Curriculum And Literacy Unit Work Plan_final_10.07.09

Curriculum and Literacy Unit Work Plan June 2009 Staff: Ana Cardona, Mark Coscarella, Mary Head, Abbie Hilgendorf, Ruth Anne Hodges, Dan LaDue, Kevin Richard, Lynnette Van Dyke, John VanWagoner, Sam Sinicropi Department: MDE/OEII Goals

Time Period: 2009 through 2011 Supervisor: Deborah Clemmons

Strategies

1. By September 2011, the C&L Unit will assist with the implementation of instructional best practices in 100% of High Priority Title 1 and non-Title 1Schools. that result in improved student achievement.

1.1. Define best instructional practices.

Best practice asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive, or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc.

1.3. Research, collect and store existing instructional strategies in a web based repository.

1.2. Develop a template that will be used for the development of instructional examples.

6 months A definition for instructional best practices will be written and disseminated. A template for instructional units and lesson plans will be written and disseminated to staff. Web site design will be completed on the instructional strategies of differentiation and classroom management will be posted. Current repositories of best practices are identified and not duplicated.

1

Measures 1 year

2 years

--

--

--

--

Instructional strategies on at least ten additional research-based best practices will be available on the website. A trainer of trainer model is developed to support ISDs and the SSOS

Instructional strategies for the entire instructional framework will be live online via the website. TOT model is implemented and evaluated to determine its impact on HP schools

Goals

Strategies 1.4. Develop instructional units/lessons for content expectations using the best practices.

2. By September 2011, the C&L Unit will use data to respond to the needs of high priority schools and districts to ensure that 40% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will make AYP for one or more years.

6 months Develop at least 1 instructional unit for each grade span and each content area consistent with a common template.

Measures 1 year Develop at least 10 instructional units for each grade span and each content area consistent with a common template.

1.5. Disseminate the instructional best practices through a web based system.

Develop a dissemination/ diffusion strategy.

50% of teachers in high priority schools will use the website monthly.

1.6. Develop an instructional audit to help schools assess instructional effectiveness.

With C&L partners, identify existing audits currently in use and evaluate their key components. Develop a systematic, reproducible process for analyzing student achievement data to be used on an annual basis that includes, but is not limited to, identification and an analysis of schools that are “beating the odds.” Data analysis has been shared with MAISA, Field Services, and other key

Pilot instructional audit in 25% of high priority schools.

2.1. Use student achievement and demographic data to inform, redefine, and plan the work of the unit.

2.2. Use student achievement and demographic data to measure the progress of

2

70% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will make gains of at least 10% in two or more state assessed content areas

20% of Phase 1 and 2 high schools will have 80% of their students on track to graduate.

2 years Develop at least 25 instructional units for each grade span and each content area consistent with a common template. 75% of teachers in high priority schools will use the website monthly. Finalized instructional audit available for high priority schools to use. 90% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will make gains of at least 10% in two or more state assessed content areas.

40% of Phase 1 and 2 high schools will have 80% of their students on

Goals

Strategies high priority high school and alternative schools.

6 months departments.

2.3. Use student achievement and demographic data to measure the progress of high priority elementary and middle schools.

Data analysis has been shared with MAISA, Field Services, and other key departments.

2.4. Use CNA and SIF to inform, redefine, and plan the work of the unit.

Data have been vetted and are ready to be published for statewide distribution.

2.5. Work with MAISA Title I Accountability Grant to support high priority schools through the use of evidence-based practices, D4SS, and instructional coaches.

100% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will have selected an evidencebased strategy to address the needs based on the data from D4SS

2.6. Disaggregate student achievement data to determine barriers to higher achievement

C&L staff will meet on an annual basis to review and disaggregate data to determine the needs of schools.

3

Measures 1 year

2 years track to graduate.

20% of Phase 1 and 2 high priority elementary and middle schools will have an attendance rate of 85% or higher. 40% of Phase 1 and 2 schools have made 19 of the 40 School Improvement benchmarks based on SI rubrics. 100% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will have implemented the evidence-based strategy with fidelity.

40% of Phase 1 and 2 high priority elementary and middle schools will have an attendance rate of 85% or higher. 40% of Phase 1 and 2 schools have made all 40 School Improvement benchmarks based on SI rubrics.

