School Improvement Plan, 2012-2013
Revision as of 16:40, 14 December 2011 by Messenburg (talk | contribs) (→English Language Proficiency)
Contents
Action Plan Summary
Curriculum: Further develop an aligned curriculum that has refined scope and sequences, technology standards/learning targets across the curriculum, and unit maps that meet baseline criteria, implementing it with differentiated instruction.- Data Usage: Further use data to drive achievement of board ends and, consequently, the mission.
- English Language Proficiency: To address our changing demographics, increase students' English language proficiency (reading, writing, and vocabulary).
- Legal Status Change: Complete the change of CAJ’s legal status from zaidan houjin to gakko houjin.
- Resource Master Plan: Collaboratively develop a Resource Master Plan that documents a cycle for replacing, remodeling, or adding facilities.
To Dos
Student Objectives
- 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.
- There was limited student and parent involvement in the review of the student objectives in August-September 2011.
- There is no data from parents and the wider community on their understanding of the role of the Board.
Program
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Although the improvement process is broad-based and collaborative, it has not been fully implemented with all the stakeholders having equal levels of commitment.
- CAJ has high expectations for students but it is difficult to measure/quantify how that affects students’ self-esteem.
Staff
- The Leadership Team and staff do not make sufficient connections between the board ends and the mission, job descriptions, and school improvement plans.
- CAJ does not have a mediation process.
- SOPHIE (Standard Operating Procedures and Helpful Information Encyclopedia) entries, including job descriptions, are not consistently updated.
- 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.
- The impact of professional development on measurable student learning is not sufficiently clear.
Finance
- Not all teachers and staff have a chance to see budget worksheets or understand how the process applies to them.
- The combination of computer software being used in the Business Office is not operating efficiently yet.
- Staff salary/benefits are too low for a family where only one parent is working.
Facilities
- 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.
- 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, technology standards/learning targets across the curriculum, and unit maps that meet baseline criteria, implementing it with differentiated instruction.
- Based on Growth Areas: Student Objectives 2; Program 1, 2, 3, 6; Curriculum Technology Integration
- Student Objectives Addressed: All
- Assessment:
- Number of departments with documented alignment of the student objectives, standards, assessments/rubrics, and instructional strategies
- Number of academic departments with refined scope and sequences
- Number of academic departments that have technology integrated into their standards
- Percentage of courses in which all maps are at baseline
- Percentage of classes in which students regularly experience differentiated instruction
- Key Action Steps:
- By June 2012, integrate technology into secondary standards for Bible, English, math, science, and social studies, and other subject areas as appropriate.
- By December 2013, for each academic department document the alignment of the student objectives, standards, assessments/rubrics, and instructional strategies.
- 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.
- By June 2013, define scope and sequences for secondary English, secondary social studies, and other subjects as appropriate.
- By June 2014, backwards design all appropriate department assessments (in secondary Bible, English, social studies, and other subjects as appropriate) from senior comprehensives.
- By June 2014, get unit maps to baseline.
- By December 2014, train teachers in differentiation.
- Responsible Parties: *Principals, Learning Team, academic department PLCs
- Resources: Learning Team, Wednesday Schedule|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: Further use data to drive achievement of board ends and, consequently, the mission.
- Based on Growth Areas: Student Objectives 5; Program 5, 7, 8, 9; Culture 2; Staff 3, 5, 6; Finance 2
- Student Objectives Addressed: All
- Assessment:
- Degree to which staff use data to drive achievement of the ends
- Number of focus groups using key performance indicators and core data portfolios
- 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
- Key Action Steps:
- On an ongoing basis, Learning Team members leading meetings will model data usage and have meeting participants use data.
- By June 2012, develop and implement a SOPHIE entry that provides a timeline for updating key data.
- By June 2012, implement a review process for administrative policies and plans in SOPHIE.
- By December 2012, add PHOENIX features, including reports on student attendance and student health.
- 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.
- By June 2013, provide initial training for staff in terminology and best practices for data collection and usage.
- By June 2014, train staff in using data.
- By June 2014, develop key performance indicators and core data portfolios for each focus group.
- By November of each year, publish a profile analysis.
- 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, 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).
- Based on Growth Areas: Profile Analysis 2011-2012: demographic shift, student objectives 4, key question 1; Program 6 and 7
- Student Objectives Addressed: Effective Communicators
- Assessment:
- Student performance data over time (reading, writing, vocabulary)
- Number of academic departments that have integrated reading and writing into their standards
- Percentage of classes in which student regularly experience effective instructional strategies regarding reading, writing, and vocabulary, including differentiation and ESL strategies
- Key Action Steps:
- By June 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.
- By June 2012, integrate reading and writing into secondary standards for Bible, math, and science, and other subject areas as appropriate.
- By June 2013, assess the impact of providing ESL support in middle school English and elementary language arts, and explore providing ESL support in content course other than middle school English and elementary language arts.
- By December 2014, explore student performance data related to English language proficiency.
- By June 2015, train all teachers in English language acquisition and appropriate teachers in effective instructional strategies regarding reading, writing, and vocabulary, including differentiation and ESL strategies.
- By December 2015, discuss how we can strike a better balance between nurturing linguistic diversity and ensuring English language proficiency through an American-style program.
- 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.
- Based on Growth Areas: Student Objectives 1
- Student Objectives Addressed: All (indirectly)
- Assessment:
- Compliance with directives from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
- Getting approved as a gakko houjin
- Key Action Steps:
- By November 2012, establish a cash reserve that is equal to 25% of the annual budget.
- 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.
- 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 documents a cycle for replacing, remodeling, or adding facilities.
- Based on Growth Areas: Finance 3, Facilities 1
- Student Objectives Addressed: All (indirectly)
- Assessment:
- Level of compliance with planning parameters
- Level of stakeholder involvement
- Getting the plan approved by the Leadership Team and Board of Directors
- Key Action Steps:
- By March 2012, develop clearly defined planning parameters, including financial constraints.
- By June 2012, complete background information, including the history of the facilities and maintenance/purchasing cycles.
- By December 2012, get feedback from all stakeholders (staff, administration, board, parents, students on recommendations, both during the formulation phase and finalization phase.
- By December 2012, 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.
- By May 2013, document a cycle for replacing, remodeling, or adding facilities.
- By June 2013, get Leadership Team and Board of Directors approval of the plan, after a review of the plan by the Facilities PLC and the Facilities Focus group.
- 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)
