Administrative Workshop presentation July 2013

Administrative WorkshopThursday, July 25, 2013

Brainerd BX

Strategic Plan

2013 – 2018

The Process

• Consultation and Facilitation by District Management Council (DMC)

• Committee Chairs selected

• Principals join process by serving on one of four sub-committees

The Process

Four Focused Sub-Committees

• Principal Leadership Development

• Focused Academic Support

• Technology Fluency

• Accountability Systems

Committee MembersMargaret Abernathy Robert Alford Tom ArnoldAngela Askins Greg Bagby Mike Ballard Regina Brock Zac Brown Katherine ClemDavid Cowan Sharon Dodds Tony DonenPreston Gonter Saunya Goss Cheri GrantKaren Hollis Steve Holmes Todd JacksonKirk Kelly Patty Kinsey Julie LeggJill Levine Marvin Lott John MaynardLee McDade Gail Morgan Penny MurrayKathie Pagano-Fuller Jamie Parris John PierceAimee Randolph Sonja Rich Karla RiddleJustin Robertson Stacey Roddy Krystal ScarbroughRobert Sharpe Debbie Smith Stacy StewartBryan Stewart LeAndrea Ware Gary WatersBrent Webb

Principal Leadership

Development

Focused Academic Support

Technology Fluency

Accountability Systems

Student

Success

HCDE Five Year Strategic Plan

Principal Leadership Development


Overall Goal: Every school in HCDE will

have an effective instructional, operational,

and community leader that has been

supported through a leadership pipeline

before and during their tenure as principal.


Leadership matters. In fact, it is second only to effective instruction among all

school related factors that contribute to student learning.

Leithwood (2004)


The Principalship – Data Snapshot

Principals42.7 % with less than 3 years experience in HCDE

Assistant Principals

61.3 % less than 3 years experience in HCDE


Sub-initiative #1

Implement systems of ongoing support for

existing principals to improve overall

effectiveness


Main Activities - Sub-initiative #1

Activity 1: Induction program with mentorship

Activity 2: Professional development catalog

Activity 3: Principal networks and PLCs

Activity 4: Implement coaching support


Sub-initiative #2

Implement systems to identify and grow

aspiring principal talent within HCDE in

order to build a deep leadership bench.

.


Leadership Pipeline

A vision taking shape…

Instructional expertise

Advocate for students and families

Demonstrated leadership



Activity 1: Revise Leadership Fellows selection modelActivity 2: Implement a residency model

Activity 3: Principal Leadership Academy

.


Sub-initiative #3

Sustain continuous improvement of HCDE’s

administrator evaluation model to reflect

evolving district needs, priorities, and state

standards.



Activity 1: Create HCDE principal evaluation model aligned with Project Coach.

Activity 2: Develop survey models for evaluationprocess.



Overall Goal: Literacy is the

foundation of teaching and learning. In

order to ensure student growth in

literacy across all subject areas, HCDE

will provide educators and students with

differentiated supports based on school

and classroom needs.


Reading and Math Achievement Data Snapshot

3rd Grade Reading % Proficient and Advanced

7th Grade Reading % Proficient and Advanced

3 _ 8 Reading % Proficient and Advanced

3rd Grade Math % Proficient and Advanced

7th Grade Math % Proficient and Advanced

3 – 8 Math % Proficient and Advanced

English II % Proficient and Advanced

English III % Proficient and Advanced

Algebra I % Proficient and Advanced

Algebra II % Proficient and Advanced

2011 2012 2013

29.7 30.5

36.730.8

33.3

42

HCDE State


Sub-initiative #1

Develop and implement a system of

differentiated supports for educators to

drive improved instructional quality.


Main Activities - Sub-Initiative #1Activity 1: Construct and implement K -12 ELA instructional framework Activity 2: Targeted Literacy PD and supportActivity 3: Refine Math classroom frameworksActivity 4: Targeted Math PD and supportActivity 5: Review and refine instructional coaching model


Sub-Initiative #2

Develop and implement a cohesive and

coherent system of differentiated support

and intervention for student success


Main Activities - Sub-Initiative #2Activity 1: Develop district plan for RTI2Activity 2: High quality instructionActivity 3: Implement a tiered intervention modelActivity 4: Focused classroom support for improved literacy outcomes

Technology Fluency

Technology Fluency

Overall Goal: HCDE believes that our graduates

should be technologically fluent as part of being

college and career ready. Therefore, every

student will have the ability to access, use and

apply knowledge through technology across the

K-12 spectrum in order to support annual

proficient student growth.

