district name: conejo valley unified cd code: 5673759 school … · 2017-09-30 · and...

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY

PLAN ADDENDUM TEMPLATE

The Elementary Secondary Education Act, codified as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, Section 1116(c)(7)(A) requires that local educational agencies (LEAs) identified for Program Improvement (PI) shall, not later than three months after being identified, develop or revise an LEA Plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, and others. Rather than completely rewriting the existing LEA Plan, we recommend using this Plan Addendum template to address the items below. Type your responses in the expandable text boxes. Please submit your completed Addendum by e-mail to [email protected] and indicate in the subject line of the e-mail: 1) the name of your LEA; 2) the Program Improvement Year; and 3) the name of the document attached (i.e., ZZZ Unified School District; PI Year 1; LEA Plan Addendum). If your LEA is also identified for Title III Year 2, please also note this in the subject line. The Plan Addendum, which must be submitted to the California Department of Education (CDE) no later than January 13, 2011, is required to: 1. Address the fundamental teaching and learning needs in the schools of that LEA and the specific academic problems of low-

achieving students, including a determination of why the prior LEA Plan failed to bring about increased student achievement. Please describe how you will address student learning needs, based on an analysis of data for why the prior LEA Plan was not successful. (First determine whether the LEA Plan was fully implemented as written. For assistance, please use the State Assessment Tools to help you with your analysis, review and/or revision. These tools are available on the CDE State Assessment Tools Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.)

Persons Involved/Timeline

Related Expenditures

Estimated Cost

Funding Source Progress Monitoring – LEA Year 2

The District has continued to show growth in the API for the past 5 years (see attached). Students in the at-risk subgroups have not been able to keep pace with the targets set forth by NCLB.

A. District review of curriculum follows the state adoption cycle. Assembly Bill X4 2 (Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session) signed on July 28, 2009, suspended the process and procedures for adopting instructional materials, including framework revisions, until the 2013-14 school year. With the adoption cycle now frozen, the emphasis will be on identifying the knowledge students need most for continued success. Content standards are examined for K-12 articulation and are revised if necessary. Research on instructional methods reveals the most effective techniques for a particular content, and this information is used in

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elem and Secondary Education Director of Curriculum & Assessment Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals

n/a no adoptions

October, 2011 API – 876 Growth of 10 pts Aug-Nov, 2011 Curriculum K-5 guides were reviewed, updated, and training provided to teachers

District Name: Conejo Valley Unified School District

CD Code: 5673759

California Department of Education September 2010

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp�

professional development. B.The use of the current adopted basic core and program ancillary materials designed for universal access were used inconsistently by teachers and not consistent with publishers’ intent. The SBE materials were sometimes used without fidelity and parts of the research-based programs were over looked.

C. Basic core pacing guides were used in an inconsistent manner across grades/content areas as teachers worked independently within their classrooms. An ELA adoption has not occurred in nine years. District and site administrators will ensure that all students have access to the core curriculum by operating daily schedules that allocate required instructional time in the core and/or intervention curriculum for all students. D. Teacher analysis of student data was used primarily in a summative format versus a formative format. Student data was not consistently utilized in a manner to effectively differentiate instruction. E. Intervention programs and materials were used with at-risk and high-priority subgroups, however data collection, analysis and instructional decision making has not been uniform throughout the district. F. Fiscal resources have limited structured teacher collaboration time to analyze and use assessment data to inform classroom instruction. G. K-12 ELD materials were adopted in the 2009-10 school year. Training and implementation are ongoing with research-based strategies and the recommended instructional time.

Teachers Specialists Paraprofessionals GATE facilitators VCOE curriculum and project directors Personnel named will review reasons for lack of student achievement and address through areas #2 through #8 beginning 9/10 – 2/11

180,000

IMRFD EIA

March-Dec, 2011 Step Up to Writing training Elem/Middle – Pacing guides updated and beginning alignment to common core July – Sept, 2011 10/11 & 11/12 Data analysis ongoing with District office staff, site administration and teachers ELD materials are implemented with recommended instructional time

2. Include specific measurable achievement goals and targets for student groups consistent with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Please describe academic goals and targets for student achievement, participation, growth on the API, and graduation rate, if applicable. (Refer to the CDE AYP Reports Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/aypreports.asp.)



Estimated Cost

Funding Source

Progress Monitoring – LEA

Year 2

By June 2011, CVUSD will increase percentages towards 2011 AYP targets as specified by NCLB. The following ELA and Math subgroups will increase percent proficient or above: ELA Math Hispanic 48.7 to 55 51.2 to 57 White 80.6 to 83 79.6 to 83 SED 44.8 to 51 48.2 to 54 EL 42.4 to 49 49.1 to 55 SWD 49.6 to 56 49.1 to 55 By June, 2012, CVUSD will increase percentages towards 2012 AYP targets as specified by NCLB. The following ELA and Math subgroups will increase percent proficient or above: ELA Math Hispanic 55 to 62 57 to 63 White 83 to 87 83 to 87 SED 51 to 57 54 to 59 EL 49 to 55 55 to 60 SWD 56 to 63 55 to 60 EL Students taking the CAHSEE in grade 10 will increase percentages passing from ELA Math 2011 33 to 40 44 to 50 2012 40 to 47 50 to 58 The targets are a result of safe harbor calculations to provide attainable goals as the targets are increasing.

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elem and Secondary Education Director of Curriculum & Assessment Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals Teachers Specialists Paraprofessionals 9/10 – 6/12

STAR data copies Computers/ Scanners Assessment costs Supplies

3,000 50,000 21,000 2,000

ARRA/EETT

All subgroups increased % toward targets ELA Hispanic 52.2 White 83.1 SED 47.6 EL 44.0 SWD 54.5 MATH Hispanic 53.9 White 80.5 SED 50.6 EL 50.5 SWD 52.4 CAHSEE EL ELA Math 35 48 * Revised Goals for 2011/12 ELA Hispanic 55 White 85 SED 50 EL 47 SWD 57 MATH Hispanic 56 White 83 SED 53 EL 53 SWD 60

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/aypreports.asp�

CAHSEE EL ELA Math 40 51

By June 2011, all sites will implement with fidelity the SBE adopted (K-8) or local governing board approved (9-12) ELA and Math, according to a pacing schedule.