20% of Phase 1 and 2 high schools will reduce the percentage of students in the nonproficient category of achievement by 10%

40% of Phase 1 and 2 high schools will reduce the percentage of students in the non-proficient category of

100% of Phase 1 and 2 schools will have implemented the evidence-based strategy with fidelity. analyzed results, and improvement of student learning in targetted areas

Goals

Strategies 6 months

3. By September 2011, the C&L Unit will achieve effective leadership and technical assistance for grant programs

3.1. Comply with requirements specific to grant(s)

3.2. To the extent possible, require grant programs to actively target high priority schools (both Title and non-Title 1) 3.3. Provide technical assistance to high priority schools in writing and implementing grant programs.

3.4. Increase capacity of unit to use MEGS and CMS

50% of eligible HP schools who apply for a grant program successful obtain grant funds.

Two staff – consultant and secretary- will be proficient with the

4

Measures 1 year (safe harbor). Clean audit report

2 years achievement by 10% (safe harbor). Clean audit report

All grant monies properly disbursed

All grant monies properly disbursed

All disbursed monies used per grant guidelines 100% of grant programs will involve high priority schools

All disbursed monies used per grant guidelines 100% of grant programs will involve high priority schools

75% of eligible HP schools who apply for a grant program successful obtain grant funds.

100% of eligible HP schools who apply for a grant program successful obtain grant funds.

100% of HP schools that are awarded grant funds are in compliance with grant rules and regulations.

100% of HP schools that are awarded grant funds are in compliance with grant rules and regulations. 100% of grant programs have fiscal and program

Unit has a clear plan that expedites grant applications in MEGS

Goals

Strategies 6 months features of MEGS and CMS.

4. By September 2011, the C&L Unit will provide high quality professional development to support best practice in content instruction for 100% of identified Title I high priority schools in order to increase student achievement.

3.5. One person on staff will be the resident expert on creating board packets for grant programs.

Board packets created and approved in two weeks.

3.6. Provide leadership and technical assistance for grant programs 4.1. Identify and prioritize areas of need for HPS in using instructional best practice to deliver and assess the Michigan GLCE and HSCE.

Grants and lead person of all MDE grants are identified. Survey available data from HPS’ CNAs and MEAP/MME achievement data to determine top five areas of need for professional development to support classroom instruction.

4.2. Plan and develop professional development

Measures 1 year and increases monitoring in CMS Unit has a clear plan for program monitoring of grant programs to ensure grants meet goals established in the grant application Develop an additional person to be back up to our resident expert. Grant list distributed and posted to the web.

Planning for two areas of professional

5

2 years monitoring in place to ensure grantees implement grants as funded by MDE.

Sustain the creation and approval of board items in two weeks. Grant list updated yearly Survey available data from HPS’ CNAs and MEAP/MME achievement data to determine any changes in PD needs to support classroom instruction; revise top five areas as necessary. Planning for five areas of

Goals

Strategies 6 months strands utilizing evidencebased research on adult teaching and learning strategies and data regarding areas of prioritized need in HPS.

Measures 1 year development complete and ready for implementation.

2 years professional development complete and ready for implementation.

4.3. Facilitate and deliver professional development strands utilizing evidencebased research on adult teaching and learning strategies and data regarding areas of prioritized need in HPS to build the capacity of educators to increase academic achievement of all students.

Research available and innovative methods of delivering professional development statewide to minimize cost and maximize effectiveness; develop delivery plan based on available resources and stated needs.

Pilot professional development opportunities with participation of at least 30% of HPS.

Build attendance and reach of professional development opportunities to 100% of HPS.

4.4. Monitor, assess, and make changes as necessary to professional development content and delivery to ensure alignment to the goal.

Draft assessment/evaluation plan for the implementation of professional development.

Align evaluation with two completed areas of professional development; use evaluation to determine impact of pilot PD program(s) and make changes as necessary.

4.5. Provide high quality

State survey data

A trainer of trainer

Align evaluation with five completed areas of professional development; use evaluation to determine impact of pilot PD program(s) and make changes as necessary. TOT model is

6

Goals

Strategies 6 months collected and used to determine needs of schools and staffs.

Measures 1 year model is developed to support ISDs and the SSOS

5.1. Develop strategies for reviewing national common and state standards

Survey for high school common standards developed and posted for field feed back

Survey for K-12 common standards developed and posted for field feed back

5.2. Align Michigan standards and content expectations to national commonstate standards to

HS Survey results reviewed, analyzed and forwarded to national work groups

K-12 survey results reviewed, analyzed and forwarded to national work groups

HS common state standards aligned to Michigan’s standards and HSCEs

K-12 common state standards aligned to Michigan’s standards and GLCEs

professional development to support content instruction in high priority schools 5. The Curriculum and Literacy Unit will provide leadership in the development and alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

5.3. Organize feedback groups to review survey results

Provide Michigan’s review of national common state standards to national work group

7

2 years implemented and evaluated to determine its impact on HP schools K-12 common standards disseminated to the field. Professional development on alignment and use of K-12 commons standards provided to HP schools

Goals

Strategies 6 months 5.4. Submit national common and state standards to SBE for approval and adoption.

