fremont city schools€¦ · · 2010-08-12linda m. hershey cindy young ... funding sources and...

Strategic Plan

2009-2012

Adopted by the Board of Education

August 17, 2009

Board of Education

Timothy W. Ellenberger James B. Fails

Marc Glotzbecker Linda M. Hershey

Cindy Young

Mission Statement:

The mission of Fremont City Schools is to develop well-educated, life-long learners prepared to be responsible, productive and respectful members of their communities.

District Goals: Increase Student Achievement Close Socio-Economic, Ethnic and Disability Gaps in Student Achievement Build Hope, Trust and Respect with our Community

Traci L. McCaudy, Ed.D. David M. Chambers Superintendent Treasurer

Fremont City Schools

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Superintendent’s Message/Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Development Process for Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 District Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Belief Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Strategic Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Management Process for Strategic Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Strategic Planning Team 2008-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix B: Ohio Improvement Process Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix C: Board of Education Resolutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Superintendent’s Message Traci McCaudy, Ed.D.

The Fremont City School District serves 4,200 students that come from a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds. The PK-12 program is provided throughout seven elementary schools (Atkinson, Croghan, Hayes, Lutz, Otis, Stamm and Washington), one middle school (Fremont Middle School) and one high school (Fremont Ross High School). The district employs 293 certified staff and 171 classified staff. Approximately 56% of Fremont’s teachers have master’s degrees. All of the district’s staff bring a dedication to quality to their positions each day. In the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year, the district developed a long-term educational plan known as the district’s Three-Year Improvement Plan (2006-2009). Each year the district aligns its long-term plan with the one-year Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP). The district’s CCIP identifies specific strategies to improve the entire educational program for students. Additional information such as cost, funding sources and evaluation components for each strategy are contained within the CCIP. The work outlined in the Three-Year Improvement Plan was based upon the district’s three goals: 1. Increase student achievement 2. Close socio-economic, ethnic and disability gaps in student achievement 3. Build hope, trust and respect with our community During the past three years the district has made significant improvements in all aspects of its operation. For the past two years the district attained an “Effective” rating on the State of Ohio Report Card and on August 18, 2008, the Ohio Department of Education released the district from Fiscal Caution because it ended the fiscal year 2008 with a positive balance. The district was placed into the Fiscal Caution category by the Ohio Department of Education in 2003 because it ended the year with a deficit and had to take a real estate tax advance in order to balance the budget. The district has had to take tax advances each year thereafter until 2008. Lastly, the Fremont community demonstrated its support for the district by passing a renewable operating levy in March 2008 and a bond levy in November 2008 for the construction of a new middle school In spite of these significant improvements, the district still faces many challenges. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that ALL children meet or exceed state standards. Since 2001, several student subgroups have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) each year and the district’s graduation rate continues to be below the required standard.

1

The district’s newly developed three-year strategic plan clearly demonstrates our commitment to constant improvement in these areas and others. We will strengthen the strategies that have proven to be effective and we will work diligently on the newly identified areas that need our attention. The district’s new strategic plan focuses on improving student achievement specifically in the areas of reading and math, integrating technology within the curriculum and providing highly qualified professional development for all of its school employees. Additionally, the strategic plan addresses the need to continue improving the climate and culture of the district. Lastly, the plan addresses the need to improve the academic support areas (e.g. facilities, finances, human resources) so that a strong infrastructure is in place. We realize that it takes clear policy and cohesive practice to create sufficient support to bear the weight of the operation, unify the components and achieve our mission.

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Board of Education for its support and confidence in this year-long process. I wish to thank the members of the strategic planning team who volunteered many hours to work on the strategic plan. I also wish to thank Amy Miller and Melissa Malloy-Ramirez for facilitating our team meetings and for their constant words of encouragement. Traci McCaudy, Ed.D. Superintendent

2

Strategic Plan 2009-2012

Development Process for the Strategic Plan During the 2008-2009 academic year, a district strategic planning team was created for the purpose of developing a comprehensive three-year strategic plan based on the Ohio School Improvement Model. The committee consisted of teachers, paraprofessionals, building-level administrators and district-level administrators. Additionally, consultants from the Ohio Department of Education’s State Support Team provided the district technical assistance by facilitating the strategic planning team meetings. Beginning in November 2008, the strategic planning team met on a regular basis for the purpose of analyzing student data and identifying specific areas of improvement. Based upon a comprehensive review of data, the strategic planning team determined that the current district goals would remain the same for the next three years.

District Goals

1. Increase student achievement 2. Close socio-economic, ethnic and disability gaps in student achievement 3. Build hope, trust and respect with our community

Later in the spring 2009, the strategic planning team developed strategies, action steps, and evaluation methods to include within the strategic plan. Lastly, an implementation timeline was developed for the plan. It should be noted that during the course of the year, the superintendent met with cabinet members for the purpose of including academic support area (e.g. facilities, human resources) improvement strategies so that the district would have a comprehensive plan to implement for the next three years. During the strategic planning development phase, the building principals and directors met with their respective staffs for the purpose of gathering information in order to develop a district-wide mission statement and belief statements. Principals invited select parents to participate in these building-level meetings and Board of Education members provided valuable information that was used in creating these purpose statements. Several draft mission statements were shared with the administrators and a new mission statement was created from the meeting discussions. At the end of the school year, building principals formed building-level teams comprised of teachers and staff for the purpose of creating building improvement plans which are comprehensive three-year plans aligned to the district’s strategic plan. The building-level teams met for one full-day reviewing their respective student data and then scheduled an additional ten hours of work sessions to complete their building plans.

3

Mission Statement

The mission of Fremont City Schools is to develop well-educated, life-long learners prepared to be responsible, productive and respectful members of their communities.