By June 2012, all sites ( K-12) will administer informative assessments in ELA and math three times per year that are aligned to pacing guide with results reviewed collaboratively and used to make instructional decisions.

August, 2011 Revised curriculum guides, teachers Classroom observations, principals Benchmarks: K-3 ELA/Math/Wri 4/5 Writing/Math 6-8 Math Writing EOY: H/SS, Science

By June 2011, EL students will receive ELD instruction (until reclassified); using SBE-adopted/local governing Board approved materials per recommended instructional minutes per CELDT proficiency level.

Levels 1 - 3

K-5: 30 minutes daily (Carousel of Ideas)

6-8: 2 periods of ELD/ELA instruction (Inside/Hampton Brown)

9-12: 2 period of ELD/ELA instruction (Edge/Hampton Brown)

Levels 4-5 will receive ELD instruction appropriate to proficiency levels and instructional support until re-classified.

By June 2011, English Language Learners will improve in English Language proficiency and grade level proficiency.

AMAO 3

• ELA. AYP from 42.4% to 56% • MATH AYP from 49.1% to 57% By June 2012, English Learners will improve in English Language proficiency and grade level proficiency AMAO 3

ELA AYP from 56% to 67% Math AYP from 57% to 67.3%

Noted in section # 1

IMRFD EIA ARRA/EETT

Classroom obs by site principal, dept. chair Training/coaching by ELD coordinator Sept 2011 – June 2012 Sept, 2011 Scores ELA, AYP: 44% Math, AYP: 50.5% *Revised Goals for 2011/12 ELA, AYP: 49% MATH, AYP: 55%

3. Incorporate scientifically based research strategies that strengthen the core academic program in schools served by the LEA. Please describe the specific strategies that the district will use and how those strategies will be used to strengthen the core academic program.



Estimated Cost

Funding Source


Year 2

California SBE Adopted and Board Approved Materials ELA- Houghton Mifflin Reading, 2003 ELA – Open Court K-2 ELA – Holt, 2003 6-8 Step Up to Writing Math – CA Everyday Mathematics K-5 Math – Holt, 6th Pre-Algebra, 7th Math – Glencoe, CA Algebra 1 concepts Science – FOSS, K-5 Science – Houghton Mifflin 3-5 Science- Prentice Hall 6-8 Social Science – Scott Foresman K-5 Social Science – Glencoe 6-8 ELD Carousel of Ideas .Inside Edge All teachers will communicate essential standards and objectives to students. Classroom observations conducted by principals and department chairs will ensure that teachers demonstrate the following best practices:

Alignment of the course of study to state standards, pacing guide, and assessments

Uses the SBE and local governing board texts and materials with fidelity

Reduction of distractions and interruptions to the lessons Teachers will check for understanding, uses guided practice, and provide explicit academic language/vocabulary instruction (Hollingsworth)

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elem and Secondary Education Director of Curriculum & Assessment Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals Teachers Specialists Paraprofessionals Training will continue throughout 2010/11 through grade level articulation and department meetings Revisit training received as a district

ELA workbooks Step Up to Writing materials Math workbooks Live materials cards Lab expenses ELD workbooks

120,000 10,000 180,000 15,000 15,000 50,000

Instructional Materials Funds Lottery Funds Title III

Using materials with fidelity, observations by site principals, dept. chairs Data collection by formative/summative assessments ELD will continue with trainings Ordering supplemental materials Dept. meetings, shortened day schedules, PLC’s

Teachers will analyze data to inform instructional practices to enhance student learning. Teachers will use the processes of compare/contrast, classifying, questioning, analogies, and reciprocal teaching techniques. Teachers will reinforce effort and give praise to address the motivational aspects of learning. Teachers will give homework and practice to provide students with opportunities to understand and practice presented content. Cooperative learning will be used in the classroom. Note taking and summarizing will be implemented in classrooms. (Marzano/Pickering) Secondary teachers will continue to use Socratic method teaching strategies where appropriate. Intensive Interventions A variety of programs are used to develop skills and enhance learning. ELA SuccessMaker – Pearson Digital Learning Read Naturally REACH, SRA, McGraw Hill, 2002 SIPPS Soar to Success Early Success Waterford Cyber High My Access, Vantage Learning CAHSEE Prep Language for Thinking, Language for Learning Learn 360 Math Excel Math Math Coach Learn 360 FASTT math

PLC work during staff meetings/common planning time Additional study will be completed to find effective, research-based math intervention programs

Continue professional development on strategies along with data analysis Site specific Learn 360

25,000 Site funds 13,000

Title I Title III ARRA Supplemental Hourly Programs EIA Microsoft voucher

Discussion/implementation of best practices Dec. 2011 Instructional Goals committee doing homework survey with parents Intervention programs LEAD time at elementary level during the school day RtI trainings/implementations varies at sites

Hotmath Touchmath High School Provide Grade 9-12 intervention coursework focused on a tiered system of response. Provide all students a course using core materials. Place students in need of strategic and intensive intervention in intervention courses including: language arts intervention, reading intervention, content reading, CAHSEE prep, and CAHSEE intervention, Measuring Up, Apex, and Cyber High Implement the 3-Tiered Intervention Model district-wide to provide early intervention and support to promote academic success for all students The District will continue work on RtI (Response to Instruction and Intervention during common planning time. Data will be provided to teams through the District data coach, administrators, and teachers to inform instruction and plan targeted, strategic interventions.

