Valley High School, wasc follow Up 2013 wasc 2013



Download 1.52 Mb.
Page4/5
Date08.12.2018
Size1.52 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5



CAHSEE Math Trends



Grade 10 2012 Passing Rates (API)

CAHSEE Schoolwide Math passing rate dropped slightly from 74% in 2011 to 73% in 2012.

CAHSEE English Learner Math Passing Rate stayed the same- 56% in 2011, 56% in 2012.
Grade 10 2012 Math Proficiency Rates (AYP)

CAHSEE Schoolwide Math proficiency dropped from 44% proficient in 2011 to 43% proficient in 2012.



CAHSEE English Learner Math proficiency dropped from 22% in 2011, 19% in 2012.
We analyzed individual class and grade level cohort data by content cluster to determine why Grade 10 passing rate proficiency levels dropped slightly in 2012. We contacted other comprehensive high schools to identify best practices and implement an action plan for next year.
Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2012-2013 data is not yet available.

Annual Yearly Progress
English Language Arts Performance By Student Group


ELA

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

All Students

African-American

American Indian /

Alaska Native

Asian

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

98

96

98

+2

100

100

100

0

--

--

100

100

100

100

100

0

Number At or

Above Proficient

143

222

142

-80

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

4

+4

Percent At or

Above Proficient

26.0

38.6

24.4

+14.2

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

36.4

+36.4

AYP Target

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

Met AYP Criteria

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0


ELA

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

Filipino

Hispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

--

100

100

0

98

96

98

+2

100

100

100

0

86

100

100

0

Number At or

Above Proficient

--

--

--

0

137

209

135

-74

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

Percent At or

Above Proficient

--

--

--

0

25.5

37.7

24.1

-13.6

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

AYP Target

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

Met AYP Criteria

--

--

--

0

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0




ELA

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

Socioeconomically

Disadvantaged

English Learners

Students with

Disabilities

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

98

96

98

+2

99

96

98

+3

100

85

99

+14

Number At or

Above Proficient

125

209

135

-74

75

107

78

-29

5

8

15

+7

Percent At or

Above Proficient

24.4

38.5

24.4

-14.1

17.0

25.7

16.5

-9.20

7.2

13.1

23.8

+10.7

AYP Target

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

55.6

66.7

77.8

11.1

Met AYP Criteria

No

Yes

No

0

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. 2012-2013 data is not yet available.



Mathematics Performance By Student Group


Math

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

All Students

African-American

American Indian /

Alaska Native

Asian

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

98

95

99

+4

100

100

100

0

--

--

100

100

100

100

100

0

Number At or

Above Proficient

198

255

266

+11

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

7

+7

Percent At or

Above Proficient

36.1

44.8

45.9

+1.1

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

63.6

+63.6

AYP Target

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

Met AYP Criteria

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0



Math

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

Filipino

Hispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

--

100

100

0

98

95

99

+4

67

100

100

0

86

100

100

0

Number At or

Above Proficient

--

--

--

0

191

239

256

+17

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

Percent At or

Above Proficient

--

--

--

0

35.5

43.6

45.7

+2.1

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0

AYP Target

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

Met AYP Criteria

--

--

--

0

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

0



Math

AYP

PROFICIENCY

LEVEL

Socioeconomically

Disadvantaged

English Learners

Students with

Disabilities

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

09-10

10-11

11-12

Diff

Participation Rate

98

95

99

+4

99

95

99

+4

100

81

98

+17

Number At or

Above Proficient

182

242

256

+14

129

147

186

+39

8

8

16

+8

Percent At or

Above Proficient

35.5

45.1

46.4

+1.3

29.3

35.9

39.3

+3.4

11.6

13.6

25.8

+12.2

AYP Target

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

54.8

66.1

77.4

11.3

Met AYP Criteria

No

Yes

No

0

No

No

No

0

--

--

--

0

Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2012-2013 data is not yet available.

AYP Analysis for English Language Arts and Mathematics 

AYP based in students scoring proficient or advanced on CAHSEE in ELA and Math

(See CAHSEE ELA data)

2012-2013 CAHSEE English Language Arts Action Plan


  • Identify site-based best practices. Get buy-in from all teachers.

  • Integrate test prep and study skills from beginning of school year.

  • Expand academic recognition and incentive programs.

  • Target more students for intervention program. Adjust cut scores to include more students.

  • Implement Systematic CAHSEE intervention program for Gr. 10 students, beginning in Sept.

  • Provide summer program planning time and release time during the year for Grade10 ELA teachers.

  • Schedule “Reading Plus” summer school class for incoming sophomores.

  • Investigate best practices at other sites: score schoolwide writing prompts, online programs, and CAHSEE test prep (skills).

  • CAHSEE Saturdays tutorials, homeroom quick writes/summary writing, student test chats, and pre-CAHSEE benchmark.

  • CAHSEE student test chats, class competitions, and schoolwide goals.

  • Explore CAHSEE materials that have been successful at other schools: Reading Plus, San Diego Dept of Education binder, and Princeton Review.


Mathematics: 2012 Math AYP based in students scoring proficient or advanced on CAHSEE

(See CAHSEE Math data.)

We analyzed individual class and grade level cohort data by content cluster to determine why Grade 10 proficiency levels dropped slightly in 2012. This led us to contact other comprehensive high schools to identify best practices and implement an action plan for next year.