Belief Statements

We believe in the personal worth of every child and assure that each student will develop a meaningful relationship with his/her school. We believe that FCS must model, teach and create a culture of responsibility and respect between/ among all stakeholders. We believe in the special worth of a diverse, multi-cultural community of learners and make a full commitment to institutionalizing an action plan to eliminate any achievement gap that may exist between/among groups of learners. We believe in the importance of parents in both the school lives of their children and in the role they must play in the achievement of our vision. We believe that Fremont City Schools must provide and that students will respond to clear, consistent and reasonable expectations for academic performance and personal behavior. We believe that a comprehensive student-support structure must be accessible to students who need individualized interventions and who will benefit from student-centered counseling, guidance and advisement. We believe in compelling, inspiring, instructional delivery that will actively engage students in a multi-faceted learning process and instill in them an appreciation in the value of continuously seeking knowledge. We believe in a quality learning/achievement process that deeply aligns the written, taught and tested curriculum and is predicated upon the belief that all children can learn/achieve to required standards. We believe in assuring that each child’s learning needs are informed by analysis of performance data and addressed by designing and delivering a rich array of instructional strategies. We believe in the value of progressive, continuous, capacity building through a comprehensive professional development action plan for all staff members in the district. We believe in the importance of a relationship between our schools and the varied community groups that inform our mission, goals and vision for the future. We believe in efficiency and effectiveness in the operation of our district and its budgetary process; as a result Fremont City Schools guarantees consistency in application of policies, clarity of communications and coordination of services. We believe in providing clean, safe and well-equipped facilities that reflect our district’s commitment to excellence.

4

Glossary of Terms AIMSweb: AIMSweb is a reading, math and language assessment and web-based data management and reporting system. It is used for universal screening and progress monitoring. Assisting Children to Excel (ACE) Mentoring Program: A strategy to provide support and safety nets to at-risk students at the high school level through a mentoring program linking students with strong role-models who meet regularly with students. Building Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan: A detailed building plan that contains the strategies and action steps from the Building Improvement Plan. This plan is completed on an annual basis and is for one year only. Building Improvement Plan: A comprehensive plan that guides the work of the building for the next three years. The building improvement plans are aligned to the district strategic plan. Building-Level Team (BLT): Building-level committee comprised of principal and staff members. This team will meet on a regular basis for the purpose of developing and monitoring the building improvement plan. Business Plan: The Business Plan was created by the district’s Business Advisory Council during the 2007-2008 academic year and approved by the FCS Board of Education in October 2008. The Business Plan includes strategies to improve the district’s financial and operational areas. The Business Advisory Council is comprised of the treasurer, superintendent and community business leaders. Content Literacy Continuum (CLC): A school-wide literacy initiative at Fremont Ross which provides teachers with research-based instructional improvement tools such as content enhancement routines and learning strategies curriculum. Curriculum Guide: The written curriculum provides the work plan for the teacher. A curriculum guide provides an aligned, coordinated and articulated curriculum that promotes continuity and cumulative acquisition of skills and knowledge from grade to grade and from school to school. The curriculum guide should reflect the best knowledge about the growth and development of learners, and the content requirements as set forth by the state, local and national standards of the various content disciplines. The components that are measured by the CQCC for validity address: clarity and specificity of objectives; congruence of the curriculum to the assessment process; instructional resources and clear approaches for classroom use.

5

Curriculum Management Plan: A requirement of school systems committed to continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process is the development of a comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan (CMP). The importance of such a plan is that it provides the internal congruency, quality assurances, clear linkages and the financial support necessary for ensuring continuous improvement toward meeting the district’s mission and goals. It helps a school system to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning which is complex and multi-year in its dimensions, and to employ economics of scale where applicable. It also provides a strong directional focus for instruction to facilitate the design, delivery, and assessment of the curriculum. In essence, it is the CMP that provides the structure to ensure quality control of the curriculum and instructional process. Instead of leaving the primary function of a school system to chance, a comprehensive CMP recognizes that student learning is the result of a well planned series of events. These events must be designed to happen consistently and coherently across the system. Ultimately, the CMP conveys the intent of district leadership and guides the development, scope, alignment and evaluation of the written curriculum in all subject areas. It also ensures quality control of the design and delivered curriculum. Lastly, it links the budgeting process and outlines cyclical curriculum examination to assure the students matriculate through the educational system prepared to meet, upon graduation, their varied life roles. Curriculum Quality Control Council (CQCC): A broad based group whose function is to provide quality control and oversight for all curriculum development in the Fremont City Schools. The Council ensures to the board and the community that due care and diligence has been taken in the consideration of those factors that are best for students in the district. The members of the CQCC will be trained in the elements of curriculum management and quality control. Under the direction of the district Director of Curriculum, Assessment and Staff Development, the CQCC will met in a timely manner to consider and approve all curricula in the district. Curriculum recommendations from the CQCC will be forwarded to the board of education for adoption. DataDirector: A data and assessment management tool which provides support for instructional and programming decisions. Deeply-Aligned Standards-Based Curriculum: With this type of curriculum, general statements of what students should know and be able to do (standards), are used to establish what is taught. The district’s written, tested, and taught curriculum aligns to the content, context and cognitive standards of the state assessment. Deep alignment results in instruction that meets and exceeds the cognitive level of test content, and presents the content in multiple contexts. Teachers focus on principles and processes involved in true comprehension and mastery of multiple learnings. District Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP): A detailed district plan that contains the strategies and action steps from the FCS Strategic Plan. This plan is completed on an annual basis and is for one year only. Downey Walk-Throughs: The Downey Walk-Through is a classroom visitation process that is designed to provide meaningful opportunities for administrators and teachers to reflect and dialogue about classroom instruction. In a brief visit of 2-4 minutes, an individual trained in the Downey Walk-Through process can gain valuable information about critical aspects of the teaching-learning exchange, including objectives taught, teaching strategies, and student involvement.

6

Extended Learning Opportunities: Extended Learning Opportunities are part of the “safety nets”, the fourth component of a standards-based classroom. Students who may need additional services to support their learning may receive after-school tutoring or attend summer school programs designed to meet their individual needs. Family and Civic Engagement Team (FCE): The team is comprised of people from the private sector, from the business and professional community and from school district leadership. The FCE’s role is to develop and support a plan to mobilize school and community-based learning supports based on the needs, assets, and aspirations of students, families and community members. First Grade Literacy Specialist: Provides support to teachers in the implementation of district curriculum including embedded professional development using a coaching model. Support is also given to parents by meeting regularly to offer strategies so that parents can help their children. Focused Intervention: A strategy that provides additional learning opportunities using student data to individualize and prescribe help to students to meet their needs. FCS Strategic Plan: A comprehensive plan that guides the work of the district for the next three years. FCS Strategic Planning Team: District-level committee comprised of administrators, ODE consultants, teachers and support staff. This team will meet on a regular basis for the purpose of developing and monitoring the plan. Fremont Innovation: A 21st century federal grant to support student learning and enrichment in an after school setting at Atkinson and Ross. Full-Day Kindergarten: A strategy for district improvement where all kindergarten students are given a full day of instruction including 120 minutes of English/language arts and includes music, art and physical education taught by special area teachers. Highly Qualified Professional Development (HQPD): The Ohio Standards for Professional Development provide the guidelines for a strong program to increase the teaching capacity of the teachers in Fremont City Schools. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the district reports annually on whether each teacher has had the opportunity to participate in high-quality professional development. There are six standards defining HQPD: to be purposeful and over time, informed by multiple sources of data, collaborative, with varied learning experiences, results in the acquisition, enhancement or refinement of skills and knowledge, and is evaluated by its short- and long-term impact on professional practice and achievement of all students. High-Yield Strategies: A group of nine research-based instructional strategies popularly called Marzano’s strategies which have a high positive effect on student learning as applied across all content areas. Minority Achievement Council (MAC): District-level committee comprised of community members, administrators and teachers. This Council meets on a regular basis for the purpose of supporting our minority students and their families by recognizing the need to provide a positive climate and culture in our schools to ensure the success of minority students.