Additional Researched-Based Instructional Strategies Implementation and Monitoring of High Quality ELD

Instruction Strategies

◊ Instruction is explicit and systematic ◊ Provide multiple opportunities for practice ◊ Maximizes student engagement ◊ Increase text time on text/Increase time on task ◊ Use wait time on a consistent basis ◊ Establish a set of routine of activities so that students can

make sense of what is happening. ◊ Model skills and strategies during lessons ◊ Lesson objectives are clear ◊ Make relationships among concepts overt

- Emphasize distinctive features of new concepts ◊ Use of flexible grouping ◊ Provide immediate, corrective, explicit feedback ◊ Provide scaffolds in how to use strategies, skills and

concepts ◊ Teachers adjust own use of language to make concepts

comprehensible

Principals Teachers

Instructional materials Data Coach Workshops Observation tool

5,000 80,000 80,000

CAHSEE intervention funds ARRA/EETT Title II

Expansion of Apex Online learning at one high school, one middle school CAHSEE prep ongoing Tiered Intervention model is ongoing, updated at sites for academics. Working on behavioral side of RtI² pyramid Data being entered into Datawise – benchmarks Explicit ELD being used at each site Assessments/placements varies at sites. Planning/training meeting scheduled for Jan. 2012

◊ Select and incorporate students’ response, ideas, examples and experiences into lesson

◊ Ensure quality of independent practice ◊ Teachers ask questions to ensure comprehension ◊ Provide extra instruction, practice and review ◊ Activate and draw upon students’ background knowledge

in relation to stories presented ◊ Provide clear instruction in comprehension strategies

before, during, and after reading. ◊ Increase use of GLAD strategies at schools that have

training ◊ Training in use of GATE icons

workshops

1,500

Title III Title II

SDAIE strategies used Funding limitations has not allowed training for GLAD

4. Identify actions that have the greatest likelihood of improving student achievement in meeting state standards. Please identify actions and how they will be supported. (See full implementation statements in the Academic Program Survey [APS] and the District Assistance Survey [DAS] on the CDE State Assessment Tools Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.)



Estimated Cost

Funding Source


Year 2

Create a comprehensive K-12 system of common, embedded informative and summative assessments aligned to California State Standards for English/language arts, ELD, and mathematics.

◊ Collect, analyze and disseminate results to inform instruction, and determine performance/success indicators that evidence academic risk

◊ Use district student assessment system to disaggregate

and disseminate data quickly to all stakeholders ◊ Review and re-design the District English Learner Master

Plan Use of Datawise & Zangle data systems to secure disaggregate student performance data. “One click reports” will be entered into Datawise in order to have data available to review in a “user friendly” format. The schools will ensure that all students, especially ELs, SWDs, and other high priority students, have access to the core curriculum and, based on assessed need, to ELD strategic interventions and SBE adopted intensive interventions. Support

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elem and Secondary Education Director of Curriculum & Assessment Director of Technology Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals Teachers Specialists Data Coach

PD costs Costs for creating informative assessments and entering into Datawise Clerical costs Test Item Bank EL plan PD costs

160,000 10,000 5,000 30,000 5,000 15,000

Title I Title II Title III ARRA/EETT grant EIA Special Ed

Analysis of data ongoing. Meetings held with Supt., Deputy Supt, Directors, Principals at the District level Principals, AP, and teachers at site level Data Coach hired to implement training with Datawise and help with trainings – ongoing EL Master Plan is not complete


materials for EL and SWD will be reviewed and continued training provided for their use. Teachers will fully implement adopted materials and provide and monitor appropriate daily instructional minutes and pacing for all core subjects and interventions. The training provided in 2009-2010 for the Focused Approach to Houghton-Mifflin and Open Court will be implemented in K-5 classrooms Principals, other administrators, and teachers will be trained in the use of Datawise in order to determine the effectiveness of the district’s academic program and the implementation of the instructional materials. The District has procedures and processes to monitor the accuracy of the data through a Data Coach and will support teachers and administrators in accessing timely school and classroom level data based on informative and summative curriculum-embedded and standards aligned assessments. Site administrators, teachers, and counselors will continuously review student data and class placement. Master schedule will be reviewed to ensure appropriate EL and SWD program placement

Director of Curriculum & Assessment Data Coach Principals

N/A Previously noted

Ongoing Focused Approach for Houghton Mifflin has been implemented Ongoing Data Coach works with Principals/sites to align assessments and suggest instructional changes based on data Ongoing

5. Address the professional development needs of the instructional staff that will support the strategies and recommendations described

above. Please explain how the LEA identified professional development needs of instructional staff and LEA plans to support professional development. (See full implementation statements in the APS and the DAS located on the CDE State Assessment Tools Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.)



Estimated Cost

Funding Source


Year 2

The district will provide resources to deliver coherent professional development that is based on standards based content knowledge and the adopted instructional materials that reflect research based strategies for improved student achievement, and includes effective leadership training for site administrators and teachers to implement systemic reform.

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elementary and Secondary Ed Director of Curriculum

Release time for teacher collaboration Conference costs

50,000 15,000

Title I Title II ARRA/EETT

Profession development calendar updated continuously; disseminated by email and district


The district, schools, and staff will provide frequent and structured opportunities to meet and collaboratively focus on the use of curriculum embedded assessment data, data analysis, instructional planning, and lesson delivery in order to adjust and strengthen instructional practices and address the needs of all students. A published yearly calendar will update opportunities during each month to get further training. Teachers and administrators will receive ongoing training in Datawise and Zangle in order to build capacity in monitoring student progress, measuring growth over time, and assessing the effectiveness of intervention programs District Data Coach will provide on-going assistance to administrators and teachers in data analysis, strengthen instructional practices and monitor student achievement. Six hours of professional development will be implemented district wide with training on the focused approach to collaboration and analyzing student data. Continue meeting in Professional Learning Communities using data from informative and summative assessments to answer critical questions (Dufour) and differentiate instruction to meet student needs. The District will support teachers to participate in ELPD through the Ventura COE The District will focus on continuing professional development in a trainer of trainer model on the following areas: Academic Vocabulary (Kinsella) Professional Learning Communities Positive Behavior Support Step Up to Writing GATE icons Learning contracts SDAIE Strategies Strategies for students with disabilities Differentiation Direct instruction Focused Approach to Houghton Mifflin/Open Court (training occurred in 2009-2010) Socratic method

