Dr. Cascadden’s Web Log

The NH Department of Education released the 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status reports on May 8^th.  These reports are part of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability program and are based on the October 2007 administration of the NECAP exams given to grades 3-8 and 11.  These exams measure the previous year’s attainment of curriculum standards, and thus are reports for the 2006-07 teaching year. 

School and district Performance scores are determined with an index system that gives increasing points for scores that approach proficiency which equates with being on grade level.  To make AYP, a school or district must have index scores for the school as a whole and for all identified subgroups meet or exceed the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO).  The AMO is determined for the whole state and is designed to rise to 100 by school year 2013-14, which would be complete proficiency for all students.

The Bow School District and all Bow schools made AYP in all areas except one.   The Educational Disability subgroup in Elementary School Reading did not make AYP and thus the Bow Elementary School is in the first year of not making AYP.  If BES does not make AYP for two years in a row in the same subject, then they would be labeled a School in Need of Improvement.  Presently, no school in the Bow District is labeled as being in Need of Improvement.

Attached is a Summary of the AYP scores for the district as a whole.  Important issues from each level are presented below:

Bow High School

This year is the first administration of the NECAP exam at the secondary level.  Therefore the target score or AMO was set at a level where 20% would attain AYP.  Bow High School’s whole school scores are comfortably above the AMO.  Subgroup scores are only reported for samples larger than 11 and BHS has no subgroup in the single tested grade that is that large.

Bow School District Grades 2-8

Scores at the elementary and middle level are reported by school and combined into a district report.  The district did make AYP, although some subgroups made it by Confidence Interval (CI) or Safe Harbor (SH).  Recognizing that small subgroups may not be representative of the true population in NH, a 99% confidence interval is used.  This allows small subgroups to make AYP if they are close to the AMO.  The larger the subgroup, the more closely the index has to approach the AMO meet the target.  Safe Harbor is a second way to make AYP based on progress as opposed to status.  It represents a 10% reduction of the previous year’s non-proficiency.

Bow Memorial School

Our middle school scores are remarkable.  The reading index for the whole school is 98, which represents 364 students out of 385 attaining proficiency.  In reading, the Educational Disability subgroup made the AMO directly with an index score of 87.4 exceeding the AMO of 86.  This represents 25 out of 38 students identified for Special Education services attaining proficiency.  The math index score for the whole school was 94.1 (311 of 385 proficient).  In math, the Educational Disability subgroup made the AMO by confidence interval, and showed a remarkable gain in scores, 14.5 index points.  This is a 35% decrease of non-proficiency, far and above the 10% required for Safe harbor.  This gain is noteworthy because last year BMS was originally labeled a School in Need of Improvement (SINI) for not making AYP in math for two consecutive years in the Educational Disability subgroup.  This designation was overturned on a Safe Harbor statistical appeal, but the school still developed and implemented a plan to address the issue.  The plan appears to have been very successful.

Bow Elementary School

The reading index for the whole school is 92.4 (248 of 314 proficient).  In the Educational Disability subgroup 20 students were proficient, 18 scored partially proficient and 12 were substantially below proficient.  This created an index score of 74.  The confidence interval target of 78.5 for this 50 student subgroup was not attained and there was a decrease in index score from the previous year so safe harbor would also not apply.  Therefore the Educational Disability subgroup did not make AYP, and the school as a whole is not credited with making AYP.  For next year, the Educational Disability subgroup would need to rise by 2.6 index points to make AYP by safe harbor.  The math index for the whole school is 94.1 (261 of 314 proficient).  The educational disability subgroup made the AMO by confidence interval and would have also made it by safe harbor.

This is the first year of not making AYP in Reading for BES.  There are no sanctions for this.  If the school does not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject area, then they would be a School in Need of Improvement (SINI).  Of the 474 AYP reports for NH, 175 schools made AYP in all areas and 282 did not make AYP in one or more areas with 17 undergoing further small school review.  There are presently 183 NH schools designated as SINIs.   These schools are required to develop a corrective action plan.  Bow Elementary School has begun laying the foundation for this process.