7

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the former President George Bush’s blueprint for education. The act is designed to help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students with their peers. It is based on four basic principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded choice options for parents and an emphasis on research-based teaching methods. Program-Based Budgeting: Program-based budgeting is a fiscal management and accountability system that aligns the district’s mission, goals, strategies and resources to the best advantage. In addition, budget requests and reporting are often tied to performance measures and the use of data to inform decisions and to determine organizational effectiveness. Reading Edge: A supplemental program which targets the skills and strategies that middle school students need to be successful in content-area learning. Resource Teacher (formerly called PBA): A strategy to provide additional instructional support at the building level. A resource teacher works with students within the classroom or in small group setting. Response to Intervention (RTI): The Response to Intervention model involves students receiving instruction on the core curriculum and providing interventions for those students who do not demonstrate adequate progress. The RTI process operates within three tiers: Tier I: Core Curriculum Tier II: Core Curriculum + interventions Tier III: Core Curriculum + interventions (Tier II) + additional interventions Students can receive the core curriculum in the following settings:

1. In the regular classroom without additional support 2. In the regular classroom with accommodations and modifications 3. In a co-taught classroom with both a regular education teacher and/or special

education teacher or title teacher 4. In the regular classroom with support services (behavioral aides,

paraprofessionals) 5. In a small group setting but students still receive core curriculum 6. Other

Students can receive core curriculum and interventions in the following settings:

1. Core in regular education + interventions in regular education classroom in small group

2. Core in co-taught classroom + interventions in the classroom small group 3. Core in regular education + interventions in resource room setting (small group

outside classroom) 4. Core in regular education + interventions in flexible grouping 5. Other

8

Short-Cycle Assessment/Quarterly Assessment: A strategy to obtain data at regular intervals on student learning. FCS approximates the interval at each quarter. All assessments are congruent to the standards and district pacing, and written in the format of the OAT and OGT state tests. Data is used to modify the teaching and learning activities, allowing for flexible grouping for instruction, and determining if re-teaching, reviewing or revisiting is appropriate. These assessments are formative and are not used for grades. Standards-Based Classroom: In a standards-based classroom, four things consistently happen in grades PK-12:

1. The district’s tightly coordinated written, taught and tested curriculum is aligned with the performance assessment that students must pass.

2. Teachers are constantly assessing through formal and informal measures to determine if students are learning. The assessment data is used to plan when to proceed, how to re-teach a concept that students have not learned, when to skip a concept that students have learned in a prior grade, or when to realign or reorganize instruction.

3. Instructional delivery (how a concept is taught) is varied so that students with different learning styles and time orientations are able to learn the concept. Dynamic instructional delivery creates opportunities for students to think critically and to solve problems in classroom settings of compelling interest.

4. Rigorous safety nets are a set of methods and/or strategies that are in place for students who may need additional services to support their learning.

Standards-Based Report Card: Academic Content Standards exist for mathematics, language arts, social studies, science, ESL, fine arts, physical education and foreign language. Student progress will be reported relative to the content standards and grade-level indicators for these subjects. State Assessments: These tests are used by the state of Ohio for accountability purposes under No Child Left Behind. The schedule for tests is strictly held by the state.

. Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) is given in October and March and is first given to sophomores in March. Students continue to take any part that is not passed in order to graduate. The order of the tests must be: reading, math, writing, science and social studies. The tests are given on consecutive days Monday-Friday.

. Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) grades 3-8, are given in the spring in April. Third graders take the reading test in October and in April. Reading grades 3-8, Math grades 3-8, Writing grades 4 & 7, Science grades 5 & 8 and Social Studies grade 5 & 8 tests are given in April.

. Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (AASWD) are the assessments for students whose IEP provides this method of testing. Teachers collect evidence of student learning in a special binder throughout the year on state specified standards.

. Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition (OTELA) assesses Limited English Proficient students in the areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing in grades K-12. These tests are scheduled by the district from January-March.

. Kindergarten Readiness Assessment- Language (KRA-L) measures skill areas important to becoming a successful reader. It also helps teachers plan for experiences and lessons that encourage reading. This test is required at the start of kindergarten for all students.

9

Teacher-on-Special-Assignment (TOSA): A teacher working within the curriculum department. TOSAs assist the Director of Curriculum, Assessment and Staff Development. TOSAs work with building teachers, develop curriculum and assessments, and provide staff development for the district.

10

11

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 TOPIC Complete Contract Negotiations

By February 2010 begin OAPSE contract negotiations.

By February 2011 begin FEA & OAPSE contract negotiations.

N/A

Enhance District Resources Continue to work with Business Advisory Council and monitor/revise strategies outlined in Business Plan.

Continue to work with Business Advisory Council and monitor/revise strategies outlined in Business Plan.

Continue to work with Business Advisory Council and monitor/revise strategies outlined in Business Plan. Begin planning for Income Tax Renewal Levy.

Open New Fremont Middle School/Reorganize MS/Elementary Buildings

Continue to work with Fanning-Howey Architects, Touchstone Construction Manager and district committees for the purpose of constructing new middle school.

Continue to work with Fanning-Howey Architects, Touchstone Construction Manager and district committees for the purpose of constructing new middle school.

Open new FMS and close old FMS.

Develop and begin implementing PK-8 Building Organization Plan.

Continue to implement PK-8 Building Organization Plan.

STRATEGIES Implement Standards-Based Framework for Instruction

By August 2009 elementary report cards will be restructured to match current standards and pacing.

N/A N/A

Develop and implement a model to provide coaching support for SBE curriculum and instruction.

Continue to provide support for SBE instruction through coaching in schools.