& Assessment Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals, Teachers VCOE BTSA

Presenter fees PD stipends for teachers Instructional supplies Copy costs Costs for creating informative assessments and entering into Datawise

13,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 Previously listed N/A 85,000

EIA Title II Intervention Funds

website Ongoing Ongoing and trainer of trainer model Ongoing Ongoing and written into professional development plan Ongoing Elementary principals, directors participated in ELITE training for EL student through VCOE – 3 modules

6. English Learners

Conejo Valley Unified School District Title III Year 2 LEA Improvement Plan Addendum 1A. Analysis of data and problems found.

The Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) has exceeded the targets for AMAO 1 and 2 as well as the AMAO 3 participation rate every year. CVUSD has exceeded the AMAO 3 target in mathematics every year until 2009-10. The District has not, however, met AMAO 3 in English Language Arts for two consecutive years, 2008-09 and 2009-10. While our English Learner AYP is the highest it has ever been with 42. 4% Proficient in ELA and 49.1% Proficient in math, higher than the state average of 35.5% in ELA and 45.5% in math, and exceeding most other districts in the county, the pace of our growth has not been sufficient to meet the targets set by NCLB. Enrollment History • In the most recent language census, CVUSD had 2,133 identified English Learners, 10% of the total K-12 enrollment. 28% of our English Learners

have been in a US school for 6 years or more. 18% have been in our district for 6 or more years. 63% of our English Learners have been in our district 3 years or less.

CELDT Analysis - • Students at the Intermediate level of English proficiency make up the highest percentage of English Learners in our district (34.8%) followed by Early

Advanced and Advanced (24.4%). • CVUSD English Learners (ELs) at every level of English proficiency exceed the state averages for percentage of students meeting growth targets. • Overall 63.3% are meeting their growth target. Students at the Intermediate level, however, are making the least progress with 40.4% meeting the

growth target. • 61% of our ELs who have been in a program for 6 or more years scored Proficient on the CELDT. 36% of ELs who have been in our district 6 or more

years are still scoring at the intermediate level or below. • A review of data on length of time in the district indicates that students as a whole are increasing in their English proficiency. 24% of ELs here 3 years

or less score Proficient on the CELDT as compared to 61% of those here 6 years or more.

CST Analysis • Considering all grade levels, the majority of our Intermediate ELs score at the Basic range in ELA on the CSTs. • Looking at grade level spans, there is a downward trend in the CST performance of Intermediate ELs in English Language Arts from elementary to

middle to high school. 66.3% of elementary level Intermediates are scoring Basic or above in ELA. That figure drops to 40.9% for middle school and down to 25% for high school Intermediates.

• EL Intermediate performance in math shows the same downward trend from elementary to high school. There is actually a steady decline from 4th to 8th grade. Intermediate ELs perform better on the math CSTs at the elementary level than they do in ELA with 70.7% scoring Basic or above, however Intermediate EL performance in math drops even lower in middle school than it did in ELA with only 35% scoring basic or above. The majority of ELs who are CELDT Proficient also score at the Basic range on the CSTs.

• Overall, 47.01% CELDT Proficient ELs score Proficient or Advanced on CSTs in ELA and 49.7% score Proficient or above in mathLooking by grade

level spans, there is again a steady drop in the percent Proficient or Advanced from elementary ELA (68.5%) to middle (29%) to high school (19.6%). Looking grade by grade, the first significant drop actually occurs after 4th grade. The same trend occurs in math with the percent Proficient or Advanced dropping from 75.8% in elementary school to 28.3% in middle school to 19.5% in high school

• Overall, 72.9% of our Reclassified (RFEP) students are scoring Proficient or Advanced in ELA, and 64.1% in math. Again, a review by grade level span indicates a steady drop in the percent Proficient or Advanced from elementary ELA (87.5%) to middle (73.7%) to high school (61.6%). RFEP math performance drops from 87.6% in elementary school to 70.4% in middle school to 36.1% in high school. The concern for both CELDT Proficient and RFEP students is to continue to monitor, support, and move those scoring at the Basic (or lower) level to Proficient or Advanced.

• 8th grade English Learner placement in Algebra is very low. Approximately 13% of the EL 8th graders were enrolled in Algebra 1 compared to over 64% of our English Only and Initial Fluent English Proficient students. This raises questions regarding what strategies are being used to ensure ELs meet grade level standards and are prepared for higher level math coursework.

• 56% of 8th grade RFEPs are enrolled in Algebra with about 85% of them scoring Proficient or Advanced on the CST. While RFEP enrollment is much higher than EL enrollment in Algebra, it is not yet at the level of our English Only and IFEP students.

CAHSEE • The 10th grade EL passing rate for CAHSEE is 33% in ELA and 45% in math. Only 4 % of ELs score proficient in ELA and 11% in math. • 95% of the 10th grade RFEP students pass the ELA portion of the CAHSEE with 60% scoring Proficient. 96% pass the math portion with 69%

scoring Proficient. Because passing the CAHSEE is required for graduation and once students pass the test, they do not take it again, schools are concerned about students passing the CAHSEE rather than scoring Proficient.