The school is increasing the use of data and is tracking individual student growth using NECAP scores, curriculum benchmarks, the DIBELS reading fluency test, and the computerized NWEA Measures of Academic Progress in math, reading and language arts.  This data is used to develop differentiated instruction for students at different achievement levels.  In grades Kindergarten and One, this has allowed a Tiered Instructional model to be implemented.  All students are taught the core curriculum in their regular education class.  Students who need additional help are given additional targeted interventions or instruction.  For next year, an additional special educator was approved in the budget process so that there will be one special educator per grade level (previously kindergarten and grade one shared a staff member).  The Tiered Instructional model will be grown to include grade two and possibly more grades.  At all grades, teams of teachers will be expected to review student data and change their instruction to meet the needs of the students.  This is the core of NH’s Follow the Child initiative.

It must be emphasized that the administration and staff believe that this designation is not acceptable for Bow Elementary School.  Also, this is not considered a “special education problem.”  The school has emphasized student first language.   This subgroup is called students with an educational disability, emphasizing that the students are first and foremost Bow Elementary School students, and all teachers are responsible for their education, prior to any special program or help being implemented.

As a district, we have a prek-12 Literacy Leadership Team meeting and working over the summer to review and propose revisions to our English, reading and writing curricula.  This team will also be reviewing the assessment data in their work.  As part of the snow day make-ups the K-8 teachers will be working on June 23^rd to review student progress in their classes this year and to share their insights and concerns with the next grade level.

The professional staff of Bow Elementary School will be developing additional action plans to address this issue.  As superintendent, my message to them is very clear.  This is not an indictment against the school.  Bow Elementary School is a great school with dedicated staff and a vision and plan for improvement.  However, not making AYP is also not acceptable.  There is not much instructional time between this report and the next round of testing in October of 2008.  However, we will continue to plan and implement programs and procedures that help us to track the growth of students as individuals and by subgroup and grade level.  We will continue to harness the collective wisdom of a great staff and work collaboratively and cooperatively to do the best we can to reach and teach each and every student.

 ayp-2008-district.xls

Last night (4/3/08) the Bow School Board decided to suspend implementation of the IB program.  In the context of deciding what would be cut from the proposed budget to meet the $152,638 reduction as voted at the District Meeting, the board heard input from the community.  About 40 people showed up at the board meeting and gave public input on a variety of issues, but mostly centered on IB.  There were supporters of IB, people who were definitely against IB, and those that had a number of concerns, but had not landed firmly in either camp.  

The exchanges were very productive, respectful, reasonable and thoughtful.  The board voted 2-3 not to continue with application B of the process at this time.  Application B requires curriculum work to begin and is the beginning of preparing to implement.  The board did leave money in the budget to continue to study and have teachers engage in professional development around this program.  The major issue is that the community has not been effectively informed, nor engaged in the process to date; and the program has become very divisive. 

The IB information night scheduled for April 10th will still be held.  Pansy Bloomfield and I will be at that meeting and will be able to answer questions about where we are in the process.  We will also be able to engage in more dialog about the merits and demerits of the program.

I want to thank the teachers and administrators who have worked on the program to date, and I believe that the training that has been happening is not in vain, even if we never move forward with IB.  The bulk of the training is about good instructional and curricular practices.  Things that have been learned about assessment and instruction will be implemented in Bow classes because they are sound educational practices.  

Ultimately, the board vote was about not having a consensus of support to move forward and not having a consensus of support to stop the process all together.  Thus we are in the land of further study.  We cannot move forward with a program of this magnitude without the verified support of the community as expressed through the school board.  We need to work to gain trust and support of our larger community, before moving forward.  If that trust and support does not materialize, then the board should make the decision to suspend the IB program permanently. 

The International Baccalaureate Program information night originally scheduled for April 2nd has been re-scheduled to Thursday April 10 at 6:30 at BHS.
There were multiple conflicts with the Wednesday date.

The International Baccalaureate Program is not a pet project of mine. It is a program that was being actively investigated when I arrived, and I have come to believe that it is a good fit for this district. The high school has completed the first part of an application for the program and is continuing on in the application process.

Both John House-Myers and I have heard from a segment of the community that states that their high school students are not really challenged by our present curriculum. We do have gifted and talented programming in the other two schools, but not in our high school.  IB is a programmatic response to that issue, and is a challenging 2 year set of courses for motivated students.  AP is very course specific, but IB is more of an integrated approach to education.  Whereas, AP is very content driven, IB is very concept driven.  The Theory of Knowledge Course helps students frame all learning, not just a specific area of learning and that is the main difference between IB and AP- systematic verses specific.  