Continue to provide support for SBE instruction through coaching in schools.

Deeply Align Standards-Based Curriculum

By August 2009 the district will implement new curriculum guides for geometry, 7 & 8 English/language arts, math and science.

Continue the development of curriculum guides K-12 as needed.

Continue the development of curriculum guides K-12 as needed.

By January 2010 develop and implement curriculum guides for 9-10 science and social studies.

By August 2010 develop curriculum guides for elementary English/language arts.

Implement curriculum guides and revise as needed per data.

Implement curriculum guides and revise as needed per data and as new resources are available.

Continue to follow the textbook adoption cycle and selection processes as outlined in the Board approved Curriculum Management Plan.



Continue to provide oversight to curriculum and instruction through the CQCC.

Continue to work with CQCC. Continue to work with CQCC.

12

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 STRATEGIES Deeply Align Standards-Based Curriculum (cont.)

Develop a K-6 student retention plan (criteria, timeline, intervention plan).

Continuous improvement. Continuous improvement.

Implement Identified Research Based Reading/Math Instructional Strategies

By August 2009, begin to allocate instructional time based on students’ needs. By January 2010, identify 3-4 high yield reading/math strategies.

Continuous improvement. N/A


By February 2010, begin to provide HQPD for reading/math instructional strategies.

Continue to provide HQPD for reading/math instructional strategies.

Continue to provide HQPD for reading/math instructional strategies.

By February 2010, begin to implement high yield reading/math strategies in classroom.

Continue to implement high yield reading/math strategies in classroom

Continue to implement high yield reading/math strategies in classroom.

Implement Assessments Aligned to State Indicators and Intervention Practices to Guide Classroom Instruction and Monitor/Measure Student Progress

By August 30, 2009, begin to provide HQPD for assessments (need vocabulary list). Analyze current assessment tools to determine effectiveness and develop new assessments as needed.



By August 30, 2009, develop and implement a district-wide RTI process and documentation procedures.


By August 30, 2009, allocate collaboration time to design and analyze assessments for planning interventions.


By September 30, 2009 provide extended learning opportunities for select students.

By September 30, 2010 provide extended learning opportunities for select students

By September 30, 2011 provide extended learning opportunities for select students

By November 2009, teach students to monitor their progress using their assessment data.


Align District Resources (time, staff, programs, funding) to Support Instruction and Student Achievement

By August 30, 2009 develop and communicate a system on maximizing district resources based on mission, vision, and beliefs. Provide training to instructional staff regarding the purpose and use of the Curriculum Management Plan.

N/A Continuous improvement.

N/A Continuous improvement.

13

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 STRATEGIES Align District Resources (time, staff, programs, funding) to Support Instruction and Student Achievement (cont.)

Continue to provide Downey Walk-through support training sessions for administrators. By April 2010, implement a monitoring and evaluation process in order to refine walk-throughs.



Continue to provide examining student work training sessions for administrators. Continue to train teachers in walk-throughs and examining student work.

Continuous improvement. Continue to train teachers in walk-throughs and examining student work.


Integrate Technology in Instruction, Assessments, Administration and Program Design

By August 30, 2009, develop a district technology plan and develop an evaluation/monitoring process.

By August 2010, revise technology plan as needed based on evaluation results.

By September 2011, identify committee members and begin to develop new three-year technology plan.

By September 30, 2009, identify teacher technology cohort.

N/A N/A

By February 2010 identify technology research based strategies and provide HQPD to teacher technology cohort in a train-the-trainers model.


Provide HQPD to all staffs in the effective use of district technology.


Identify Root Causes for Attendance and Graduation by Developing a Data Collection System

By November 2009 develop a survey targeting past drop-outs. By November 2009, establish a district method to collect and analyze student perception data.



By January 2010, form collaborative teams between counselors and administrators to create a system in which data is categorized and returned to all staff members.

N/A N/A

By March 2010, use data to analyze student subgroup comparisons and identify single students who might cross several subgroups.

By June 2010 develop a student profile. N/A N/A

14

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 STRATEGIES Identify and Implement Support Structures for Student Success

By August 30, 2009 develop RTI Teams and define academic support services for all students at the building level.

By August 30, 2010, continue to identify additional RTI Teams.


By August 30, 2009, begin to utilize RTI Teams to develop and define academic and behavioral supplemental support services provided by support staff.

By August 30, 2010 continue to identify additional RTI Teams.


By October 2009, develop a district-wide and building-level system for the RTI process that documents, monitors and analyzes student interventions.


By December 30, 2009, form collaborative teams between identified staff to create a system for effective transition from home, Pre-K, K, ES, MS, HS.


Provide continuous HQPD on the district process for implementing RTI.


Develop a communication system between building RTI Teams and cohorts to collaborate and sustain the intervention process.


Analyze and enrich ACE mentoring program to provide services to students currently identified as “at risk.”


Implement Full Day Kindergarten

By August 30, 2009, kindergarten teachers will begin HQPD for implementing curriculum within a full-day framework.


By October 2009, develop a comprehensive evaluation process for full day kindergarten.


By January 2010, develop a revised process for kindergarten registration.


Implement Focused Support for First Grade

By August 30, 2009 develop a comprehensive support model for first grade.


15

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 STRATEGIES Implement Focused Support for First Grade (cont.)

By October 2009, develop a comprehensive evaluation process for first grade.


By August 30, 2009, develop a 120 minute literacy block and fully utilize StoryTown in all first grade classrooms.

Continuous improvement Continuous improvement.

Improve Internal Climate and Culture

Continue to implement and monitor district safety plan. Revise plan as needed.



Continue to refine recognition program for students, staff, parents and community supporters.

Continue to refine recognition program for students, staff parents and community supporters.

Continue to refine recognition program for students, staff parents and community supporters.

Establish/Implement district-wide procedures for improving student attendance and behavior.


Continue to work with Minority Achievement Council on the implementation of climate/culture improvement plan. Revise plan as needed.

Continue to work with Minority Achievement Council on the implementation of climate/culture improvement plan.

Continue to work with Minority Achievement Council on the implementation of climate/culture improvement plan.

By December 2009, develop an intranet system for staff utilization.


By December 2009, develop a model for an internal staff newsletter.

Continue to develop internal staff newsletter per established calendar.

Continuous improvement.

By March 2010, publish the first internal staff newsletter.

By March 2011, develop an evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of newsletter.

By April 1, 2010, the district will conduct school-wide focus groups and/or surveys to monitor and improve issues related to culture and climate.

