School Improvement Plan, 2012-2013

2011-2012 Report | Student Objectives Review | Profile | Progress Report | Focus Group Reports | Plan | Process

Action Plan Summary

  1. Search 16.pngCurriculum: Further develop an aligned curriculum that has refined scope and sequences and unit maps that meet baseline criteria, implementing it with increased differentiated instruction and student use of technology for learning (possibly, in part, by implementing technology standards/learning targets across the curriculum).
  2. Search 16.pngData Usage: Systematically use data to drive achievement of board ends and, consequently, the mission.
  3. Search 16.pngEnglish Language Proficiency: To address our changing demographics, increase students' English language proficiency (reading, writing, and vocabulary).
  4. Search 16.pngLegal Status Change: Complete the change of CAJ’s legal status from zaidan houjin to gakko houjin.
  5. Search 16.pngResource Master Plan: Collaboratively develop a Resource Master Plan that provides clear direction for future facilities and equipment that support the educational program for students and account for student safety.


To Dos

Student Objectives

  1. There is no locatable Fine Arts Handbook and thus no documented alignment of the Fine Arts Co-curricular program to our mission and student objectives.
  2. There was limited student and parent involvement in the review of the student objectives in August-September 2011.
  3. There is no data from parents and the wider community on their understanding of the role of the Board.



Program

  1. Biblical perspective standards/learning targets are not yet fully implemented, due in part to not all departments having a Biblical perspective standard and to not all appropriate department assessments being backwards designed from senior comprehensives.
  2. More information is needed to determine whether secondary parents’ lower satisfaction rating with support services compared to elementary school parents (on the parent surveys) is referring to the parents’ perception that support services are inadequate or if parents lack awareness of support services.
  3. More data is needed to determine whether another educational track for students with educational plans who have difficulty accessing the current curriculum is needed.



Culture

  1. Although the improvement process is broad-based and collaborative, it has not been fully implemented with all the stakeholders having equal levels of commitment.
  2. CAJ has high expectations for students but it is difficult to measure/quantify how that affects students’ self-esteem.



Staff

  1. The Leadership Team and staff do not make sufficient connections between the board ends and the mission, job descriptions, and school improvement plans.
  2. CAJ does not have a mediation process.
  3. SOPHIE (Standard Operating Procedures and Helpful Information Encyclopedia) entries, including job descriptions, are not consistently updated.
  4. Compared to teaching staff, support staff are less involved in professional development, receive less evaluation, and participate in professional learning communities that do not have documented goals.
  5. The impact of professional development on measurable student learning is not sufficiently clear.



Finance

  1. Not all teachers and staff have a chance to see budget worksheets or understand how the process applies to them.
  2. The combination of computer software being used in the Business Office is not operating efficiently yet.
  3. Staff salary/benefits are too low for a family where only one parent is working.



Facilities

  1. There is no policy, code, or procedure to test and deal with elevated radioactive materials, as made evident following the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
  2. There are periods during the day when the ACSI classroom floor space per student recommendation is not met for certain classrooms.


Action Plans

Curriculum

  • Action Plan: Further develop an aligned curriculum that has refined scope and sequences and unit maps that meet baseline criteria, implementing it with increased differentiated instruction and student use of technology for learning (possibly, in part, by implementing technology standards/learning targets across the curriculum).
  • Student Objectives Addressed: All
  • Assessment:
    1. Number of departments with documented alignment of the student objectives, standards, assessments/rubrics, instructional strategies, and technology resources (see WASC 2—p. 29)
    2. Degree to which parents and students understand how CAJ's curriculum is aligned (see WASC 2—p. 29)
    3. Number of academic departments with refined scope and sequences (see Content 2, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
    4. Percentage of courses in which all maps are at baseline (see Content 1, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22)
    5. Percentage of classes in which students regularly experience differentiated instruction (see Instruction 1, see WASC Key Issue 4—p. 22)
    6. Percentage of classes in which students regularly use technology to learn (see Curriculum Technology Integration)
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. On an annual basis, review the option of developing and implementing technology standards/learning targets across the curriculum, taking action as appropriate (Curriculum Technology Integration).
    2. By December 2012, for each academic department, using the Understanding by Design framework, to document the alignment of the student objectives, standards, assessments/rubrics, instructional strategies, and technology resources (see Assessment 2 and WASC 2—p. 29).
    3. By June 2013, train and provide support for teaching staff in Stage 3 (Instruction) of Understanding by Design, technology integration (differentiated by division and department), and an introduction to the Big 6 research framework.
    4. By June 2013, define scope and sequences for secondary English, secondary social studies, and other subjects as appropriate (see Content 2, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
    5. By June 2014, backwards design all appropriate department assessments (in secondary Bible, English, social studies, and other subjects as appropriate) from senior comprehensives (see Content 2).
    6. By June 2014, get unit maps to baseline (see Content 1, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
    7. By December 2014, continued emphasis in differentiation training for teachers (see Instruction 1, see WASC Key Issue 4—p. 22).
    8. By June 2015, share with parents and students CAJ's upgraded curriculum and how CAJ's curriculum is aligned, as outlined in the Understanding by Design framework (see WASC 2—p. 29).
  • Responsible Parties: Principals*, Learning Team, academic department PLCs
  • Resources: Learning Team, academic department PLC meetings, alignment template, Rubicon Atlas, unit map baseline checklist, Understanding by Design, trainers for Understanding by Design and differentiation
  • Monitored by the principals, Learning Team, Program A Focus Group, Program B Focus Group, and the Advisory Council
  • Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and headmaster monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.2 and 2.4)