Looking at where Bow is now, I believe that it is the best program available to continue our quest for excellence.  Bow is very good, but if we do not continually strive to get better, we will get worse.  One cannot just stand still in the modern world, because the world will move on and pass us by quickly.

The costs for implementing IB will be coordination, professional development and oversight.  Teachers already are assigned to teach students and they will be adapting the present curriculum so that students can attain the rigorous assessments of IB that have external validation.  The consultant that has visited our school states that our present program is well matched to move forward into the rigor of the IB program.  There is no external curriculum or texts that will be imposed from outside, but rather the IB application is a process to develop our program rigor to match national and international standards.

The final decision to implement IB is a management and administrative decision that the board will be considering as we move through the application process.  We will receive input from the wider community, and take it into account, but ultimately IB is no different than other programs that we run.  We do not put the math curriculum out to the voters as a referendum, but we do have open meetings where changes are discussed.  All school board meetings are open to the public.  The agenda and minutes are published on the website and there are three times in each meeting for Public Participation.

The IB meeting at the high school on April 2^nd  Thursday April 10th at 6:30 is for informational purposes, and is not a referendum or decision making meeting.  Mr House-Myers and his team will be concentrating on what the program would look like on a practical day-to-day implementation basis.

The meeting will not a philosophical debate on the merits of the program.  The school board is the elected body that has made the decision to pursue the exploration and application for this program, and it will be the body that continues to make the decision to continue in the process.  If you want to give input on the program, you need to contact the board members.  The information meeting at the high school will concentrate on giving resources and explanations, it will not concentrate on receiving input.  The next board meeting is on April 3^rd, 7:00 at Bow High School.

As to the merits of the IB program, I am not pleased with our present scores, nor am I content with the status quo.  The IB program is an excellent and proven program that helps local educators assess and deliver a better local education.  It is outside validation and support for what we already do and as such will help us continue to keep our school system moving forward.  The program will help all students by increasing the standard of quality for the whole school system, and not just help those that actually enroll in a specific IB course.

The program has been, in my opinion, unfairly criticized.  It is widely accepted as a hallmark of quality and many conservative people and organizations accept the rigorous standards.  I believe that the charge that this is somehow a subversive plot of the UN to educate students for a new world order is a straw man argument. I believe that the charges that the program is un-Christian and un-American are not founded in fact and as both a conservative Christian and conservative American, I do not see where respecting people’s differences and recognizing that they have valid points of view is against my fundamental principles, doctrines or beliefs.

I welcome the community to come to the informational meeting and also to let the school board hear your input on the program.

The State of NH released the New England Common Assessment Program results for High Schools on February 21st.  This test taken in Fall of 2007 by juniors measured the achievement of students in tenth grade for the 2006-07 school year.  This is the first time the NECAP has been given at the high school level.

Scores on the NECAP are reported as student achievement levels.  Level 1 is Substantially Below Proficient, Level 2 is Partially Proficient, Level 3 is Proficient and Level 4 is Proficient with Distinction.  Proficient is the benchmark or goal and is defined as the ability to do grade appropriate work as outlined in the Grade Span Expectations (GSEs). The actual test scores that correlate to the levels are determined in a process called standard setting where the grade level standards, student work and the opinions of high school teachers are used to determine the proficiency levels.

Percent Proficient

One way to analyze a group’s performance is to look at the percent proficient.  This is the percentage of students who score in levels 3 and 4 combined and is a good estimate of student performance at grade level.  The measures for Bow are then compared to the State of New Hampshire as a whole. 

Bow does well when compared to the state as a whole.  The difference in percent proficient for reading is 13 points, for math 12 points and for writing 21 points.  As a state, the percent proficient in math and writing is very low.  The math test contains elements of both Algebra and Geometry.  The writing test requires two extended response essays of 1-3 pages each. 

Because this is the first time that the NECAP has been given at the high school level it is difficult to compare these results to previous ones.  The old accountability test was called the New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program (NHEIAP), and it used different proficiency levels.  It was last given for the end of grade 10 in May of 2006.  I do think that the NECAP tests in writing and math are very rigorous, but also valid.  They are tough tests of rigorous standards, and our response to the low scores should be to take a hard look at our curriculum and instruction to be sure that we are helping students reach the high standards. 