Technology Fluency

Sub-initiative #1

Provide equal device access to all students,

in order to use technology to decrease the

achievement gap

Technology Fluency

Technology Fluency


Activity 1: Establish Technology Strategy and Implementation Committee Activity 2: Develop wireless access infrastructureActivity 3: Develop a “BYOD” policyActivity 4: Develop tech purchase and support strategy and timeline

Technology Fluency

Sub-initiative #2

Integrate technology with curriculum in

order to support curriculum implementation,

focused academic support and accountability

Technology Fluency


Activity 1: Curriculum alignment to support standardsActivity 2: TBA

Technology Fluency

Sub-initiative #3

Develop leaders and teachers to use

technology in curriculum delivery, in order

to ensure equitable access to differentiated

learning tools

Technology Fluency


Activity 1: Establish rubric for communicating expectations and measuring teacher technology usageActivity 2: Establish baseline of tech proficiency across HCDE and establish priority areasActivity 3: Develop PD strategy to address priority areas for technology fluency


Accountability SystemsOverall Goal: HCDE educators will strive to meet or

exceed Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) for

achievement, achievement gap closure, and success

rates attainment by using support systems that

identify and differentiate areas of strengths and needs

within the district. HCDE will annually assess the

support systems to enhance performance levels for

student and educators.

Accountability SystemsAnnual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

Data Snapshot

Achievement Targets 3-8Subject &

Grade Level(s)2013 % Proficient

& Advanced2012 to 2013

Change Prof & Adv

Target AMO Status

3 – 8 RLA 46.9% 1.2% 49.1%Missed Target

3rd Grade RLA 44.8% 2.3% 46.1%Met

Target

7th Grade RLA 42.9% 0.6% 45.9%Missed Target

3 – 8 Math 54.2% 4.6% 52.7%Met

Target

3rd Grade Math 62.9% 3.5% 61.9%Met

Target

7th Grade Math 46.3% 1.2% 48.5%Met

Target

Achievement Targets 9 - 12Subject &

Grade Level(s)