Data Usage

  • Action Plan: Systematically use data to drive achievement of board ends and, consequently, the mission.
  • Student Objectives Addressed: All
  • Assessment:
    1. Degree to which staff use data to drive achievement of the ends
    2. Number of focus groups using key performance indicators and core data portfolios
    3. Number of professional learning communities using key performance indicators
    4. Degree to which the Professional Development Plan is aligned with the ends (including the student objectives) and data from instructional supervision and student assessment (see WASC 1—p. 29)
    5. Degree to which teaching staff use data to modify curriculum at the professional learning community level and to make decisions about resource allocation and professional development at the schoolwide level (see WASC 3—p. 29)
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. On an ongoing basis, Learning Team members leading meetings will model data usage and have meeting participants use data.
    2. By November of each year, publish a profile analysis.
    3. By June 2012, implement a review process for administrative policies and plans in SOPHIE (see Leadership 1).
    4. By August 2012, implement an online professional development application process that is linked to data from instructional supervision and student assessment (see Staff 5, WASC 1—p. 29).
    5. By December 2012, the Learning Team will review the Professional Development Plan, further aligning it with ends (including the student objectives), instructional supervision data, and assessment data; and more clearly identifying strategies for implementation (see Staff 5, WASC A4—p. 14, WASC 1—p. 29).
    6. By December 2012, add PHOENIX features, including reports on student attendance and student health (see Staff 8).
    7. By June 2013, modify PHOENIX so that it provides data on standards and rubric criteria and provides a more effective breakdown of the assessment data and report card grades for use by PLCs, divisions, and individual teachers (see Assessment 3).
    8. By June 2013, provide initial training for staff in terminology and best practices for data collection and usage.
    9. By June 2014, train staff in using data.
    10. By June 2014, develop key performance indicators and core data portfolios for each focus group.
    11. By June 2014, develop key performance indicators for each professional learning community.
    12. By June 2014, develop and implement a SOPHIE entry that provides a timeline for updating key data (see Leadership 1).
    13. By June 2015, staff systematically use data to modify curriculum at the professional learning community level and to make decisions about resource allocation and professional development at the schoolwide level (see Assessment 3, WASC B3—p. 20-21, WASC 3—p. 29).
    14. Upon request, use the new business office software to generate reports.
  • Responsible Parties: Headmaster*, Technology PLC, Learning Team
  • Resources: Technology PLC, Learning Team, PLC meetings, data trainers, PHOENIX, new business office software, profile data, Rubicon Atlas data, SOPHIE, Easy Grade Pro data
  • Monitored by the headmaster, Technology PLC, Learning Team, Student Objectives Focus Group, Staff Focus Group, and the Advisory Council
  • Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and headmaster monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.0)