Comparing the middle school results to the high school results is also problematic.  The middle school test is based on the Grade Level Expectations (GLEs), which are similar to the GSEs.  It is possible that the expectations for high school are relatively more rigorous than those for middle school on these tests.  Also, the standard setting process involved different groups of teachers and the expectations of the teachers of what is grade level appropriate may be very different.

However, for Fall 2007 in grades 6-8 reading, Bow averaged 95 percent proficient which was 23 points higher than the state.  In math for grades 6-8, Bow averaged 84 percent proficient which was 21 points above the state average.  In writing for grade 8 Bow was 78 percent proficient which was 37 points over the state.  Though our high school scores do not appear to continue the same value added growth that the 2-8 scores do, these comparisons are limited because we are looking at a different test and a different set of students for the high school.  Next year, we will be able to do a cohort comparison as the students who will take the test as juniors in 2008 will have scores from their 8^th grade year in 2005.  This is an area to explore further as more test results come in.

Stacked Proficiency Graphs

A second way to look at the results is to compare how students scored in all of the different achievement levels

Additional Work

This is just a first look at the NECAP data. Because this is the first year of the NECAP administration at the high school level, it is possible that local curriculum is not totally aligned with what the test is assessing.  At the school level, administrators and teachers will be looking at individual students and questions to help answer curriculum and instruction questions.  As we analyze the test in detail, there may be recommendations about when and how certain topics should be covered.

We have begun a district wide Literacy Leadership Team that will be looking at the curriculum for English/ Language Arts.  We have just completed a similar review and revision for math and made changes to curriculum last year.  The effect of these changes are not evident in this year’s assessment, but will influence our future scores.

As a district we will be expanding our use of the NWEA MAP testing program into the spring of 9^th grade.  This computerized assessment will help us more closely monitor the progress of students as they transition from middle to high school and also allows more of a direct comparison between the programs as it will utilize the same test for the two levels.

NECAP is used to determine Acceptable Yearly Progress (AYP) as Part of No Child Left Behind.  That determination will be released later in the spring.

For more information on these tests, please access the Department of Education’s website.

http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/NECAP/2007/results.htm 

The State of NH released the New England Common Assessment Program results for grades 3 through 8 on January 29^th.  This test taken in Fall of 2007 measured the achievement of students in grades two through seven for the 2006-07 school year.

Bow did very well on these tests.  In fact we are probably one of the top scorers in the state on these assessments.  However, as a district we are also very interested in our growth.  The demographics of the Bow School District are such that we would expect to score high.  We have many dedicated parents who value education and we have many above average students.  Thus, our normal or bell curve of achievement is shifted towards the high end even before we start the first lesson of kindergarten.

Scores on the NECAP are reported as student achievement levels.  Level 1 is Substantially Below Proficient, Level 2 is Partially Proficient, Level 3 is Proficient and Level 4 is Proficient with Distinction.  Proficient is the benchmark or goal and is defined as the ability to do grade appropriate work.

Percent Proficient

One way to analyze a group’s performance is to look at the percent proficient.  This is the percentage of students who score in levels 3 and 4 combined and is a good estimate of student performance at grade level.  The measures for Bow are then compared to the State of New Hampshire as a whole. 

This percent proficient for reading shows that Bow students begin at around the average for the state, but the gap between the state and Bow grows through the grade.  This is very encouraging and to me shows that Bow demonstrates “value added” growth.  Bow students improve over time, where the state scores actually show some decline.

The percent proficient for math shows that Bow students begin above state averages and do not show the decline that the state scores do.  Even though there is not growth in the Bow scores, the state scores do have a marked decline.

The percent proficient for writing shows growth for Bow while the state average declines.

Looking at all three of these graphs shows great results not only for the status model of achievement which is expected for our demographics, but also for the growth model of achievement which is a foundation of the state’s Follow the Child Initiative.

Stacked Proficiency Graphs

A second way to look at the results is to compare how students scored in all of the different achievement levels.  If we are looking at growth, it is not adequate to just look at making the proficiency benchmark, but we need to see if students in all of the levels are making upward progress.  These stacked graphs allow those comparisons and show that Bow is doing well  at moving students up levels as the grades progress.

Additional Work

This is just a first look at the NECAP data.  The state has purchased a data analysis tool called Performance Pathways that will allow teachers and administrators to do in depth data analysis on not only multiple years of NECAP scores, but also on the NWEA tests that we use.  That tool allows group and individual comparisons of growth.  The data will be uploaded into that system in a few weeks. 

