Action Plans, 2014-2015

Overview | Process | Reports | Plan | Join in

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).

• Based on Growth Areas: Student Objectives 2; Program 1, 2, 3, 6; Curriculum Technology Integration; WASC 2—p. 29

• Linked to Report Sections: Content 1, Content 2, Assessment 2, Instruction 1, WASC B Key Issues 1 and 4—p. 22

• 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. On an ongoing basis, provide training in technology integration and differentiation (see Instruction 1, see WASC Key Issue 4—p. 22).
  3. By June 2015, for each academic department, using the Understanding by Design framework, to document and implement the alignment of the student objectives, standards, assessments/rubrics, instructional strategies, and technology resources (see Assessment 2 and WASC 2—p. 29).
  4. By June 2015, backwards design all appropriate department assessments (in secondary Bible, English, social studies, and other subjects as appropriate) from senior comprehensives (see Content 2).
  5. By June 2015, get unit maps (middle school, courses with new to teachers in SY 13/14) to baseline (see Content 1, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
  6. By June 2015, document a curriculum for K-12 health/guidance (inclusive of technology behaviors), composed of administrative maps and baseline curriculum maps, a scope and sequence chart, and a plan for providing instructional strategies.
  7. 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 head of school monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.2 and 2.4)

back to top

---

Data Usage

• Action Plan: Systematically 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; WASC 1 and 3—p. 29

• Linked to Report Sections: Assessment 3, Staff 5, WASC A4—p. 14, WASC B2—p. 19, WASC B3—p. 20-21

• 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 September 2014, implement a review process for administrative policies and plans in SOPHIE (see Leadership 1).
  3. By September 2014, the Learning Team will assess progress made on further aligning the Professional Development Plan with ends (including the student objectives), instructional supervision data, and assessment data; and identification of strategies for implementation (see Staff 5, WASC A4—p. 14, WASC 1—p. 29).
  4. By December 2014, 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 selected PLCs, the high school division, and individual teachers (see Assessment 3).
  5. By June 2015, continue training staff in using data.
  6. By June 2015, each focus group uses key performance indicators.
  7. By June 2015, professional learning communities, as appropriate, develop and use key performance indicators.
  8. 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).

• Responsible Parties: Head of school*, Technology PLC, Learning Team

• Resources: Technology PLC, Learning Team, PLC meetings, data trainers, PHOENI</so>, new business office software, <ow>profile data, Rubicon Atlas data, SOPHIE, Easy Grade Pro data

• Monitored by the head of school, Technology PLC, Learning Team, Student Objectives Focus Group, Staff Focus Group, and the Advisory Council

• Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and head of school monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.0)

back to top

---

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 Objective Focus Group: growth area 10

• Linked to Report Sections: Student Objectives 10
• Student Objectives Addressed: Effective Communicators

• 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 EAL (ESL) strategies

• Key Action Steps:
  1. By December 2014, integrate reading and writing into secondary standards for high school Bible and other K-12 subject areas as appropriate, integrate writing into middle school standards for math, and integrate reading secondary standards for science.
  2. By Dec 2014, use a task force to assess our EAL (ESL) program including the impact of providing EAL (ESL) support in middle school English and elementary language arts, and explore providing EAL (ESL) support in content courses other than middle school English and elementary language arts.
  3. By December 2014, explore student performance data related to English language proficiency (see profile).
  4. By June 2015, provide additional training for all teachers in English language acquisition and appropriate teachers in effective instructional strategies for language proficiency, including differentiation and EAL (ESL) strategies.
  5. By December 2015, use a task force to discuss and explore options for nurturing linguistic diversity and ensuring English language proficiency through an American-style program.
  6. By June 2016, appropriate academic department PLCs will set goals, implement strategies, and assess progress towards 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 head of school monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.1 and 1.3)

back to top

---

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.

• Based on Growth Areas: Finance 3, Facilities 1, WASC 4—p. 29

• Linked to Report Sections: Finance Resource Planning 1, Finance Resource Planning 2, Facilities Resource Planning 1, Facilities Resource Planning 2, WASC D2—p. 26

• 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. Ongoing refinements to the largely complete background information, including the maintenance/purchasing cycles.
  2. By May 2015, present a master resource plan to the board that reflects staff and leadership team input, assessment of the current situation, projections for enrollment and revenue, integrates child safety best practices, and is realistic in scope and ambitions. With a change of leadership in July 2015, the plan will propose options for consideration rather than a specific building agenda.
  3. By June 2015, propose a cycle for regularly assessing the plan, and request the addition of an executive limitation to ensure annual reporting to the board about the resource plan.

• Responsible Parties: Head of school*, business manager, 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, head of school, Facilities Focus Group, the Advisory Council

• Progress Report(s): Annual report to all stakeholders and head of school monitoring report to the Board of Directors (Board Policy 1.6)

back to top

---

Key

• Responsible Parties: The asterisk by the name indicates the party primarily responsible.
• Red text indicates a task related to a major critical area for follow up from the 2012 WASC Visiting Committee Report.
• Purple text indicates professional development activities.