Implement/Evaluate campus wear policy in grades 7-8. Begin planning for campus wear implementation in grades K-12 for 2010-2011.


16

YEAR ONE: 2009-2010 YEAR TWO: 2010-2011 YEAR THREE: 2011-2012 STRATEGIES Increase Parental/Community Engagement

Continue to implement comprehensive communications plan. Include additional components to plan.

Continue to implement comprehensive communications plan.

Continue to implement comprehensive communications plan.

Develop and implement a PK-2 parent engagement plan.


Create Supportive and Efficient Human Resource Services

By September 2009, implement employee handbook and orientation process.


Continue training district leaders on teacher evaluation forms and procedures.


Continue to evaluate and revise recruitment plan for minority staffing.


Continue to review/revise job descriptions and evaluations per master schedule


Provide Facilities/Operations to Support Student Learning

Continue to complete facility and athletic projects per the Five-Year Facility/Athletic Project Plan.



Continue to complete projects as outlined in Jarod’s Law School Inspection Plan.



Management Process for the Strategic Plan The commitment by Fremont City Schools to implement the three-year strategic plan is evidenced by the development of a strategic plan management process that ensures consistent, continuous monitoring and re-evaluation. While aligning and monitoring appears to be a deceptively simple process, it takes constant vigilance. The following five steps are a framework for plan management as described by Labovitz and Rosansky in their 1997 book entitled The Power of Alignment:

1. Carefully crafting and repeatedly articulating the essence of FCS’s mission and goals to all constituents.

2. Defining the critical strategies and action steps to reach the goals and

implementing those actions throughout the district.

3. Tying performance measures to the goals and using such measures for evaluation and continuous improvement.

4. Linking performance measures to a system of recognition and rewards.

5. Reviewing the performance of people to ensure that goals are met.

In addition to addressing the framework above, the district also commits to the following targeted processes for managing the strategic plan. The superintendent will oversee the implementation of this monitoring process: A. Commitment to the Plan

A true understanding and commitment to the plan strongly implies that the district must have a resolve that keeps the focus on the plan and does not weaken the plan by investing in a myriad of other strategies and/or initiatives. In essence, the more the district adopts or implements new competing priorities, the more the district compromises the success of the plan. It is imperative that a clear set of decision-making filters be adopted in order to assess the realistic viability of taking on what some will identify as “yet-another-competing priority.”

B. Regular Progress Reviews

Progress of the three-year plan will be reviewed by the district’s strategic planning team on a quarterly basis. The group will use consultants from the Ohio Department of Education’s State Support Team so that all strategic planning team members can be participants in the session and so that the meeting remains dedicated to the review only. Building improvement plans will be reviewed on a monthly basis at regularly scheduled Administrative Team meetings (principals should schedule building-level team meetings prior to the Administrative Team meetings). Building principals will provide written status reports on a quarterly basis to the superintendent.

17

C. Spring Planning Cycle

Each spring, cabinet members will begin the planning process for the next academic year. This lead time allows cabinet members to work with principals and their teams to review school plans, identify accomplishments, identify areas and strategies for improvement and determine supporting structures for staff and students over the summer. Final building improvement plans for the next year will be presented for review and approval. Written adjustments and refinements will be made to the three-year strategic plan upon approval by the superintendent.

D. Board of Education Updates

The superintendent will make formal progress reports to the Board each year. The reports will take place in November, February, April and September of each year. Informal reports on the progress of various strategies will take place as appropriate.

E. Individual Meetings

When deemed necessary the superintendent may choose to work on an individual basis regarding any aspect of the three-year plan that needs coached and/or assisted for successful implementation.

F. Technical Assistance

The superintendent will provide technical assistance and expertise to principals and school teams as needed.

G. School Review Teams

The superintendent may establish an ad hoc school review team to conduct audits at schools where there is significant deviation from the plan or those schools where assessment results have changed significantly. The purpose of the school review process is assessment, refinement and capacity building that lead to subsequent improvement in the implementation of the strategic plan and/or the improvement of achievement scores.

18

APPENDIX A

STRATEGIC PLANNING TEAM 2008-2009

19

APPENDIX A

Fremont City Schools

Strategic Planning Team 2008-2009

NAME POSITION/BUILDING Renee Bissett Teacher/FMS Tim Cullen Director Student Services/Administration Laurie Godfrey Director of Curriculum, Assessment, and Staff Development/Administration Denice Hirt Principal/Otis Elementary Melba Lozano Teacher/Hayes Elementary Dr. Traci McCaudy Superintendent/Administration Barb McNutt Intervention Specialist/Ross High Chris Opelt Director of Human Resources

& Community Relations/Administration Rod Smith Asst. Principal/Ross High Curtis Turpin Special Ed. Aide/Ross High School Chris Ward Dean of Students/FMS Amy Miller Regional School Improvement Consultant Melissa Malloy Ramirez Regional School Improvement Consultant

APPENDIX B

OHIO IMPROVEMENT PROCESS MODEL

20

hio Departmentof Education

The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) 1 November 2008

The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP): Toward a Unified State System of Support

Ohio is committed to the implementation of a unified state system of support directly focused on improving the academic achievement of all students and student groups. The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) is Ohio’s strategy for ensuring a systematic and coherent approach for building the capacity of all districts and schools in meaningful and real ways that allow districts to improve instructional practice on a district-wide basis, and make and sustain significant improvement in student performance against grade-level benchmarks aligned with academic content standards for all students across the district. Inherent in the OIP is the belief that: • Improvement is everyone’s responsibility – at all levels of the district and in all districts, but

especially those in corrective action or improvement status; • Leadership – the purpose of which is the improvement of instructional practice and

performance, regardless of role – is a critical component of the OIP and must be addressed in more meaningful ways to ensure scalability and sustainability of improvement efforts on a district-wide basis;

• State-developed products and tools, including professional development, need to be

designed for universal accessibility and applicability to/for every district in the state; and • A unified state system of support requires the intentional use of a consistent set of tools and

protocols by all state-supported regional providers, rather than allowing for multiple approaches across the state, based on preference.