English Language Proficiency

  • Action Plan: To address our demographic shift, increase students' English language proficiency (reading, writing, and vocabulary).
  • Assessment:
    1. Student performance data over time (reading, writing, vocabulary) (see Profile Analysis, 2011-2012, Student Objectives 10)
    2. Number of academic departments that have integrated reading and writing into their standards
    3. Percentage of classes in which student regularly experience effective instructional strategies regarding reading, writing, and vocabulary, including differentiation and ESL strategies
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. By June 2012, integrate reading and writing into secondary standards for Bible, math, and science, and other subject areas as appropriate.
    2. By October 2012, the Leadership Team will facilitate shared faculty understanding of the connection between the ESL admission policy regarding English language proficiency and the decisions that are made (see 2011 Program A Report—To Do 3).
    3. By June 2013, assess our ESL program including the impact of providing ESL support in middle school English and elementary language arts, and explore providing ESL support in content courses other than middle school English and elementary language arts.
    4. By December 2014, explore student performance data related to English language proficiency (see Profile).
    5. By June 2015, train all teachers in English language acquisition and appropriate teachers in effective instructional strategies for language proficiency, including differentiation and ESL strategies.
    6. By December 2015, discuss and explore options for nurturing linguistic diversity and ensuring English language proficiency through an American-style program.
    7. By June 2016, appropriate academic department PLCs will complete action research on increasing students' English proficiency.
  • Responsible Parties: Principals*, Learning Team, academic department PLCs
  • Resources: Student performance data, Rubicon Atlas, trainers in English language acquisition and effective instructional strategies, academic department meetings
  • Monitored by the principals, Learning Team, Program A Focus Group, Program B Focus Group, and the Advisory Council
  • Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and headmaster monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.1 and 1.3)



Legal Status Change

  • Action Plan: Complete the change of CAJ’s legal status from zaidan houjin to gakko houjin.
  • Student Objectives Addressed: All (indirectly)
  • Assessment:
    1. Compliance with directives from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
    2. Getting approved as a gakko houjin
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. By November 2012, establish a cash reserve that is equal to 25% of the annual budget.
    2. By November 2012, submit the application.
      • Complete the revision of core legal documents and get them approved by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
      • Finalize accounting changes required by the transition to gakko houjin status.
      • Submit required personnel documents.
    3. By March 2013, receive approval as gakko houjin.
  • Responsible Parties: Business manager*, administrative assistant, headmaster, assistant business manager, accounting staff, human resources coordinator, Board of Directors
  • Resources: Legal consultants, Japanese accounting firm, fundraising consultant
  • Monitored by business manager, Student Objectives Focus Group, Board of Directors, and the Advisory Council
  • Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and headmaster monitoring report to the Board of Directors



Resource Master Plan

  • Action Plan: Collaboratively develop a Resource Master Plan that provides clear direction for future facilities and equipment that support the educational program for students and account for student safety.
  • Student Objectives Addressed: All (indirectly)
  • Assessment:
    1. Level of compliance with planning parameters
    2. Level of stakeholder involvement
    3. Level of clear direction plan provides regarding future facilities and equipment (see WASC 4—p. 29)
    4. Getting plan approval by the Leadership Team and buy-in by the Board of Directors (see WASC 4—p. 29)
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. By June 2012, complete background information, including the history of the facilities and maintenance/purchasing cycles.
    2. By September 2012, develop clearly defined planning parameters, including financial constraints.
    3. By December 2012, get feedback from all stakeholders (staff, administration, board, parents, students) on recommendations, both during the formulation phase and finalization phase.
    4. By June 2013, access outside expertise via research and the inclusion of some or all of the following: non-CAJ educators and administrators, consultants, contractors, our current architect, and other qualified experts (see Finance Resource Planning 2, Facilities Resource Planning 2).
    5. By December 2013, document a cycle for replacing, remodeling, or adding facilities and equipment that support the educational program for students and account for student safety (see Finance Resource Planning 1, Finance Resource Planning 2, Facilities Resource Planning 1, Facilities Resource Planning 2, WASC D2—page 26, WASC 4—p. 29).
    6. By June 2014, get Leadership Team approval and Board of Directors buy-in of the plan, after a review of the plan by the Facilities PLC, the Facilities Focus Group, the Learning Team, and the Program A Focus Group (see WASC D2—page 26, WASC 4—p. 29).
  • Responsible Parties: Business manager*, headmaster, Facilities PLC
  • Resources: Meeting time, outside expertise via research and the inclusion of some or all of the following: non-CAJ educators and administrators, consultants, contractors, our current architect, and other qualified experts
  • Monitored by business manager, headmaster, Facilities Focus Group, the Advisory Council
  • Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and headmaster monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.6)


Retrieved from "https://caj.ac.jp/info/index.php?title=School_Improvement_Plan,_2012-2013&oldid=966"