B. Strengths and weaknesses of current plan:

I. Instructional Program Implementation Strengths • The Board of Education has established District wide goals that directly target the needs of English Learners. • District administration has provided clear guidance on importance of ELD and focus on English Learners. • District criteria for identification of ELs, program placement, and reclassification are clearly defined and known. • The District adopted SBE approved materials for K-5 ELD and SBE adopted 6-12 ELD/Intensive Intervention materials for

implementation beginning in the 2010-11 school year. • K-12 Teachers and elementary administrators have participated in training for effective implementation of ELD materials and

instruction. • Site administrators are focusing on implementation of research based ELD practices, making ELD a priority. • Teachers use SBE adopted materials in ELA/reading and Math. • School sites K – 12 are providing intervention programs for English Learners. • Common District Benchmark Assessments are available in math K-12, in writing K-6.

Weaknesses • Several schools, particularly those with small EL populations are struggling with the effective, efficient scheduling of

ELD instruction. • Middle and high school English teachers are expected to teach ELD standards to Early Advanced and Advanced

English proficient students as needed within the regular English class, however, the level and quality of support varies from teacher to teacher.

• September class placements are often based on overall CELDT scores that are a year old. • Teachers and administrators need continued training and support to ensure effective implementation and monitoring

of the new ELD programs. • The SBE adopted materials in ELA and math, including ancillary materials designed for universal access, are not

always used with fidelity. • Basic core pacing guides have been used in an inconsistent manner across grades/content areas as teachers

worked independently within their classrooms rather than in a collaborative manner. • An ELA adoption has not occurred in nine years. • EL student data is not consistently utilized in a manner to effectively differentiate instruction. • Formative Assessments are not consistently used to inform instruction. • Overall results of summative assessments, such as CST and CELDT are often used to determine student placement

in interventions without looking at specific areas of need. • Exit criteria for interventions are not always clearly established or clearly communicated. • Intervention data collection and analysis for instructional decision-making and program evaluation has not been

uniform throughout the district. • Data needs to be used more effectively in making decisions about intervention courses for our long-term English

Learners, long-term Intermediate students and RFEPs who appear to have greater needs than we may have anticipated.

• Low achievement in math after the 4th grade has limited EL access to 8th grade Algebra and ultimately other higher-level math classes.

• EL students who are also students with disabilities need to have sufficient ELD instruction.

II. Instructional strategies: Strengths

• Increasing use of research-based GLAD strategies to help ELs increase language proficiency and to access core curriculum at the elementary level.

• Teachers use a variety of strategies to develop academic language (reflecting practices from Kinsella, Marzano, Beck, GLAD).

• Some Secondary schools provide content classes targeted to the proficiency level of their ELs (e.g., SDAIE history, math, Newcomer classes).

• Teachers utilize a variety of SDAIE strategies which aid in making content comprehensible for ELs • A variety of technology-based programs such as Learn 360, Safari Montage, My Access, SuccessMaker, Waterford,

and Rosetta Stone are being used to help develop skills and/or make the content accessible. Weaknesses

• The use of research-based strategies such as GLAD and SIOP varies from school to school and from classroom to classroom.

• There is a lack of systematic administrative oversight to ensure implementation of newly learned strategies. • Teachers lack strategies to differentiate instruction for ELs in mathematics and ELA. • More refresher training needs to be implemented on a regular basis district wide. • Access to technology-based supplementary programs varies between sites. • Data has not been collected or analyzed to determine the effectiveness and long term impact of secondary off-norm

classes targeting ELs.(There is no uniform process to analyze the effectiveness of interventions) • Grade level/department communication and time for planning is not consistent across the district.

III. Professional development:

Strengths • The District has purchased a new data system called Datawise Measures. A trainer of trainer model has been

established with monthly trainings scheduled and already begun. Some of the trainers have also begun training at their school sites.

• ELD Teacher Advisors represent their sites at monthly meetings to learn about EL program requirements, share instructional strategies, problem solve, etc. and then share back at their site.

• Two elementary EL support teachers provide ongoing training and support to school sites, ELD Advisors, and paraprofessionals.

• The Assistant Director of Pupil Services and EL support teachers participate in Ventura County Office of Education ELD Steering Committee to keep up with best practices, current research, learn from neighboring districts, and problem solve.

• Title I elementary teachers received recent training in a Focused Approach to Houghton Mifflin and Open Court and utilize what they learned to ensure access to the core content.

• The District has one teacher who has been trained as a GLAD trainer and two more that are in the process of becoming certified. Over 40 elementary teachers have participated in a full 6-7 day GLAD training with far more having participated in trainings on selected GLAD strategies to increase language development, literacy, student engagement, and access to the core curriculum.

• Approximately 380 K-6 teachers have taken the initial 2-day training as well as follow-up training for Step Up To Writing. More training is scheduled for those who have not been trained.

• Teams of secondary teachers have attended Kate Kinsella trainings with their administrators to strengthen instruction in academic language and writing.

• District trainers are providing Learn 360 training at each school site.

Weaknesses • Ongoing training is needed for core content areas including training in R/LA and math ancillary materials that provide

support for English learners. • More research based strategy training is needed in the area of math. • GLAD training is very costly and time consuming. Teachers have therefore been trained on a voluntary basis and

implementation then varies within and between schools. IV. Parental participation:

Strengths • Active participation in ELAC/DELAC meetings, input provided into needs assessment and school plans. • K-5 Parent conference week offers 2-way communication with interpreters provided for parents of ELs in Spanish

and other languages as needed whenever possible. • Interpreters are available at Back to School nights, Open House, secondary orientation events, and other parent

outreach events. • Some school sites have parent outreach/newcomer specialists and strong structured parent groups (e.g., Parents

Making a Difference). • Regular communication through “all calls” and outreach are made in Spanish and English. • The CVUSD Adult School and some other sites at the K-12 level offer English as a second language classes to

parents and other adults in the community. • Parents are provided training on involvement opportunities, understanding CELDT, parent access to attendance and

grades. • At the elementary level parents are offered opportunities to participate in activities such as family movie nights, ice

cream socials, and parenting classes. • At the secondary level parents are offered orientation events with interpreters, college nights, and occasional parent

education evenings. Weaknesses

• Parent outreach efforts vary from school to school. • Many schools do not have parent outreach specialists/community liaisons. • State budget cuts have resulted in cuts to District’s valuable CBET programs.