Redefining Leadership to Leverage Improvement. In March 2007, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), in partnership with the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), convened a large stakeholder group to identify the essential practices that must be implemented by adults at all levels of the education system for improvement in student performance to be made. This group – the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) – recommended the creation of a new leadership framework that can be used to distribute key leadership functions, align and focus work across the system, and hold adults at all levels accountable for improving instructional practice and student performance (Elmore, 2006). Rather than focusing on making improvement through a “school-by-school” approach, Ohio’s concept of scale up redefines how people operate by creating a set of expectations that, when consistently applied statewide by all districts and regional providers, will lead to better results for all children. OLAC’s recommendations are supported by recent meta-analytical studies on the impact of district and school leadership on student achievement, and provide strong support for the creation of district and school-level/building leadership team structures to clarify shared leadership roles/responsibilities at the district and school level, and validate leadership team structures needed to implement quality planning, implementation, and ongoing monitoring on a system-wide basis.

OLAC identified the following six core areas for categorizing the MOST ESSENTIAL leadership practices for superintendents and district and school-level/building leadership teams in six core areas:

1. Data and the decision-making process; 2. Focused goal setting process; 3. Instruction and the learning process; 4. Community engagement process; 5. Resource management process; 6. Board development and governance process (at the BLT level – Building Governance

Process). Stages of the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP). The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) involves four-stages (see Figure 1) across which processes, structures, tools, and people are connected – all with the intent of helping districts (1) use data to identify areas of greatest need; (2) develop a plan to address those areas of need that is built around a limited number of focused goals and strategies to significantly improve instructional practice and student performance; (3) implement the plan with integrity; and (4) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the improvement process in changing instructional practice and impacting student performance. In districts that have been effective in making steady improvement, superintendents work with stakeholders to identify a few “non-negotiable” goals, defined as goals that all staff members must act upon, in at least two areas (i.e., student achievement and classroom instruction), set specific achievement targets for schools and students, and ensure the consistent use of research-based instructional strategies in all classrooms to reach those targets (McREL, 2006).

Figure 1: Stages in the Ohio Improvement Process

Stage 1: Identify Needs

Stage 2: Develop Focused Plan

Stage 3: Implement Focused Plan

Stage 4: Monitor the

Improvement Process

This kind of improvement is not random. Rather, it is highly focused, beginning with an honest assessment of student data and the identification of academic weaknesses that must be addressed. Stage 1 of the OIP begins with this kind of assessment using the Decision Framework (DF) tool. The DF is a decision-making process designed to assist districts in making informed decisions – based on what their data tell them -- about where to spend their time, energy, and resources to make significant and substantial improvements in student performance. A state-developed data warehouse allows for relevant data needed to complete the DF process to be readily available to districts and buildings. Such data are organized in such a way as to allow DLTs and BLTs to answer essential questions and make decisions about their greatest need related to improving student performance.





To that end, the DF will help DLTs and BLTs:

• Sort through and categorize data in meaningful ways; • Prioritize areas of need and make decisions based on an analysis of data; • Identify root causes of prioritized needs; and • Develop a more focused plan leading to improved student achievement.

The DF asks essential questions to assist DLTs in identifying and analyzing critical components (e.g., curriculum alignment and accessibility) for improving academic performance of all students, including sub-group populations. The essential questions are organized around the following four levels:

Level I: Student Proficiency In Level I, DLTs review student proficiency data across three years by grade level, building level/grade span, and disaggregated student groups to identify up to two content areas of greatest concern. Further analyses using subscale performance data are completed by the DLT only for those content area(s) identified as areas of greatest concern. The remainder of the DF – Levels II, III, and IV – provide essential questions for helping districts conduct a root cause analysis of those factors contributing to the district’s current situation. Level II, which has a direct impact on student performance, is completed for each area of concern identified under Level I of the DF. Levels III and IV, which have a more global impact, are completed once. Level II: Instructional Management (Curriculum, Assessment, & Instructional Practice; Educator Quality; Professional Development) In Level II, DLTs answer essential questions in relation to each of the content area(s) of greatest concern identified under Level I. Essential questions under Level II focus on curriculum, assessment, instructional practices; educator qualifications, teacher and principal turnover; and the degree to which district professional development (PD) is aligned to problem areas, is designed to promote shared work across the district/buildings, and is effective in helping teachers acquire and apply needed knowledge and skills related to the improvement of instructional practice and student performance. Following the completion of the Level II analyses, DLTs make decisions about the most probable causes contributing to the major problem areas identified under Level I. Level III: Expectations & Conditions (Leadership; School Climate; Parent/Family, Student, Community Involvement) In Level III, DLTs answer essential questions related to leadership; school climate (including student discipline occurrences, student attendance and mobility, students with multiple risk factors, and teacher and student perception); and parent/family, student, and community involvement and support to identify additional probable causes contributing the areas of greatest need identified in Level I. Level IV: Resource Management In Level IV, DLTs answer essential questions related to resource management – defined as the intentional use of time, personnel, data, programmatic, and fiscal resources – to identify additional causes contributing the area(s) of greatest need identified in Level I.



Through the completion of the DF, the DLT prioritizes areas of greatest concern, as well as causes contributing to those areas of concern. The decisions made by the DLT at Stage 1 of the OIP using the DF provide the foundation for creation of a district plan with a limited number (two to three) of focused goals and a limited number (three to five) of focused strategies associated with each goal. At the school level, Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) complete a similar process at stage 1 of the OIP by using a building-level decision framework to review data and identify a limited number of action steps for improving performance to reach district goals. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) describe the development of strong building leadership teams (BLTs) and the distribution – throughout the team – of some of the 21 practices that characterize the job of an effective principal as key steps in enhancing student achievement. Such practices, identified through McREL’s meta-analysis of 35 years of research on school-level leadership, suggests that leading a building requires a “complex array of skills” not likely to be found in a single individual and support the need for strong leadership team structures. In addition, it has been found (Simmons, J., 2006) that “The better the leadership in school leadership teams, the better the school.”

The Decision Framework assists DLTs and BLTs in selecting the right work (i.e., work that has a high probability of improving student achievement), based on data-based decision making and focused planning, as well as developing the collective know-how to do the right work across the system.