2012-2013 CAHSEE “380” Campaign

We formed a CAHSEE preparation team. Key members included administrators, LTLs, and classroom teachers. We started meeting in November of 2012 for the CAHSEE Proficiency Push at Valley High School. A success plan was adopted the included the following:



  • Integrated test prep and study skills from beginning of school year.

  • Expanded academic recognition and incentive programs.

  • Targeted more students for intervention program.

  • Implemented systematic CAHSEE intervention program for Gr. 10 students, beginning in September.

  • Investigated best practices at other sites: online programs, CAHSEE test prep (skills), Saturdays, student test chats, periodic pre-CAHSEE benchmarks, CAHSEE student test chats, and assessment grids.

  • Trained 5 intervention substitute teachers to push in to ELA and Social Science for 6 weeks leading to March CAHSEE.

  • Provided Targeted tutoring for all ‘near 350’ and ‘near 380 students’, based on their identified strand needs from Mock CAHSEE.

  • Scheduled CAHSEE Boot camp over 4 days in late February.


California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
Number and Percent of Students at Each Performance Level





Beginning

Early Intermediate

Intermediate

Early Advanced

Advanced

Number

Tested

09-10

10-11

11-12

09-10

10-11

11-12

09-10

10-11

11-12

09-10

10-11

11-12

09-10

10-11

11-12

09-10

10-11

11-12

9th

#

28

35

30

47

58

41

115

167

134

90

107

139

12

12

18

292

379

362

%

10%

9%

8%

16%

15%

11%

39

44%

37%

31%

28%

38%

4%

3%

5%

100%

100%

100%

10th

#

36

54

26

64

61

33

117

118

111

99

76

158

8

12

25

324

321

353

%

11%

17%

7%

20%

19%

9%

36%

37%

31%

31%

24%

45%

2%

4%

7%

100%

100%

100%

11th

#

39

31

24

49

49

28

101

112

72

71

73

79

6

11

13

266

276

216

%

15%

11%

11%

18%

18%

13%

38%

41%

33%

27%

26%

37%

2%

4%

6%

100%

100%

100%

12th

#

23

33

16

35

40

12

64

85

66

45

61

80

7

11

12

174

230

186

%

13%

14%

9%

20%

17%

6%

37%

37%

35%

26%

27%

43%

4%

5%

6%

100%

100%

100%

Total

#

126

153

96

195

208

114

397

482

383

305

317

456

33

46

68

1056

1206

1117

%

12%

13%

9%

18%

17%

10%

38%

40%

34%

29%

26%

41%

3%

4%

6%

100%

100%

100%

The number of students tested on the CELDT has increased from 2009 to 2012, from 1056 to 1117 respectively. The majority of students scored at the Intermediate level. We have made a concerted effort to move students from Intermediate to Early Advanced, so that they can meet reclassification criteria. Students participated CELDT data chats during this homeroom in 2011 and 2012 to set performance goals.



  • The concentrations of English Learners are highest in lower grades. In 2011-2012, 32% of English Learners were in enrolled in Grade 9, 32% in Grade 10, 19% in Grade 11, and 17% in Grade 12.

  • Most students are scoring at the Intermediate and Early Advances. We have seen a decrease in the number of English Learners in the Beginning level from 12% in 2009-2010 to 9% in 2011-2012; decrease in Early Intermediate from 18% to 10%; decrease in Intermediate from 38% to 34%; increase in Early Advanced from 29% to 41%; increase in Advanced from 3% to 6%.

  • Most English Learners are Spanish speaking, the percentages have remained consistent at 98%.

Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. 2012-2013 data is not yet available.

English Learner 2011-2012 CELDT Performance Based on Length of Time in U.S. Schools
Annual progress in English-language proficient (Title III, Annual Measurable Achievement Objective

AMAO1 Moving up one level or more on CELDT






08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

Target

52%

53%

55%

56%

Percent meeting target

50%

45%

39%

57%

Was target met?

No

No

No

Yes

AMAO 2 CELDT Proficient- Less than 5 years






08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

Target

N/A

17%

19%

20%

Percent meeting target

N/A

5%

10%

12%

Was target met?

N/A

No

No

No

AMAO 2 CELDT Proficient- 5 or more years






08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

Target

N/A

41%

43%

45%

Percent meeting target

N/A

34%

29%

44%

Was target met?

N/A

No

No

No




  • More students scored proficient in 2012, 57% compared to 56 in 2011.

  • VHS met AMAO I target of 56%.

  • VHS did not meet AMAO II goals. Only 12% of students enrolled less than 5 years scored proficient on CELDT. AMAO goal was 20%.

  • 44% of ELs with +5 years in program scored proficient on CELDT. AMAO goal was 45%.


CELDT Conclusions

 

CELDT 2011-2012 and VHS Reclassification Data



  • In 2011-2012, 48% of students were classified as English Learners (1,123 English Learners)

  • 98% of English Learners are Spanish speakers.

We examined CELDT data, CST scores and SAUSD writing scores to pinpoint why more students did not reclassify. In 2012, 317 students scored CELDT proficient. The majority of these students met CST reclassification criteria, but few students met SAUSD writing criteria for reclassification. This lack of progress has been identified as a critical academic need for 2012-2013. CELDT reclassification is a focus point throughout SAUSD. We recognize the need to improve the ability of our students to meet reclassification criteria. The action plan for this improvement is embedded within or English Learner Action Plan, the school wide writing initiative and the strategies integral to common core implementation. Professional development will continue to focus on complex text, and its value in improving student literacy. We will monitor the progress of RFEP candidates (CELDT proficient students) twice yearly to improve reclassification rate and to adjust support networks to meet identified needs.

Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.


2012-2013 data is not yet available.

Twelfth Grade Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Results









% Tested


Reading Avg.


Math Avg.


Writing Avg.


08-09

Valley

25%

403

431

412




District

31%

448

460

449




County

41%

523

552

525




State

35%

495

513

494

09-10

Valley

16%

417

432

426




District

28%

465

474

465




County

38%

530

559

532




State

33%

501

520

500

10-11

Valley

26%

383

412

394




District

34%

455

462

453




County

44%

522

550

525




State

38%

495

513

494

Student performance on SAT exams is a focus area. We have noted that students at Valley scored below district and state averages. In 2010-2011, students scored 72 points below the district in reading, 50 points in math, and 59 points in writing. Students scored 112 points below the state in reading, 51 points below the state in math, and 100 points below the state in writing. The ILT and School Site Council developed a plan to increase student readiness for college. There will be a schoolwide push for students to prepare for the SAT exam.


Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2012-2013 data is not yet available.


CSU Early Assessment Program (EAP)



Subject Area

08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

tested

% ready

tested

% ready

tested

% ready

tested

% ready

English

492

4.5%

476

2.9%

473

3.1

481

3.2%

Algebra II

207

3.9%

174

8.0%

188

7.7

167

7.0

Summ Math

69

71.0%

63

76.2%

73

72.5

81

74.0

Our site’s key academic focus is College and Career readiness. We have closely examined EAP data. In 2011-12, 3% of students scored proficient in English, 7 % in Algebra II and 74% in Summative Math. Our site has implemented action steps to ensure a more rigorous and relevant curriculum with a focus on common core standards, higher expectations, systematic interventions, and improved parent communications.
Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2012-2013 data is not yet available.


Number of 12th Grade Graduates Meeting UC/CSU Requirements



Year

#

%

11-12

69

18

10-11

71

17.8%

09-10

62

16.5%

08-09

89

23.4%

We want ensure that all students are prepared to succeed in college and career paths. We have developed a schoolwide focus on higher expectations, support networks and increased academic rigor. We will promote a schoolwide UC/CSU eligibility campaign through common core standards, access to text complexity, and academic discourse.





School Plan Action Steps (March 2013 update)

Schoolwide campaign to promote UC/CSU eligibility and to simulate a college campus environment.



  • Create college-going culture with parents as partners. Offer parent UC/CSU workshops starting in Grade 9.

  • Collaborate with THINK and NAC to offer high-quality summer college essay and scholarship workshops, and SAT prep courses (taught by alumni).

  • Push for students to take SAT early and often. Collaborate with THINK, NAC to target students for workshops. Identify fee waiver sponsors.

  • Campaign for 3.0 GPA. Expand academic celebrations to reward gains.

  • Implement systematic intervention programs to prevent Ds/Fs (RTI, opportunities for students to relearn/retest). Distribute counselor and homeroom D/F Watch list.

Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2012-2013 data is not yet available.

Advanced Placement Test Results





08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

Taken

Pass

%

Taken

Pass

%

Taken

Pass

%

Taken

Pass

%

Total

253

45

18%

289

70

24%

377

64

17%









There has been little change in AP passing rates. In 2008-2009, 18% of students passed. In 2010-2011, 17% passed. We want more students to pass the AP Exam. In 2012-13, we implemented AP tutorials and purchased a Study Island site license. AP teachers attend AP preparation workshops and share best practices.


Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
2011-2013 data is not yet available.

Completion Rates
12 Grade Enrollments and 12th Grade Graduates















District

County

State

Year

Enrolled

Graduates

%

%

%

%

08-09

583

379

65

--

--

--

09-10

494

346

70

--

--

--

10-11

543

376

69

--

--

--

Dropout Rate



(The 4-year derived dropout rate is an estimate of the percent of students who would drop out in a four year period based on data collected for a single year)


Year

Total Students

12th Grade Cohort

Dropouts

Dropout Rate

Dropout % of Total Population

08-09

2,610

494

80

12.6%

3.1%

09-10

2,465

494

113

22.9%

5%

10-11

2,394

541

125

23%

5%

11-12

2,332

471

106

23%

5%

Valley High School’s graduation rate for 2010-2011, 69%, - the latest data available - shows a slight decrease of 1%. Our dropout rate increased 10%. In 2008-2009, the dropout rate was

12.6 % increasing to 23% in 2011-2012. We have made concerted effort to improve graduation rate. Additional personnel have been hired to support a schoolwide PBIS initiative, in an effort to monitor student progress, improve attendance, and prevent dropouts.
Data was attained from California Department of Education, Data Quest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. 2011-2013 data is not yet available.
Post Enrollment Data
Senior Exit Surveys are given to Valley High School graduates at the end of each academic year. The survey results indicate post-high school plans for its recent graduates as well as their personal experience as a student at Valley.
When interpreting results, it is important to note that there is never 100% participation. The participation numbers vary over the course of the five years on file. Many factors such as student interest or change in address account for a less than preferable numbers.

