3 • Highly Qualified Teachers

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

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

39. 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