Districts with the greatest degree of need (i.e., selected high support districts) also receive an on-site review from the State Diagnostic Team (SDT). The SDT conducts a District/School Improvement Diagnostic Review, a process designed to help districts and schools improve student performance by analyzing their current practices against diagnostic indicators – effective research-based practices critical to improving academic achievement for all students. Using the diagnostic indicators, review team members determine the degree to which a school or district demonstrates effective instructional practices. The focus of this intensive review process is on identifying critical needs (Stage 1 of the OIP) of the educational system. Unlike traditional self-assessments, the district/school improvement diagnostic review process relies upon a team of skilled reviewers from outside of the district or school, who is trained on the diagnostic indicators and standardized protocols for data collection and analysis. Regardless of their role, all members of the SDT receive formal training on using the diagnostic indicators, interviewing, observing classrooms, analyzing data, and writing reports. Findings from the review (e.g., data from classroom observation, interviews, and review of documents, diagnostic profiles completed following the review) become additional sources used by districts as they complete the decision framework process and identify critical needs to be addressed. At Stage 2 of the OIP, DLTs affirm the priority areas identified through use of the DF in developing a district improvement plan that has a limited number (i.e., two or three) focused goals and strategies. In Ohio, the Consolidated Comprehensive Improvement Plan (CCIP) is the automated state tool for creating district and building improvement plans. All districts in Ohio are required to submit a CCIP, which includes the district goals, strategies, and action steps for improving student performance. The CCIP is a unified grants application that requires district personnel to work together in the development of one coherent plan that aligns and focuses the



work across the district. All school-level plans must adhere to the district plan and school-level strategies and action steps must respond directly to district goals. Schools receiving Title I School Improvement funds must also create their improvement plans in the CCIP. The CCIP provides the structure, format and means for almost all district/building-level plans submitted to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), and is used by each district to create one coherent improvement plan describing how it intends to:

• Achieve the district vision and mission over the next five years; • Address requirements and consequences prescribed by state and federal statute

[corrective action, restructuring, Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT)]; • Take advantage of flexibility provisions of Title I Schoolwide to combine resources –

fiscal, personnel, and time; and • Draw on funding from multiple state, federal, and local sources to achieve district goals.

To assist DLTs in developing focused plans, ODE has developed a process guide outlining critical steps in affirming priority areas identified at Stage 1 of the OIP, turning these priority areas into focused goals and strategies, and developing progress indicators for monitoring plan implementation. SSTs and ESCs are being trained to assist districts/schools in this stage of the process. At Stage 3 of the OIP, the focus is on implementation of the focused plan across the district. Recent research on the effects of full implementation (Leadership and Learning Center, 2007) and its impact on student achievement note that partial implementation of evidence-based strategies is not much better than no implementation. For example, in one school when fewer than 50 percent of the teachers aligned curriculum, assessment, and instruction to state-content standards in science, the percent of students proficient in that content area on state assessment was 25%. In stark contrast, when over 90% of the teachers in the same school aligned curriculum, assessments, and instruction to the state science standards, student proficiency increased to 85 percent (Reeves, 2006). These findings – based on a synthesis of multiple research sources on teaching, leadership, and organizational effectiveness – highlight the critical importance of full implementation of the district plan based on focused goals that remain stable over time (Reeves, 2008). The need for implementation of the focused plan across the district as a system adds support to the critical role that highly effective district and building leadership teams play in continuously improving system planning and implementation of focused improvement strategies, structures, and processes at the district and school level. When school board members, superintendents, central office staff, principals, and teachers “stay the course” on the right work, as defined by focused goals for instruction and achievement, student learning increases. McREL (2006), in its study of factors that contribute to effective district-level leadership, suggest a positive correlation between leadership stability and increases in student performance, and a negative correlation between building autonomy (i.e., site-based management in the absence of district leadership) and increases in student achievement. Both findings support the need for effective leadership team structures to perform critical functions and sustain a focus on higher levels of learning for all children across the district.



For example, at the district level, DLTs perform such functions as:

• Setting performance targets aligned with district goals; • Monitoring performance against the targets; • Building a foundation for data-driven decision making on a system-wide basis; • Facilitating the development and use of collaborative structures; • Brokering or facilitating high quality PD consistent with district goals; and • Allocating system resources toward instructional improvement.

Similarly, at the school level, BLTs perform such functions as:

• Fostering shared efficacy; • Building a school culture that expects effective data-driven decision making; • Establishing priorities for instruction and achievement aligned with district goals; • Providing opportunities for teachers to learn from each other; • Monitoring and providing effective feedback on student progress; and • Making recommendations for the management of resources, including time, and

personnel to meet district goals. At Stage 4 of the OIP, the focus is on monitoring the implementation of the improvement process at multiple levels (classroom, BLT, DLT, regional, state) and its impact on student achievement. Key indicators are customized for each level, while maintaining the focus on essential practices in the areas mentioned above (e.g., data and the decision-making process, focused goal setting process, instruction and the learning process, etc.). At the district level, continuous monitoring is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of improvement efforts on student achievement and to ensure a sustained focus on district goals for instruction and achievement, and is the key function of the DLT. At the regional and state level, monitoring the OIP is the primary function of regional managers assigned to oversee the work of state support teams who work with DLTs to review data, develop focused plans, and ensure fidelity of plan implementation and its effect on instruction and achievement. Ohio employs a tiered model to support the continuous development of regional providers to ensure consistency and quality in the services provided to districts needing a high level of support, as well as to those needing a moderate or low level of support. Figure 2 below illustrates Ohio’s training design, and delineates roles of regional providers at each level of the system. At the core, a state-level design team comprised of a representative from each of Ohio’s 16 state support team (SST) regions assists the State in developing and deploying training to other regional providers to increase consistency and focus around the OIP. Four members of the state-level design team – referred to as “quad” leads (i.e., four SSTs per each quadrant) – have the additional responsibility of coordinating training and deployment of OIP training on a quadrant basis and serve as an added layer of support for other regional providers across the state. The quad leads and regional facilitators also support the OIP process with districts participating in Ohio’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), a USDOE/Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded project designed to support the development of a unified system of education that meets the needs of all students, including those identified as having disabilities under the Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). In this way, the SPDG

is providing a vehicle for moving past the traditional notion of special education as a separate system or subsystem that should respond to or interact with general education to a focus on creating a single unified system that can meaningfully build the capacity of every district to move all children to much higher levels of performance.