Chapter B:
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS

Changes at Valley High School Since the Last WASC Visit

Administrative Changes

Valley High School’s administrative team has been in transition before, during, and since the WASC visit in 2011. The principal, Patrick D. Yrarrázaval-Correa, was appointed in April of 2011. The Learning Director, and AP of Discipline are new to Valley this year. The AP of Guidance and Counseling is in her second full year, while the AP of Student Activities and the Operations Administrator have been at Valley High School since the start of 2011-2012 school year.


Cambridge Education

Funded by the School Improvement Grant, Cambridge Education consulted with Valley High School staff, students, and parents to help guide our team toward sustainable transformation. With their collaborative model of consensus building, Valley High School’s community members

are being trained and implementing:


  • ECO (Effective Classroom Observation) An observation protocol focused on identifying and describing the learning in a class setting, rather than the teaching. Envisioned as a compliment to cognitive coaching, ECO is designed to be a non-threatening, peer based, process of improving student learning

  • LTLs (Learning and Teaching Leaders) Department chairs are no longer perceived as message delivery vessels. They are seen as partners in the process of improving student achievement. LTLs have been trained in ECO, meet weekly with the Learning Director to analyze achievement and staff data, assist with instructional design based on that data, and work with individual teachers to improve learning. Their role is closely allied with the administrative team; and they are viewed as partners in school improvement.

  • SQR (School Quality Review) and CQR (Community Quality Review) Valley High School was guided through a process of cognitive review by staff, community members, and students. The needs of the school were identified, its strengths celebrated, and the results of this work led directly to the design of the 2012-2013 SDIP (School Development Improvement Plan), which in turn support the development of SPSA (Single Plan for Student Achievement) and the WASC action plan.


Instructional Leadership

Under the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between SAUSD and SAEA (Santa Ana Employees Association) the Transformational Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) is charged with developing and monitoring implementation of the Valley Transformation Plan and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). The ILT is made up of seven Department Chairs, a Lead Counselor, four elected at-large faculty representatives, High School Inc. Focus Coordinator, ELD Coordinator, Outreach Consultant, Athletic Director, Learning Director, Operations Manager, three principal appointees, three Assistant Principals and the Principal.

The ILT may establish task forces and schoolwide team in order to empower staff members to develop proposals and support the Valley Transformation Plan and SPSA. Current and past task forces include Data Analysis, PBIS, Schoolwide Literacy, Student Recognition and Motivation, Parent and Community Outreach, Student Health and Social Emotional Needs, Teacher Advancement and Professional Development, Targeted Tutoring, Technology, and Program Evaluation. The ILT has formalized its agenda protocols and operates with a model that serves it purpose.
Vision and Mission
In the spring of 2012, Cambridge Education facilitated a focused analysis of Valley High School’s Vision and Mission statements. Using SQR, an intentional model of data gathering,

the staff and community participated in a series of exercises designed to empower the voices of all stakeholders. The process involved the following:



  • Valley High School community participated in a SQR (Survey Quality Review)

  • Valley High School community reviewed the SQR

  • SQR pinpointed that people did not know Valley’s Vision and Mission

  • Stage 1 implementation document shared at every department meeting - the revision of Vision and Mission is a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) for leadership

  • SDIP teams created by leadership

  • Update 1 sent to staff documenting the plan for whole school involvement, with dates

  • SDIP teams looked at the V&M, made notes on its deficiencies and suggestions for change

  • At a full staff meeting, all staff reviewed old V&M statements using a template for feedback

  • Valley High School’s transformational leadership team reviewed all feedback and made further amendments to V&M

  • Updated revisions sent to ALL staff by email

  • Valley High School administration made final contribution to V&M statements.

  • LTLs (Learning and Teacher Leaders) shared V&M and SDIP overview at department meetings.

  • Staff approved Vision and Mission Statements via Survey Monkey


ESLRs (Expected Schoolwide Learning Results)
Valley High School communities reviewed our ESLRs in 2012. The WASC team facilitated the whole staff review of the current ESLR version during designated staff meetings, and the smaller group (home and focus) review of the ESLR version presented to students. Staff feedback is incorporated into the current ESLR version and the final draft has been approved by whole staff via Survey Monkey in January of 2013. The process of review and revision has resulted in small, but important changes. The current version, approved in the spring of 2013, is a part of this document (p. xvi).
Common Core State Standards
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) represent a set of expectations for student knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in college and careers. CCSS will help ensure that students receive a high quality education, consistent from school to school and state to state. The development of the CCSS was spearheaded by two organizations - the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. 

The criteria used to develop the CCSS are:



  • Aligned with college and work expectations;

  • Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills;

  • Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards;

  • Informed by top-performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society;

  • Evidence and/or research-based.

Valley High School’s plan for implementation of CCSS is aligned with the SAUSD vision and includes:

  • Oct.‐Nov. 2012: Establish multiple points of entry into core courses. Form writing teams

in key courses with teacher leaders.