C. Factors contributing to failure to meet AMAO(s): • ELD curriculum was not always implemented with consistency and fidelity. • Intervention programs not always implemented with consistency and fidelity • Insufficient targeting of needs for students at the Intermediate (CELDT) and Basic (CST) levels • Lack of effective programs/strategies for helping and motivating long-term EL students • Insufficient support for EL students in math at the secondary level • Inconsistent support provided to ELs in ELA and Math at the early Advanced/Advanced levels • Insufficient data collected, analyzed, and utilized to make decisions/evaluate decisions regarding EL core

instruction and intervention. • Inconsistent monitoring of RFEP progress

D. Conclusions from analysis that inform program modifications The District needs to: • Increase the consistency, fidelity, and time spent on ELD instruction at all grade levels. • Research materials/strategies effective for supporting and accelerating the growth of Intermediate and long-term

EL students. • Provide teachers with relevant data on EL students, not only identifying EL students, but also data on RFEPs, EL

students with disabilities, long-term ELs, and those not making expected progress on AMAOs. • Consistently monitor the progress of EL and RFEP students in language arts and mathematics. • Provide teachers and support staff additional professional development on interventions and assessment,

academic English and vocabulary, and sheltering content, along with coaching and feedback. • Data needs to be collected, analyzed and utilized on a regular basis to inform decisions regarding EL core

instruction and intervention. • Provide more math support for EL students at the secondary level. • Continue to involve and collaborate with the parents of EL students. • Provide administrators with tools to better monitor implementation of EL programs and strategies and to better

provide coaching and feedback.

Educational activities to improve English proficiency and academic achievement

Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources

and Estimate

Progress Reports (Monitoring by LEA) October 2011

2. Describe scientifically based strategies to improve English-language Development (ELD). (AMAOs 1 and 2) AMAOS 1 and 2 met (See Section 3 a, h,i, j, k)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Monitoring by Regional COE Lead


Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources

and Estimate

Progress Reports (Monitoring by LEA)

October 2011

3. Describe scientifically based strategies to improve academic achievement in reading/language arts (R/LA). (AMAO 3) a. Provide, on going site-specific coaching and support

for effective ELD grouping and scheduling (e.g. share school wide, cross grade level models) to teachers, counselors and site administrators.

Began 10/10-Ongoing

Asst. Director Pupil Services, EL Support Teachers, Dept. chairs

N/A Coordinator of EL Services and Dept. Chairs are continuing to coach and support ELD grouping and scheduling at targeted school sites.

b. K-5 Site Administrators will routinely visit classrooms to observe ELA instruction to ensure that the core curriculum is implemented with fidelity.

Ongoing 2010-2012

Director of Elementary Ed Principals Classroom teachers

N/A Routine classroom visits are being conducted by all k-5 site admin. to ensure implementation and fidelity of Core ELA curriculum. Visits are yielding consistent results.

c. Middle and High school site administrators will routinely visit classrooms to observe that ELA teachers with mainstreamed ELs are utilizing the core (HOLT/Prentice Hall) ancillary materials designed for universal access, EL support, and language development as appropriate. They will provide timely feedback to teachers on these observations.

Ongoing 2010-2012

Director of Secondary Ed Middle and High Site Administrators

N/A

d. Pacing guides are used consistently across grade levels to ensure EL access to standards. (Benchmark assessments and lesson observations will be used to monitor.)

Ongoing 2010-2012

Site Administrators, Department chairs Teachers

N/A Benchmark assessments are being conducted and entered into Datawise. This will give teachers, administrators and department chairs the opportunity to look at a students and /or class scores across time.

e. Continue to provide training on Academic language instruction and structured language practice through ELD Advisor meetings.

Monthly EL support teachers Asst. Director Pupil services

N/A Advisors area attending monthly training meetings for ELD strategies in academic vocabulary, interactive strategies as well as structured language practice

f. ELD teacher advisors will share new strategies learned with site staff. Those strategies used will be discussed and recorded at grade level and

Monthly Site Administrators Department Chairs

N/A Teacher advisors are turning in a “presentation” form to the Coordinator of EL Services

department articulation meetings. documenting what they present to their colleagues.


Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources

and Estimate


October 2011

g. Monitor and coach to ensure that ELs are receiving explicit academic language instruction and structured language practice on a consistent basis.

Ongoing 2010-2012

Site Administrators

N/A Structured language practice and explicit ELD is being used at each school site on a consistent basis. One area that that we are now looking at to bolster is effective teaching practices.

h. Administer assessments from District newly adopted ELD materials (Carousel of Ideas (K-4.), Inside (grades 5-8) and Edge (grades 9-11) in spring and utilize results to help place students in fall.

Ongoing 2010-2012

Teachers, Site Administrators

N/A Assessments at some sites yielded easier placement of students this fall.

i. Provide follow up/ongoing teacher training for the Carousel of Ideas ELD program.

Feb., June, Sept. 2011

Asst. Director Pupil services EL Support Teachers Teacher Trainers

Title II 30,000

Two trainings for Carousel of Ideas were held this fall 2011

j. Provide follow up/ongoing teacher training for Inside, and Edge .

Nov., Dec. 2010, Feb., Aug. 2011

Director of Curriculum and Assessment

Tile II 20,000

Staff development and teacher training being assessed and scheduled as needed

k. Continue participation in VCOE ELD Steering Committee to investigate strategies for long term ELs, students who are stuck at intermediate level on CELDT and/or basic level on CSTs, and investigate additional research based strategies for ELD instruction in mainstream English setting.