Figure 2: Ohio System of Support Training Design

Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)System of Support: State and Regional Delivery

State Support Teams (SST)

Educational Service Centers (ESCs)

Quad Leads

Regional Facilitators

State Level Design TeamTrain & Mentor Statewide

Coordinate and Coach Regional Facilitators

Provide OIP Related Services for all Districts

Facilitate OIP with SPDG Districts

Facilitate OIP with Assigned Districts

Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)System of Support: State and Regional Delivery



Quad Leads


State Level Design Team



Quad Leads


State Level Design TeamTrain & Mentor Statewide

Coordinate and Coach Regional Facilitators

Provide OIP Related Services for all Districts

Facilitate OIP with SPDG Districts

Facilitate OIP with Assigned Districts

Regional facilitators support their fellow SST members in their home region to ensure that high priority districts receive a consistent level of quality support using the OIP. Finally, SST staff work with personnel in Ohio’s 59 educational service centers (ESCs) in understanding and using the OIP and its associated tools to support districts not in priority status but still interested in making improvement. ESC providers who complete training in the OIP are recognized by the state as part of the regional provider pool eligible to provide services related to the OIP. In this way, the OIP is being used to scale up the intentional use of a consistent set of tools and protocols by all state-supported regional providers, rather than allowing for multiple approaches across the state based on preference and, at the same time, creating incentives for other regional personnel (ESCs) to use the same focused process in working with districts to prevent them from entering a higher risk/support status. The reliance on data to determine appropriate actions is integral to the success of this model. Additional support for Ohio’s educationally sound approach to system improvement is found in a study of restructuring in Michigan (Scott, C., 2007). In this study, The Center on Education Policy (CEP) found, in general, that multiple reform efforts tailored to the needs of the schools were more likely to result in the schools’ making AYP and exiting restructuring.





Selected References Supporting the Development of the Ohio Improvement Process

Elmore, R.F. (2006). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Educational Press. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). J. Timothy Waters, Ed.D. & Robert J. Marzano, Ph.D., McREL, (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working Paper. Reeves, D.S. (2008). The Leadership and Learning Center. Denver, Co. Reeves, D.S. (2006). The Learning Leader: How to Focus School Improvement for Better Results. ASCD, Alexandria, VA. Scott, C. (2007). What Now? Lessons from Michigan About Restructuring Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy. Simmons, J. (2006). Breaking Through: Transforming Urban Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


District/Building Leadership Teams

State Diagnostic Teams (SDTs) work with selected high support districts

State Support Teams (SSTs) work with districts and schools in need of improvement

Educational Service Centers (ESCs) work with other districts requesting assistance

is involved?

Teams use data tools to identify critical needs

do these teams work in districts and schools?

District/Building Leadership Teams Regional Service Providers External Vendors Higher Education

is involved?

District/Building Leadership Teams State Diagnostic Teams State Support Teams Educational Service Centers

is involved?

District/Building Leadership Teams

State Diagnostic Teams

State Support Teams

Educational Service Centers

Regional Managers

Single Point of Contact

is involved?

Review data Gather evidence of implementation and impact

Provide technical assistance and targeted professional development

Leverage resources

Work with leadership to develop research based strategies and action steps focused on critical needs identified in stage 1.

How

Who

How

Who

How

How

Who




Who

STAGE 1

STAGE 3

STAGE 2Identify Critical Needs of

Districts and SchoolsDevelop a

Focused Plan

Ohio Improvement Process

STAGE 4

Implement and Monitor the Focused Plan

Evaluate the Improvement Process

Revised November 2008

21

APPENDIX C

BOARD OF EDUCATION RESOLUTIONS

APPENDIX C Fremont City Schools Regular Meeting – Page 12 August 17, 2009 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (cont.) MOTION 177-09 OTHER MATTERS – ITEM 12 Mr. Fails, seconded by Mr. Ellenberger made the motion to approve other matters – Item 12. ITEM 12. Approval of Strategic Plan for 2009-2012 It is recommended that the Board approves the FCS Strategic Plan for 2009-2012. Ayes: Fails, Ellenberger, Hershey, Young, Glotzbecker Motion carried. 5-0 MOTION 178-09 OTHER MATTERS – ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, AND 21 Mrs. Young, seconded by Mrs. Hershey made the motion to approve other matters – Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. ITEM 13. Approval of RTI professional development

It is recommended that the Board approves up to 50 teachers to attend Response to Intervention monthly training sessions after school during the 2009-2010 school year. Each teacher will be paid up to 15 hours at the FEA negotiated rate of $15.00 per hour (not to exceed $15,000) to be paid by Title VI-B stimulus funds.

ITEM 14. Approval of professional development expenditure

It is recommended that the Board approves 5 teachers to attend CPO science professional development on August 26, 2009 not to exceed 5 hours each per day at the FEA negotiated rate of $15.00 per hour (not to exceed $500) to be paid by Title IA stimulus funds.

ITEM 15. Approval of revised Policy #7440 – Facility Security (Second Reading)

It is recommended that the Board approves revised Policy #7440 – Facility Security (see attached).

ITEM 16. Approval of revised Guideline #7440 – Facility Security (Second Reading) It is recommended that the Board approves revised Guideline #7440 – Facility

Security (see attached). ITEM 17. Approval of revised Policy #8330 – Student Records (Second Reading) It is recommended that the Board approves revised Policy #8330 – Student Records

(see attached).

1

Fremont City Schools Regular Meeting – Page 13 August 17, 2009 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (cont.) MOTION 178-09 OTHER MATTERS – ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, AND 21 (cont.) ITEM 18. Approval of revised Guideline #8330 – Student Records (Second Reading) It is recommended that the Board approves revised Guideline #8330 – Student

Records (see attached). ITEM 19. Approval of revised Policy #8462 – Student Abuse and Neglect (Second Reading) It is recommended that the Board approves revised Guideline #8462 – Student Abuse

and Neglect (see attached). ITEM 20. Approval of revised Guideline #8600 – Transportation (Second Reading) It is recommended that the Board approves revised Guideline #8600 – Transportation

(see attached). ITEM 21. Approval of revised Policy #2105 – Mission of the District (First Reading)

It is recommended that the Board approves revised Policy #2105 – Mission of the District (see attached).

Ayes: Fails, Ellenberger, Hershey, Young, Glotzbecker Motion carried. 5-0 MOTION 179-09 OTHER MATTERS – ITEM 22 Mr. Fails, seconded by Mrs. Hershey made the motion to approve other matters – Item 22. ITEM 22. Approval of donations It is recommended that the Board approves the following donations: Donor: Item: Value: Donated To: UAW Local 959 Cash $50.00 Fremont City Schools Women’s Committee for school supplies Anonymous Refrigerator $400.00 FCS for use at

Don Paul Stadium coaches’ meeting room

Stamm PTO Paint & Refinishing $250.00 Stamm Elementary Supplies Teachers’ Lounge Ayes: Fails, Hershey, Ellenberger, Young, Glotzbecker Motion carried. 5-0

2

fremont city schools€¦ · · 2010-08-12linda m. hershey cindy young ... funding sources and...

Documents