The High School NECAP results will be released February 21^st.  These are delayed because a first time administration of an assessment requires an additional step called standard setting.

NECAP is used to determine Acceptable Yearly Progress (AYP) as Part of No Child Left Behind.  That determination will be released later in the Spring.

For more information on these tests, please access the Department of Education’s website

http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/News/NECAP2007ResultsforGrades3-8.html

The Bow School District is in the process of applying to offer the International Baccalaureate Program.  This program does have an external assessment of quality and is seen as sort of a “gold standard” for high achieving districts.  Competitive colleges are very interested in this program and acceptance rates increase dramatically for students who have the certification of an IB Diploma in addition to their regular high school diploma.

The high school staff has been investigating the program for the last year and feel that the program would be a good fit with the present Bow system, especially the emphasis on integrated and interdisciplinary study.  However, the program also involves a lengthy application process that makes sure that we as a district are ready to support the program.

In the application process I need to write a letter of support.  The two questions that I will be asked to address are:

1)  Does the school community embrace the IB Philosophy? 

2)  Does the school district support the long term fiscal commitments?

To that end, I will need input from the Bow community.  To help inform debate, here are some thoughts and resources:

The Mission of IB states:

The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.

To this end the organization works with schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment.

These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.

It would be a mistake to only focus on the academic outcomes of the program without looking at other parts of the mission statement.  IB has had its share of criticism for their global focus, especially in the United States where passing on our heritage as a nation is an important goal of public education.  IB is sensitive to this and states on the website: “We promote intercultural understanding and respect, not as an alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century.” 

Other criticisms of this part of the mission statement and IB’s response to them can be found at http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionpacks/documents/MythvFact_000.pdf

I believe that the IB Diploma Programme is seen as the next logical step in the evolution of the Bow School District.  The program has many advantages and is not just a set of courses, but a full program of study.  The Wikipedia entry is an interesting summary of the program with some editorial comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_Diploma_Programme

The IB Programme Website gives more specifics and is worth exploring:

http://www.ibo.org/diploma/

Here is a powerpoint prepared by Mr. House-Myers that outlines the benefits of the IB program and how the program meshes with the present Bow High School Curriculum 

IB powerpoint for Bow School Board presentation at November 2007 meeting.  

Costs

The long term costs of the program are a little difficult to pin down because some of the costs will be in place of money spent now.  For example, we already teach certain courses, and students taking IB courses will be taking “new” courses, but they will be in place of ones already offered.  However, there may come pressure to increase offerings.

Mr. House-Myers had developed a five-year budget for the program which is included in the budget materials.  Much of the costs are fixed such as postage and fees and will vary with the number of pupils.  The majority cost, as in all education, is in personnel.  Professional development and people to oversee the program are the two most costly items in the projected budget.

Five year budget for IB at Bow

These costs are also the most flexible as the program evolves and we look at new way to utilize staff.  The original budget proposal for this year included an additional half time IB coordinator to oversee the application process.  That position was not approved by the board, but as the program application goes forward, this work still has to be done.  Within the present budgeted positions, we will have to dedicate time to have someone fulfill this responsibility.  Our projected costs for 100 students would be $130,000 mostly in administration to fund coordinator positions for parts of the program.

Please feel free to post your own ideas and links to resources.

Budget Summary prepared by Duane Ford�

Last night we had our first meeting with the Bow Budget Committee to begin reviewing the school board’s approved proposal.  This year, the proposal has under the 5% level in growth of expenditures, which I think is fairly reasonable when compared with previous year’s growth, and considering the fixed cost growth of things like energy and insurance.  However, this will raise local taxes by at least that much, and to someone with limited financial resources, this will be an additional burden.  I know and feel this myself, and in preparing budgets and proposing increases, I am acutely aware of the need to balance the needs of students with the ability of the community to support additional programs.

As I ponder this, I am struck by the following thought.  My local school and town budgets are where I can have the most voice in matters of spending and taxation, but it is also the place where I can see my dollars actually at work.  Relatively, the proportion of what I pay in local property tax is much less than the amount I must pay in Federal Income Tax, but the tax bite seems more.  The income tax is siphoned off before I see it in my paycheck and comes out every week, my property tax comes in two big bites.  For me this is not so bad because I escrow my taxes monthly as part of my mortgage, but I do get a rather large bill two times a year.  