(Dec. 18‐19, Feb 6)

  • January 2013: Conduct Teacher Feedback Groups

  • (Jan. 17 & 24): Identify areas of refinement for future units of study

  • February‐May 2013: Develop modules and expand teachers’ knowledge: 21st Century Learning (Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Creativity) Academic Language Development, Effective EL Strategies, Use of Text Sets, CCSS Assessments

  • February‐May 2013: Develop modules and expand teachers’ knowledge: Text Complexity, Collaborative Conversations and Development of Academic Language

  • March‐May 2013: CLAS teachers with support of curriculum specialists and expert teachers write Common Core Units of Study to be taught in May‐June 2013

  • March‐May 2013: Writing Teams pilot units of study and CLAS teachers provide demonstration lessons with classroom teachers with possible opportunities for lesson studies

Valley High School is conducting regularly scheduled professional development for all teachers in CCSS. By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, all core subject area teachers will participate in common core lesson design and teach a common core model lesson. A Common Core specialist (CLAS teacher) is on staff and works with individuals and teams. On January 28, Student Free Duty Day Staff Development included targeted sessions on CCSS implementation. Surveys are taken following staff development and the results of those surveys drive future staff development and common core preparation.
The following schedule for Common Core training is in place
CCSS TEXT COMPLEXITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE


  • March 27, Session #1 - Full staff: Read and Learn Explore the big idea and essential questions of the complex text module connected to the CCSS instructional shift.



  • April 10, Session #2 - Full Staff: Reflect and Respond Respond to purpose and setting questions.



  • May 15, Session #3 – By departments: Analyze and Apply Read exemplar text from your content area and discuss the instructional implications, connecting to SAUSD practices and students. Apply CCSS text rubrics.



  • May 29, Session #4 – By departments: Examine and Implement Within content area, analyze modeled strategies and scaffolds for classroom applications. Collaborate with colleagues and apply what you know about text complexity to your own text.

Counseling
The Valley High School Guidance and Counseling team works collaboratively with SAUSD personnel and the National Center for the Transformation of School Counseling. The focus of their work is the development and support of:

  • Improved A-G completion rates

  • Yearly review and revision of student 4 year plans

  • Improved communication with parents and other stakeholders

  • Greater visibility, and support of teachers

Guidance and Counseling has also increased its efficacy in support of students’ social and emotional needs. The COST (Coordination of Services Team) has been implemented while the process of student referrals to interventions and the results of COST review are shared with appropriate parties. To fully incorporate the PBIS process, an in-house suspension program and Nest program have been put into place. The Nest program is housed in an area where students’ academic and behavioral needs are addressed while trained intervention specialists (OCDE) provide tiered intervention and counseling support.



High School Inc.

Valley High School's unique partnership with the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce resulted in the creation and implementation of six career academies supporting high-growth industries in Santa Ana - Automotive & Transportation, Culinary Arts & Hospitality, Engineering, Manufacturing, and Construction, Global Business, Health Care, and New Media. Each of the career academies has a course of study detailing academic and career technical education classes for each of the academies.

One of the goals of this partnership is to bring high-level technical and academic skills to Valley's students. This collaboration is a commitment to our students to demonstrate acquired proficiency in a specific industry. Thereby encouraging post secondary education/training and/or employment.

ELA Intervention Program

Through a process of proposal, discussion, feedback, and implementation, the ELA Department and ILT proposed the purchase of two online learning remediation programs. Accelerated Reader and Study Island have been implemented on campus; and the data these two programs will provide is being used to drive the instructional practice of our 9th and 10th grade teams. It is the vision of the ILT that these programs will be implemented in grades 11 and 12 over the next school year.

An analysis of CST data reveals that Valley High School performed first in 7 of 14 content area tests in 2012 when compared to the other SAUSD PLAS schools. Though this is encouraging, it has served merely as a launching point for our conversations about target growth through instructional practice.

English Language Development (ELD)

In the fall of 2012, Valley High School opened an academy designed to serve the needs of EL, level one students. Named the “Welcome Academy”, its structure supports rapid language acquisition for new arrivals, using research based instructional strategies in the content areas of ELA, Math and Science. The Valley High School Welcome Academy is envisioned as a magnet for new arrivals to the SAUSD at the high school level. It currently serves 27 students and its progress is monitored by site and district personnel.



Homeroom

Valley High School has developed a homeroom structure by adding a 20 minute seminar period immediately following lunch, and establishing that class as a homeroom. The homeroom teachers develop relationships with a small group of students, many of whom are part of their content class rosters. Teachers monitor attendance, grades, and communicate with parents on a regular basis. Teachers receive Talking Points, Power Points, and video clips produced by a Homeroom Committee, developed using feedback from staff to identify needs. Homeroom is monitored by administrators who report their observations to the ILT. The ILT then considers the data/reports and is responsible for revising and updating the homeroom process.



Support Staff

With the support of categorical and SIG funding, Valley High school has added staff to support students, parents and teachers. PBIS and Student Relations are supported by two Orange County Department of Education consultants trained in student intervention. A second Outreach Consultant has recently been offered employment for the remainder of the year and will assist the student relations team in positive intervention strategies related to tardies, student conduct and grades.



Welcome Academy

In accordance with SAUSD, a Welcome Academy has been established for English Language newcomers located at Valley High School. This academy focuses on English language acquisition for non-native speaking students in order to more rapidly develop English, math, and science skills necessary to be mainstreamed into core subject courses.