HS common state standards approved and adopted by SBE

5.5. Disseminate national common and state standards to the field 5.6. Provide professional development on use of national common and state standards

Measures 1 year

2 years

K-12 commons state standards approved and adopted by SBE

K-12 common standards disseminated to the field. PD plan developed

PD plan implemented

Evaluate the extent to which high priority schools have aligned local curriculum to common state standards.

Application developed and submitted to USOE.

Organize to develop aligned assessments with the common state standards.

Professional development on alignment and use of K-12 commons standards provided to HP schools

5.6. Assist in the development of the Race to Top application to develop national common assessments aligned with national common state standards

8

Goals

Strategies 5.7. Develop strategies to assist with cross content teaching to national common core and state standards.

6. By September 2011, the C&L Unit will ensure 100% alignment and coherence with other departments at MDE and identified partners

6 months Strategies and plans developed to help LEAs teach common state standards

Measures 1 year Strategies implemented and documented.

6.1. Identify and collaborate with key partners to develop specific strategies to facilitate alignment and coherence between standards, curriculum, and instruction

Key partners identified, strategies developed

Partnerships and strategies implemented

6.2. Collaborate with OEAA to align state and national assessments to state and national standards and content expectations

Assist OEAA in selecting/developing the MME, MEAP, and national assessments for common state standards.

Assessments are aligned with state and national curriculum.

MDE’s commitment and capability to support a longitudinal data system and studies is determined.

A plan is developed to identify and explore the 8 key factors of a state longitudinal data system.

6.3. (?) Collaborate with OEAA and other partners to develop a state longitudinal data system to sustain evidenced based curriculum and instructional programs.

MDE participates in the High School Longitudinal Study of

9

2 years Strategies evaluated.

Partnerships and strategies evaluated to assess to what degree standards, curriculum, instruction and assessments are aligned. Review state data and other forms of information to determine if assessments are aligned with curriculum. Plan is implemented

Goals

Strategies 6 months

Measures 1 year

2 years

2009 6.4. Develop specific strategies for the 6th grade to address the early warning signs for students dropping out of high schools.

Strategies are developed in collaboration with Jan Ellis and other identified partners.

Install strategies and drop out early warning system into schools and coordinate system with Superintendent’s Drop Out Challenge

Review drop out data and have a 50% reduction in drop out rates.

6.5. Align with and develop specific instructional support for Project Re-imagine.

Specific instructional supports to align with Project Reimagine are developed in collaboration with Jean Shane and other partners

Instructional supports are implemented and an evaluation design developed to assess effectiveness.

Instructional supports evaluated and redesigned based on the needs districts and schools.

6.6. Collaborate with Field Services, School Improvement Support, and the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services to align efforts to ensure researched based practices support the academic needs of special populations.

Strategies for special populations are aligned to the unit’s work on best instructional practices

Strategies are implemented and a evaluation design developed to assess to what degree efforts meet the needs of special populations

Data reviewed and used to improve strategies

10

Goals

Strategies 6.7. Collaborate with Field Services, School Improvement Support, and High Priority Schools staff to align curriculum and instructional efforts to support improved achievement for at-risk students. 6.8. Collaborative with MAISA to implement instructional support for phase 1 and 2 high priority schools 6.9. Coordinate C and I Unit’s work with 100% of appropriate departments and identified partners to increase the number of high priority students who are proficient and can perform well with a challenging curriculum.

6 months Strategies for high risk students are aligned to the unit’s work on best instructional practices

Measures 1 year Strategies are implemented and a evaluation design developed to assess to what degree efforts meet the needs of at risk students

Schools engaged in D4SS

Schools select an EBI

Key partners identified and strategies developed for reaching and engaging HP students.

Strategies implemented and evaluated to assess effectiveness with HP students.

11

Schools select an instructional coach

2 years Data reviewed and used to improve strategies

Evaluation data reviewed and used to improve instructional support for schools. Data collected and analyzed to assess effectiveness and to improve strategies.