Once a year (probably very soon), I will do my income taxes and be reminded of how much I really do send to other far off places (like Washington and Iraq), but this will be lessened by the prospect of a refund.  I’ll be overjoyed that I’ll get some of my own money back!  The frustrating thing is that I really don’t have much say in that process.

Yes, once again we have experienced the once-every-four-year whirlwind of the primaries and I have analyzed candidates’ positions and listened to promises of tax cuts, and better (or at least different) proposals to spend the federal money.  But they have moved on leaving a few scraggly signs slowly decaying in snowbanks, and that’s the end (for now) of my puny federal influence. 

At the state level, there are also some very important issues being debated.  There are issues about labor negotiations and  the NH retirement system that will fiscally affect both employers and employees dramatically.  There also is a whole debate about adequacy that has the promise of shifting funding from the local to state level for schools, but I’ve grown a little cynical about that prospect after having lived through the last decade of debate.  Presently the cost of adequacy is being calculated to be around $3,500 per student which is way below the over $12,000 that most communities spend and when costed out has the state spending about the same that they have always done…. hmmm.  Now I will contact our representatives and I will contact my association to weigh in on these issues, but I still feel like I have little real influence on events.  

That leaves the local debate.  Although it is relatively a smaller portion of my overall taxation, it is the only place where I can really have a lot of influence.  I can go to budget meetings and district meetings and my opinion can be heard.  Because of this, many people who feel frustrated by taxes in general do come to these meetings looking to control spending.  I do have fairly conservative fiscal leanings (not quite Libertarian, but I do understand the appeal of Ron Paul’s message), and I am in favor generally of less spending and less taxes at all levels of government.  However, at the local level I can also see what good my money does.  I see the hard work that our road crews do and the good job they do in moving all the snow and slush and slop out of the way.  I can appreciate the protection of the fire and police, and for me, I can see the benefit of our local schools. 

My professional life is dedicated to educating the next generation, and I try to do it well because they are the future of this country.  (Or, as one of my son’s is want to remind me: he will be financing my retirement home for me so I better do a good job at financing his school.)  I see the positive influence of my tax dollars on students who have great resources to learn and to play.  I will always advocate for resources for education, but at the same time schools need to be very responsible and prudent in how they spend the public dollar. 

As the budget debate moves forward there will be issues to debate:  How much should employees be paid?  What level of benefits should be negotiated?  What programs should be supported?  Should we start an IB program?  Should we cut staff, or add staff?  Should we have less or more co-curricular offerings?  Should we increase our co-curricuular user fee? 

I would encourage you to become involved with the debate.  I will be posting the budget summary soon and there will be more specific issues to discuss as the process moves forward, but for now I want the Bow community to realize that there can be conversation about these issues and your view point will matter.  Relatively the money may be smaller, but your influence can be greater. 

Here is a draft of some visioning statements that we will be working on in the new year.

I welcome your comments, additions and deletions.

Mission:
Achieving excellence through rigorous, relevant and personalized learning

Vision:
Bow School District will maximize the potential of each student creating a nationally recognized community of learners

Goals:
To implement mission and achieve the vision, the Bow School District will focus on the following goal areas and objectives:

1) High Quality, Respectful Instruction
a. Implement Differentiated Instruction (teach students, not classes)
b. Implement Three Tiered Literacy
c. Improve Special Education and 504 services via Universal Design

2) Communication
a. Create a blog for 2 way interaction on issues with the community
b. Implement a community alert system
c. Publish a comprehensive data based School District Report
d. Improve cohesiveness and seamlessness of the k-12 program

3) Accountability
a. Complete all evaluations as specified
b. Make AYP in all areas
c. Use NWEA to show value added growth
d. Use My Voice and other surveys to improve climate
e. Improve the evaluation system to make it more useful and aligned with professional development
f. Implement ICT Literacy and develop Web 2.0
g. Improve Wellness (nutrition, activity and substance avoidance)
h. Grow BES student tracking data base to BMS

4) Programs
a. Implement IB at BHS
b. Create a Literacy Action Plan for the District
c. Implement Follow the Child Principles

5) Resources
a. Investigate the changes to the school day and year
b. Increase time and money for Professional Development
c. Implement PD plan including cohesive district days and summer grants
d. Increase use of grants and private funding for programs
e. Improve support services: Transportation, Food Service and Custodial