Anteater Academy
Valley High School is making considerable effort to brand itself within the community. While our primary efforts are intended to develop an identity as a ‘school to career’ institution of learning, in a focused effort to recruit students, raise our A-G completion rate, and improve our 4 year college enrollment numbers, a partnership has been formed with UCI, known as the Anteater Academy. The expected outcomes are that Valley High School’s Anteater Academy will attract increasing numbers of the top students from SAUSD and other central Orange County school districts, and that Anteater Academy graduates will have completed eight or more AP courses by graduation.
This partnership defines the role of Valley High School to support a minimum of 72 students per year, with more to be added over time, in pursuit of admission to a UC campus or other four year university. Anteater students and staff receive GEAR UP support for classes of 2015 and 2016, professional development and the support of a Small Learning Community. The NAC (Nicolas Academic Center) provides after school assistance, and course sequencing directs Anteater graduates to the nation’s top four-year, colleges and universities.
The University of California Irvine, as a partner, will collaborate with Valley High School teachers, counselors, and the higher education coordinator (HEC) to provide parent education, financial aid information, EAOP (Early Academic Outreach Program), student teachers, undergrad Cal-Teach students, undergraduate tutors, mentoring, summer residential program for incoming Freshmen (if funding is available), summer residential program for parents, SAT and subject area test prep, ACT Prep, support for AB5440/AB130/AB131, and test support for Seal of Biliteracy.
Anteater students make a written commitment to maintain a GPA 4.0 or higher, participate in programs, and avail themselves of all support to stay on track to complete the Anteater Academy mission.
Master Schedule
The 2011 WASC, Visiting Committee Report identified several areas of need as related to master schedule. In a focused effort to address those needs, the following items have evolved:

  • Tumbling schedule: Data analysis revealed that first period tardy rates result in significant loss of instructional minutes for the class taught first in the day. At Valley High School, this analysis drove a school community effort to remedy the problem. Other schools utilize a schedule that “tumbles” the first period of the day throughout the week, with only 6th period, in recognition of high school athletics, remaining static. The other 5 periods move to the first period of the day as the week goes on. Data analysis indicates that the tardy frequency has decreased schoolwide, and each instructional period now shares the first period of the day.

  • One lunch: SAUSD high schools have for years used two or more lunches to allow students time and access to nutrition. In 2011-2012 master schedule adjustments were made to allow for a single lunch period, thus minimizing distractions to instructional minutes, and maximizing opportunities for shared clubs and all staff to interact.

  • Common Prep: Providing common prep, and supporting the collaborative model of PLCs, is a priority at Valley High School. Currently, 9th grade ELA and Math teams, five of the academy teams (each with six teachers), and three ELA content area teacher teams have common prep periods, thus significantly improving the opportunities for collaboration and data analysis.

  • Wednesday Minimum Day: Students have a minimum instructional day each Wednesday. This day is designed for regularly scheduled professional development, currently focused on data analysis, instructional practice and school climate. During the 2012-2013 school year, approximately one third of the days are devoted to whole staff development, one third to WASC work, and one third to department meetings and content team collaboration.


Freshmen Mentor Program
In 2012-2013, Valley High School implemented our Freshmen Mentor Program schoolwide. This program uses upper grade students to mentor 9th grade students on school success and achieving college. Ninth grade homerooms are visited twice weekly by teams of mentors with lesson objectives designed around a goal of post secondary success. The freshman mentor program provides each freshman with a supportive relationship that supports a smooth adjustment from junior high to high school, both academically and socially. FMP provides each freshman with:

  • Advisory opportunities and mentoring

  • On-going orientation to high school

  • A comfortable relationship to grow in high school

  • Monitoring of each freshman's academic progress

  • Constant announcements of school activities

  • Academic Resources through faculty advisor, FMP, and subject study groups.


Facilities
Over the last 18 months, Valley High School has installed new fencing for school safety, security cameras, 108 new stations in computer labs, and we continue to monitor facilities on a daily basis for safety and Williams Compliance.
PBIS - Positive Behavior and Intervention Support
PBIS at Valley High School is designed to produce effective systems, generating positive attitudes, caring relationships, school spirit, strong work ethics, and a healthy learning community. In order to achieve this, the PBIS effort focuses on:

  • Outcomes: academic and behavior targets that are endorsed and emphasized by students, families, and educators.

  • Practices: Evidence-based interventions and strategies.

  • Data: information that is used to identify status, need for change, and effects of interventions.

  • Systems: supports that are needed to enable the accurate and durable implementation of the practices of PBIS.

Writing Across the Curriculum
Valley High School, using standardized tests and summative assessment data, identified a need to support all students in their writing. Beginning in 2012, a team of staff members, led by the ELA teacher on special assignment, began compiling instructional guidelines for cross curricular writing lessons, rubrics, and exemplars. This text was printed, bound, and distributed to staff at the beginning of the 2012 academic year. Professional development was provided to support teachers in their writing efforts and regular reminders reinforce the commitment to improving student writing. Staff development provides teachers with models of engaging writing strategies, and time to experience their implementation.


Technology

Aeries
Over the last four years, SAUSD has phased in the Aeries student information system. Beginning in 2012, additional components added to the student/parent efficacy of Aeries. Students and parents have access to a portal revealing their attendance and grades, updated regularly by teachers and attendance personnel. Access to this information improves stakeholder communication and increase the frequency of that communication. Data is being compiled to document the impact of this program.