Dec., Feb., May 2011

Asst. Director Pupil Services EL Support Teachers

N/A Coordinator of EL Services is currently attending meetings to attain ongoing information

l. District will collect and analyze data to develop a process to effectively evaluate interventions including, but not limited to secondary off-norm and/or SDAIE classes, before/after school classes, summer programs.

March –June 2011

Director of Curriculum and Assessment Data Coach Site Administrators

N/A District Administration have collected data and along with Secondary Admin. will be looking at students in off-norm and SDAIE classes this year to monitor progress. Elementary teachers, SST and RtI teams, collect and analyze student data to evaluate necessity of

interventions and differentiation within the classroom.


Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources and

Estimate


October 2011

m. Establish school site data teams to collect, and analyze data on intervention programs to identify what is working and what is not, for ELs, long term ELs, and RFEP students.

9/11 Site Administrators

N/A School site teams received their school data on English Learners. They have used that information to create RtI groups to target specific student needs as well as being able to use strategies to differentiate for students in their classrooms.


4. Describe scientifically based strategies to improve academic achievement in mathematics. (AMAO 3) a. Ensure that pacing guides are used consistently

across grade levels to ensure EL access to math standards. (Benchmark assessments and lesson observations will be used to monitor.)

Ongoing Site Administrators Department chairs Classroom Teachers

Pacing guides are more uniformly used. The LEA has instituted mandatory benchmark exams for every grading period.

b. Teachers in grade 4-12 will give District Benchmark Assessments in math at the end of each trimester,

Dec. Mar. and June

Teachers Teachers are administering benchmark assessments every trimester and entering data into the LEA’s Datawise system for tracking and monitoring.

c. Analyze data (including math benchmarks) with regard to EL math achievement to better understand the needs of EL students as well as to identify professional development needs of teachers and administrators (See section 5 g.).

Jan-April 2011 Ongoing in 2011-12

Teachers, Site Administrators, Dept. Chairs Director Curriculum & Assessment Asst. Director Pupil Services



Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources

and Estimate


October 2011

5. Describe scientifically based professional development strategies and activities, including coordination efforts with other Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs. a. Provide, on going site-specific coaching and support for

effective ELD grouping and scheduling (e.g. share school wide, cross grade level models) to teachers, counselors and site administrators

Ongoing 2010-2012

Asst. Director Pupil services EL Support Teachers Teacher Trainers Director of Secondary Ed

N/A Coordinator of EL Services and Dept. Chairs are currently coaching and supporting ELD grouping and scheduling at targeted school sites.

b. Provide follow up/ongoing teacher training for Carousel of Ideas and effective ELD instruction

c. Provide follow up/ongoing teacher training for Inside,

Edge and effective ELD Instruction

Feb. June, Sept. 2011 Nov. Dec. 2010, Feb., Aug. 2011

Asst. Director Pupil services EL Support Teachers Teacher Trainers Director of Curriculum and Assessment

Title II 30,000 Tile II 20,000

Teacher advisors were given Carousel updates and refresher trainings in Feb. and June that they shared with staff. Two more Carousel trainings were held fall 2011.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< inside edge

d. District Data Coach to support staffs and provide training to analyze and disaggregate data, and develop a process that will ensure continued monitoring of student achievement and effective instructional practices.

Feb.-June and then on going as needed

Director of Curriculum & Assessment Data Coach

N/A Data binders, consisting of AYP, API and AMOA scores were created for each school site so that they could analyze data together to look for trends to ensure effective instructional practices.

e. Continue with trainer of trainer Data Wise workshops and provide site support as needed to monitor EL progress, K-12.

Monthly

Director of Curriculum & Assessment Data Coach

EETT ARRA Grant, 13,000

Ongoing trainings continue to be held through out the school year.

f. Continue providing Learn 360 training to sites as needed to help make content accessible and comprehensible for ELs.

Ongoing 2010-2012

Director of Curriculum & Assessment District Trainers

Title II 2000

The focus has changed from learn 360 to Promethian board training.

g. Investigate data further with regard to EL math achievement and the drop off at secondary level to identify professional development needs of teachers and administrators specific to ELs.

January-June 2011

Asst. Supt. Inst. Directors Curric.& Assessment and Secondary Ed, Asst. Director Pupil Services

N/A

h. Continue to support teachers who are in process to become GLAD Key Trainers

Ongoing 2010-12

Asst. Director Pupil Services

Title III 2,000

We are exploring next steps.


Timeline

Person

Responsible

Funding Sources

and Estimate

October 2011 Progress Reports

(Monitoring by LEA)

i. Continue to provide GLAD training to K-6 teachers/GLAD strategies to K-12 as appropriate.

August-October 2011

Asst. Director Pupil Services, EL Support Teachers, District GLAD trainers

Title III 30,000

Due to funding and time restraints trainings are still in the process of being formed

j. Continue after school meetings for identified GLAD teachers to network, problem solve, refine and expand the their use of GLAD strategies to increase EL language proficiency and access to core curriculum

January, March, May-2011

EL Support Teachers, District GLAD trainer

Title III 3,000

Meetings yielded low participation and we are reevaluating to find ways to increase participation.

k. The district will be exploring a means for all sites to provide common planning time to analyze data and monitor progress of ELs and RFEPs.

1/11-1/12 Asst. Supt. Inst. Directors, Principals

N/A

Monitoring by Regional COE Lead 6. Describe parental participation and outreach strategies to help parents become active participants in the education of their children, including coordination efforts with other ESEA programs. a. Explore parent involvement/leadership programs such as

the PIQE and Project Inspire and current site programs as possible vehicles to expand parent involvement and efficacy.

Jan-June 2011

Directors-Instruction Title I & Secondary Administrators

The LEA has not pursued the PIQUE or Project Inspire program for parent involvement. The LEA has gone in a different direction by hiring two Outreach Coordinators for the distrtict that work with our schools most in need of their services.