2013 % Proficient & Advanced

2012 to 2013 Change Prof &

AdvTarget AMO Status

English II 55.4% -1.5% 59.6% Missed Target

English III 36.6% 3.7% 37.1% Met Target

Algebra I 49.3% 6.6% 46.3% Met Target

Algebra II 36.7% 6.2% 34.8% Met Target

Grad Rate 81.2% -- -- Missed Target

Gap Closure TargetsBlack/Hispanic/Native American vs. All Students

Gap Type Subject & Grade Level

2012 Gap Target 2013 Gap AMO Status

BHN vs All 3-8 Math 17.6% 16.5% 16.7% Met Target

BHN vs All 3-8 Reading 19.7% 18.5% 19.3% Missed Target

BHN vs All Algebra I & II 14.6% 13.7% 14.3% Missed Target

BHN vs All English I & II 19.0% 17.8% 20.7% Missed Target

Gap Closure TargetsEconomically Disadvantaged vs. All Students



ED vs. Non-ED 3-8 Math 28.2% 26.4% 27.3% Met Target

ED vs. Non-ED 3-8 Reading 30.3% 28.4% 30.3% Missed Target

ED vs. Non-ED Algebra I & II 19.8% 18.6% 23.5% Missed Target

ED vs. Non-ED English I & II 29.4% 27.6% 28.8% Missed Target

Gap Closure TargetsLimited English Proficiency vs. Non-LEP



LEP vs. Non-LEP 3 – 8 Math 16.9% 15.8% 16.2% Met Target

LEP vs. Non-LEP 3 – 8 Reading 29.1% 27.3% 31.3% Missed Target

LEP vs. Non-LEP Algebra I & II 23.6% 22.1% 22.0% Met Target

LEP vs. Non-LEP English II & III 41.9% 39.3% 37.8% Met Target

Gap Closure TargetsStudents with Disabilities vs. Non-SWD



SWD vs. Non-SWD 3 – 8 Math 16.8% 15.7% 20.2% Missed Target

SWD vs. Non-SWD

3 – 8 Reading 13.0% 12.2% 15.1% Missed Target

SWD vs. Non-SWD

Algebra I & II 18.6% 17.4% 29.4% Missed Target

SWD vs. Non-SWD

English II & III 22.8% 21.4% 32.2% Missed Target

Opportunities for Success


2013 Gap

2014 Estimated

AMO Target

Limited English Proficient vs. Non-LEP

3 – 8 Reading 31.3% 29.4%

Economically Disadvantaged vs. Non-ED English II/English III 28.8% 27.0%

Limited English Proficient vs. Non-LEP English II/English III 37.8% 35.5%

Students with Disabilities vs. Non-SWD Algebra I/Algebra II 29.4% 27.6%

Students with Disabilities vs. Non-SWD English II/English III 32.2% 30.2%


Sub-initiative #1

Continue improvement of Project Coach

implementation to improve student outcomes

by both reducing district-wide variability of

feedback and improving overall teacher

effectiveness.

Accountability SystemsMain Activities - Sub-initiative #1

Activity 1: Create a common definition of what good

feedback looks like, both written and oral Activity 2: Conduct needs assessment of existing feedbackActivity 3: Professional development and support of feedbackActivity 4: Develop system for monitoring feedback quality


Sub-initiative #2

Align HCDE accountability systems with

Common Core and PARCC standards to

enable clear student and teacher

expectations and increased rigor

Accountability SystemsMain Activities - Sub-initiative #2

Activity 1: Develop and adopt testing protocols and proceduresActivity 2: Adapt data systemsActivity 3: Incorporate new models in conjunction with Project Coach to align instructional practiceActivity 4: Manage “change curve” with expected dip in performance: reset baseline measures with PARCC


Sub-initiative #3

Implement revised principal leadership

accountability structures to support

principal pipeline initiatives including a

new administrator evaluation system


Main Activities - Sub-initiative #3Activity 1: Pilot new Administrator Model for school year 2013 - 14 Activity 2: Align model to reflect needed adjustments based on principal pipeline initiative and ongoing feedback and system performance


Sub-initiative #4

Implement accountability systems and

structures to enable differentiated support

for HCDE teachers and staff


Main Activities - Sub-initiative #4Activity 1: Develop a performance measurement system for professional development activities that can estimate the relative benefit to student learning. Activity 2: Align professional development efficacy insights with cost data to determine opportunities for refocusing district investment

Future Training Opportunities

PowerSchool Orientation August 7, 2013, 8:30 -12:00 at

First Cumberland Presbyterian Church

Cognos 101 Training at HCDE IT Computer Lab

August 15, 2013, 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM

August 22, 2013, 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM

August 29, 2013, 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM

Principal Leadership

Development


Technology Fluency


Student

Success

HCDE Five Year Strategic Plan

Activity

• Silent Read/Reflection

• Table Discussion

• Provide Feedback

Literacy A Vision for HCDE

Hamilton County Literacy Department PreK - 12

Literacy is the foundation of teaching and learning.

Think of literacy as a spine; it holds everything together. The branches of learning connect to it, meaning that all core content teachers have a responsibility to teach literacy.

Vicki Phillips and Carina Wong

LiteracyTVAAS – Data Snapshot

HCDE: TVAAS Literacy 2013 Results for Grade 3 and Grades 4-8

HCDE: EOC TVAAS Results 2013

LiteracyDevelop and commit to a common language and expectations for literacy

K-12 Framework

Best Practices

Quarterly Pacing Guides K-12

Strategically align resources and support to meet needs of all students

Literacy Support Network

After School Support Sessions

Support for Administrators

Reading and writing are a shared responsibility

Common Core Standards

Best Practices

Top Performing School Districts

•Get the basics right

•Support teacher effectiveness

•Grow teacher professionalism

•Recognize and celebrate teachers

IMPROVEMENT IS A PROCESSNOT A QUICK FIX

LiteracyCommon Core Learning Activity

Education

Administrative Workshop presentation July 2013