Online Learning
Valley High School has implemented credit recovery and academic remediation using online learning. In 2011-2012, a partnership with California State University Fullerton provided A-G approved online courses. Currently, SAUSD supports the use of Plato Online learning. These courses are A-G approved and Valley High School supports three sections of online learning classes in its master schedule.
Grade Cam
Grade Cam, an online system of disaggregating student performance data, is being piloted at Valley High School. The science and social science departments are leading the implementation process. Grade Cam allows teachers to use their Elmo document camera as a scanner for multiple choice tests and automatically filters results to their grade books. The system allows for immediate data summaries and therefore a more rapid response to student learning needs.

Multimedia


In order to maximize technology within the classroom, the addition of student responders, computers, and iPads have become available for teachers and student use. The responders are used for formative assessments; and students provide immediate feedback to teachers checking for understanding. There has been an incorporation of about 200 new computers dispersed throughout campus with many being placed in 8-1 creating a new computer lab for student access. This also led to every teacher receiving a new computer for classroom use. In addition, 60 iPads are available for checkout to be used in the classroom. Currently, they have been used in special education classes and for staff meetings.

Chapter C:
PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR FOLLOW UP
Valley High School staff continues to work purposefully to establish an atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation in pursuit of improved student learning. The work begun in partnership with Cambridge Education, our external partners funded by the School Improvement Grant, is founded on a process of reflection, cognitive coaching and sustainable systems designed to improve student achievement.
Beginning late in the spring of 2011, a series of meaningful reviews of Valley’s leadership, school community, instructional practice, and school climate were facilitated by Cambridge. Focused on the nine Schoolwide Critical Areas for Follow-up, identified in the Visiting Committee Report of April 2011, the following events took place:

  • Valley High School community participated in a SQR (School Quality Review)

  • CSQR pinpointed that people didn't know Valley’s Vision and Mission

  • Stage 1 implementation document shared at EVERY department meeting - the revision of V&M is a KPI for leadership

  • SDIP teams created by leadership

  • Update 1 sent to staff documenting the plan for whole school involvement, with dates

  • SDIP teams looked at the V&M, made notes on its deficiencies and suggestions for change

  • At a full staff meeting - all staff reviewed old statement using a template for feedback

  • Leadership reviewed all feedback and made further amendments to V&M

  • Updated revisions sent to ALL staff by email

  • At administration meeting, senior school leaders make final contribution to V&M statements.

  • LTLs (Learning and Teacher Leaders) shared V&M and SDIP overview at department meetings.

  • Staff approved Vision and Mission Statements

This process has become the template for meaningful analysis and annual revision of the Schoolwide Action Plan and School Development and Improvement Plan. This was accomplished with the assistance of Cambridge in the Spring 2012. In June of 2011, the Schoolwide Action Plan was revised and approved by the school community. Each of the three goals in the plan, and the 18 specific tasks associated with those goals, addressed one or more of the nine Critical Areas for Follow-up.


Throughout the 2011-2012 school year this plan was used a reference as transformation was implemented. It is noted in this report how each area for follow-up and the goals became integral to the culture of Valley High School.

In the summer of 2012, Valley High School instructional leaders began to prepare for this current WASC report and the ensuing follow up visit. Specific days devoted to WASC reflection are built in to the professional development calendar. Meetings in Home Groups and Focus Groups are designed to facilitate data analysis and critical evaluation of the SAP and SDIP. A WASC team, composed of the Learning Director and two staff members, meets daily during 6th period to facilitate meaningful reflection by all community members on the progress being made by Valley High School toward improved student learning. The tasks performed by the WASC team include:



  • Design lesson plans for WASC professional development

  • Facilitate professional development days

  • Compile data for analysis

  • Share all findings with staff and school community

A calendar of meetings, logs and records of lessons and archives of data are maintained by the WASC team. This is intended to serve as a sustainable process of annual review and revision of all school goals and achievements.


In early January 2013, the WASC team began writing this follow-up report. Using the 2011 full self-study as a template and the Revisit Procedures Progress Report Format as a guideline, this report was constructed as a collaborative effort. A one day visit is planned for April 11, 2013 to review the findings.

Chapter D:
PROGRESS REPORT
2010 – 2011 Schoolwide Critical Areas for Follow-Up


  1. Continue to provide necessary professional development in the areas of data analysis and instructional best practices.

2. There is a need to evaluate academic and intervention programs on an ongoing basis utilizing data.


3. Better define the role of the ILT in relation to its decision-making processes.
4. Ensure that stakeholders within the SSC are afforded opportunities for input.
5. Develop a systemic data-driven approach to assess school programs as to their individual impact on student achievement, thus driving the allocation of funds.
6. Increase the number or students who meet A-G requirements.
7. Continue to use collaboration time to modify teaching strategies to meet students’ needs.
8. Needs and gather evidence that modifications are occurring (such as lesson plans, differentiation, common assessments, etc.)
9. Have a consistent schoolwide homeroom program.

2012-2013 Action Plan Focus: Improving Data Driven Instruction and Involvement of Stakeholders
Schoolwide Action Plan: Goals
Goal 1: Data
Increase teachers’ use of available school, district and state student achievement data for instructional planning, corrective teaching, and intervention to increase overall student achievement; develop a system for setting individual student goals based on individual state test data; and plan, monitor and adjust school intervention programs, student placement, and the master schedule based on student achievement data.
Specific Tasks:
T1: Train all staff members on data-driven decision making protocol utilizing the assessment and management system.
T2: Design, submit to ILT for approval, and use a data protocol system for analyzing the following assessments by grade, department, course, teacher, and student:
1. Individual students and parents in data chats to establish a system of individual student

goal-setting based on local and state test data



  1. Common Assessments in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Foreign Language

  2. Benchmark Assessments in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science

  3. CAHSEE Results (July, November, February, March, May)

  4. California Standards Tests (August)

  5. CELDT (February)

Based on the protocol, a data review sheet will be completed for the course and teacher following each assessment.