Monitoring by Regional COE Lead 7. If applicable, identify any changes to the Title III Immigrant Education Program. a. Develop Newcomer Protocol for sites to use when

students new to the country enter school (including, but not limited to welcoming procedures, resources, assessment procedures, program strategies)

January 2012

Asst. Director Pupil Services, EL support Teachers, Site Reps from each level

Title III Immigrant

10,000

In the process of collecting information and forming committees to create a newcomer binder for school sites


7. Incorporate, as appropriate, activities before school, after school, during the summer, and during an extension of the school year. Please describe those activities and how the LEA will incorporate them.



Estimated Cost

Funding Source


Year 2 At risk students in targeted grades will participate in before school and/or after school intervention programs Middle school students who are considered at risk will be invited to join “power hour” with the Boys and Girls Club for one hour after school. Middle school “early back” summer programs & “ME” – Math and English Saturday or before school programs Elementary school – before and after Successmaker classes OASIS (Organized Academic Student Support) – classes at the high school focusing on study skills, setting goals with student mentors Before school periods with Cyber High curriculum to address high school students who are credit deficient Lunch tutoring for ELD students at the middle & high school level Outreach workers for students in middle and high school who are at risk 1:1 peer tutoring by teachers before and after school

Asst. Supt, Instruction Directors of Elem and Secondary Education Director of Curriculum & Assessment Asst. Director, Pupil Services Principals Teachers Specialists Paraprofessionals 9/10-6/12

Intervention specialists Teacher salaries and benefits Paraprofessional costs Summer costs Instructional materials, books, and supplies

35,000

ARRA/EETT EIA

Fluid process – looked at each trimester dependent upon intervention funds Saturday programs not continued in 11/12 Early Back was held at one middle school in August, 2011 OASIS at one high school Cyber High at one high school and continuation school Lunch tutoring/peer tutoring ongoing

8. Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the school. Please describe parental involvement strategies and how the LEA will support them across the LEA.



Estimated Cost

Funding Source


Year 2 The District Advisory Council (DAC) and other specific advisory committees are in place to provide timely and two-way communication about student achievement, academic expectations, accountability requirements, and how parents can help improve their students’ academic success. Community Outreach workers (PMAD) are at two Title I schools – which provide semi-weekly parent education and networking opportunities between school communities with similar ethnic diversity ELAC meetings to orient parents with school processes, budget items, access to DELAC information, assessment data for EL students and parent education. School Site Council meetings include parents in decision-making process for Single School Plan for Student Achievement and budget items. Connect-ed “all call” system to alert parents to school and district wide events. Zangle Parent Connect is available for parents to access their student’s information. Strategies from “All Kinds of Minds” on the neurodevelopmental requirements of academic tasks as parent workshop series on homework, attention, motivation Elementary school counselors and middle school administration have focused on harassment and bullying to make school a safe place conducive for learning in ongoing workshops and activities. Administrators, teachers, and parents participate in instructional program and budget decisions affecting the development, implementation, and evaluation of core and categorical programs.

Parent DAC reps Director Elementary ED Asst. Dir of Pupil Svcs ELAC reps. Principals School Psychologist School Counselor Budget Committee

Handbooks Newsletter costs Translation costs for family events flyers Child care costs for parent meetings Specialist salaries and benefits School and teacher websites Awards/recognition/incentives

Title I Title III EIA General Fund

DAC meets monthly with an academic and fiscal focus Ongoing – weekly Monthly Monthly Ongoing One workshop per year Direct instruction to students two times per year at elementary level

District and schools provide multiple opportunities for parents/family members to access school programs and staff, receive student and school information and resources, and be part of decision-making. Parent Talk Series is offered to parents district wide by Neighborhood for Learning Family Nights emphasizing literacy and numeracy are offered at most elementary schools Newbury Park Library and Thousand Oaks Library have parent resources for homework help. Information for parents of special education is offered through the Special Education Coalition and Rainbow Resources

Coordinator NfL Director Elementary Ed Principals Director of Special Ed

Ongoing, invitations by email, newsletters, “all call system” Three times per year One or two times per year Ongoing Each trimester

API District Data

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PLAN ASSURANCE PAGE

Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan Information: Name of LEA: Conejo Valley Unified School District County District Code: 56- 73759 Date of Local Governing Board Approval: _______________________________________________ District Superintendent: Jeffrey L. Baarstad Address: 1400 E. Janss Road City: Thousand Oaks, CA Zip Code: 91362

Phone: 805-497-9511

FAX: 805-379-5756

E-mail: [email protected]

Signatures: On behalf of LEAs, participants included in the preparation of this Program Improvement LEA Plan Addendum: Jeffrey L. Baarstad Signature of Superintendent Printed Name of Superintendent Date Pat Phelps Signature of Board President Printed Name of Board President Date Lisa Dritz Signature of Title III English Learner Printed Name of Title III English Learner Date Coordinator/Director Coordinator/Director Please note that the Title III English Learner Coordinator/Director will only need to sign this Assurance if the LEA is identified for Title III Year 2 or Year 4 improvement status.

By submission of the local board approved LEA Plan Addendum (in lieu of the original signature assurance page in hard copy), the LEA certifies that the plan has been locally adopted and original signed copies of the assurances are on file in the LEA. The certification reads:

Certification: I hereby certify that all of the applicable state and federal rules and regulations will be observed by this LEA and that, to the best of my knowledge, information contained in this Plan is correct and complete. Legal assurances for all programs are accepted as the basic legal condition for the operation of selected projects and programs and copies of assurances are retained onsite. I certify that we accept all general and program specific assurances for Titles I, II, and/or III as appropriate, except for those for which a waiver has been obtained. A copy of all waivers will remain on file. I certify that actual ink signatures for this LEA Plan/Plan Addendum/Action Plan are on file, including signatures of any required external providers.

mailto:[email protected]�

district name: conejo valley unified cd code: 5673759 school … · 2017-09-30 · and...

Documents