T3: Continue to monitor processes to ensure that Valley students are enrolled in A-G courses, and passing those courses with grades of A, B, or C.
T4: Develop and implement a consistent grading policy across all course-alike groups, including

a policy regarding homework and class work requirements, and a plan to reduce failure rates.




T5: The most current student data from the following list will be used to develop the master schedule and for placement of students in core classes:


  1. CAHSEE status

  2. CELDT proficiency levels

  3. CST performance levels

  4. District benchmarks

  5. IEPs

  6. Grades

  7. Teacher recommendation

  8. Student self-selection of courses

  9. ELA and math placement tests

10. Reading level performance indicators
T6: Develop, implement and monitor a system for informing students of individual progress on multiple measures (see T5 above) and setting individual goals:


  1. Individual student set goals - based on local and state test data

  2. FMP mentors visit Gr. 9 homerooms twice weekly to help students set goals and develop effective study habits

  3. Homeroom (Grade Checks, Data Chats)

  4. Counselors meet with students to discuss progress and performance

  5. Aries (Student Portal to access individual data)

  6. Parent portal (Aries)

  7. Grades posted in classroom (by ID#)


T7: Develop, implement and monitor academic intervention programs for students not mastering content standards and/or not passing classes:


  1. English-Language Arts

  2. Mathematics

  3. Accelerated Reader

  4. Mastering Content Standards

  5. Algebra I support classes

  6. Bridge classes

  7. CAHSEE prep

  8. Online Classes (Titan & Plato)

  9. Reading Plus


Goal 2: Instruction
Provide rigorous instruction using a variety of strategies, including proven research-based engagement strategies, technology and experiences beyond the textbook and the classroom, that actively engage students, with an emphasis of higher order thinking skills to help students succeed at high levels, with a focus on improving literacy/writing skills and math skills.

Specific Tasks:
T8: Provide professional development in:

  1. Student engagement strategies

  2. Standards-based instruction with and beyond the textbook

  3. Strategies requiring higher order thinking skills

  4. Math skills or teaching math skills

  5. ECO training

  6. Thinking Maps training

  7. UCI Project


T9: Develop and implement a program of schoolwide student literacy strategies and writing across the curriculum to reinforce academic language.
T10: Implement Accelerated Reader in grades 10-12.
T11: Develop 6-week sections of engaging instruction aligned with state standards and district pacing charts.
T12: Develop one or more common assessments for each six week unit, and refine common assessments based upon analysis of data (grades, test scores, benchmark scores, CST scores, CAHSEE scores).
Goal 3: Involvement of Stakeholders
Define the role of the instructional leadership team. Ensure there are opportunities for input from all stakeholders, including, but not limited to; Instructional Leadership Team, School Site Council, English Learner Advisory Council, Parent Organizations, Student Leadership, High School Inc. Academies, Small Learning Communities, external groups and organizations.
Specific Tasks:
T13: Define the roles and responsibilities of the Instructional Leadership Team.
T14: Parent meeting schedule established and adhered to (Spanish speakers the first Wednesday of each month, English speakers the second Wednesday at 10 A.M. and 6 P.M.).
T15: Elections for School Site Council (SSC) and English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC) will be held.
T16: Parent and student participation are in compliance with state regulations, with full compliance by the Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) visit.
T17: External groups and organizations, such as participants in High School Inc., ValleyTHINK, and the Nicholas Academic Center (NAC) will meet on a monthly basis to ensure collaboration and mutual program support.
T18: Meeting dates to be published to school community and posted on school web site.

Task 1:

Illuminate Training

In order to ensure all staff members were trained on data driven assessment and management

systems, staff was trained during professional development days at the beginning of both fall and

spring semesters on the use of Illuminate.


Teachers have formed teams to receive collaboration, program planning or sub release time to pinpoint areas of strength and areas of need on state and local assessments and to adjust pacing guide for re-teaching of key concepts. As a result, staff now analyzes content area benchmark assessments, CST results, and CELDT levels to inform instruction.
In addition, staff was trained on the use of Illuminate to conduct grade cam functions in December 2012.
Staff can analyze their own created content area assessment results, allowing teachers to incorporate Intel Assess questions for analysis and evaluation. These results are shared within and across content areas.
Tasks 2 – 6:
A-G Course Passing Rate
The counseling team meets regularly with students to establish goals and ensure student placement in courses needed to complete A-G requirements. The master schedule team meets regularly to assess progress towards this goal.
There is a schoolwide effort to reduce the number of Ds and Fs by students in all courses. There is an effort, led by the ILT, to establish a consistency of grading policies across course alike groups and additional dialogue focused on further alignment of grading practices. The goal is to ensure equity of grading between common core subject courses


The data table below represents a sample teacher grade distribution for 2012-2013.


Access to data as represented above is intended to encourage teachers and staff to have conversations about grading policy and the meaning of letter grades. Professional development and data chats further promote professional conversations aimed at understanding student grade data, and helping the entire staff to adjust instructional practices to further increase the learning of Valley High School students.



Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2019
send message

    Main page