Humboldt County School District Improvement Plan 2006-07

District Improvement Plan Acronyms

AYP – Adequate Yearly Progress

CRT – Criterion Reference Test

DIP – District Improvement Plan

ELA – English Language Arts

ESL – English as a Second Language

FTE – Full Time Equivalent

IEP – Individual Education Plan

ITBS – Iowa Test of Basic Skills

ITED – Iowa Test of Educational Diagnostics

LEP – Limited English Proficient

NCLB – No Child Left Behind

NNRPDP – Northeast Nevada Regional Professional Development Program

NREA – Nevada Reading Excellence Act

PLC – Professional Learning Communities

RIF – Reduction in Force

School District Improvement Plan (Revised): 2006-07

Name of School District: Humboldt County School District

Address: 310 East Fourth Street, Winnemucca, NV 89445 

Phone: (775) 623-8100

Superintendent: Dr. Del Jarman

Board of Trustees:  John Falen (President), Linda Schrempp, Jerry Pfarr, Dr. Rolfe Schwartz, Andrew Hillyer, John Seeliger and Barbara Moss.

School District Improvement (SDI) Team Members

Michael Bumgartner (Asst. Supt.)                     David Jensen (Associate Superintendent)          Heather Johnson (Principal)                                    Ray Parks (Asst. Principal)

John Moddrell (Principal)                                  Jonathan Gibson (Teacher, ESL)

Kraig Lords (Dir. Special Education)                                                               

HCSD Adequate Yearly Progress Designation by School Level and Content Area

School Level	Adequate		On “Watch List”		In “Needs Improvement”
	English/LA	Math	English/LA	Math	English/LA	Math
Elementary
Middle						ü
High					ü (Hold)	ü (Hold)
District Designation            Adequate

Part I Needs Assessment

Data Reviewed. The District Improvement Plan Team reviewed the HCSD’s School District Accountability Reports for 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-2005, and 2005-06. In addition, the District Improvement Plan Team reviewed:

·        Longitudinal test results of student achievement from state assessments, disaggregated by appropriate subgroups, including state Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT), Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED), Nevada High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE), and Nevada Writing Assessment.

·        2005-06 District Board Goals

·        District wide professional development activities

·        All data are available at the district office for review.

Results from Data Analysis

Student and School District Demographics

Strengths

·        Throughout the district, 98.1% of teachers teaching core subjects are “Highly Qualified.” District wide. All new hires currently meet Highly Qualified requirements.

·        All 185 classrooms are equipped with internet access.

·        District Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is 98 %. (Jackie).

·        Transiency rate is 19.5% compared to the state average of 35.5%.

·        IEP rate is 6.2% compared to the state average of 11.1%.

·        LEP rate is 10.3% compared to the state average of 15.5%.

·        Free and Reduced lunch rate is 29.4% compared to the state average of 41.5%.

·        Drop out rate is 4.6% compared to the state rate of 5.7%.

·        Hispanic drop out rates have decreased to 5.4% district-wide.

Concerns

·        The percent of students identified as LEP or Migrant is growing in our remote rural schools.  This creates a concern for meeting the learning needs of this special population. The average percent of LEP/Migrant eligible students in our rural schools is 15%, versus overall district figures of 1.4%.

·        Transiency rate in the rural schools is a strong concern. It ranges from 22% to 43% at depending on school.

·        The percent of HCSD students enrolled in remedial courses in Nevada universities and colleges was at 40.8% as assessed during the fall of 2005. This reflects a decrease of 1% from previous figures.

·        Rising Free and Reduced lunch population rates are also a concern. They range from 51.4% to 90% in the rural schools.

·        Migrant population is 1.1% compared to the state average of .1%.

·        Data reflects that 41.3% of the district’s Hispanic students are not graduating.

·        Retention rates in grades one through six exceed the state average.

·        High School students that are credit deficient exceed the state average.

Student Achievement

Strengths.

·        The majority of non-proficient students in both ELA and Math are approaching standards. In 2005-06, 5% of K-8 students were in the Emergent/Developing Range in Reading, 3% in Writing, 6% in Math, and 5% in Science. These numbers are less than half those for the state averages.

·        In district high schools, 1% of tested students were in the Emergent/Developing range in Reading, 1% in writing, and 4% in Math.

·        By 12^th grade, HCSD has seen a reduction to 0% of credit deficient students, as compared to 12.7% in 10^th and 5.2% in 11^th grade.

·        District wide, the student to teacher ratio is 19 to 1.

·        Parents at the elementary level have taken an active role in attending Parent Teacher conferences, with an average attendance rate of 99%.

·        Total graduation rate is 74.8% which exceeds the state average of 64.9%.

·        Hispanic graduation rate is 75% compared to the state average of 50.7%.

·        Paradise Valley Elementary School was designated High-Achieving.

·        Winnemucca Grammar and Sonoma Heights Elementary were designated as High Achieving.

English Language Arts

·        The majority of non-proficient students on the 3^rd and 5^th grade reading CRTs as well as the 5^th and 8^th grade writing tests approach “meeting standards.”

Mathematics

·        The majority of non-proficient students on the 3^rd, 5^th and 8^th grade math CRTs approach “meeting standards.”

Areas of Concern

English Language Arts

·        IEP and LEP sub-populations had low percentages of students scoring at a proficient level on the 5^th grade writing test, 3^rd grade reading CRT, 5^th Grade Math CRT, and 5^th grade reading CRT.8^th Grade IEP passing rates were low.

·        IEP and LEP sub-populations had low percentages of students scoring above the 50^th percentile on the reading and language portions of the 4^th grade ITBS.

·        LEP sub-population has a low percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on the 3^rd and 5^th grade math CRT.

·        IEP sub-population had a low percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on the 3^rd and 5^th grade math CRT.

·        IEP and LEP sub-population had a low percentage of students scoring above the 50^th percentile on the math portion of the 4^th grade ITBS.

·        IEP and LEP sub-population had a low percentage of students scoring above the 50^th percentile on the math portion of the 7^th grade ITBS.

·        IEP sub-population had a low percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on the math HSPE.

·        LEP subpopulation did not make AMAO (Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives) for 2005-2006.

·        IEP population in 8^th grade did not make AYP in Math or ELA.

Curriculum and Instruction

Strengths

·        All teachers have internet access to support curriculum instruction in the classroom.

·        Elementary Schools have a designated math specialist for math content coaching in order to increase proficiency in math.

·        The district has pursued an active curriculum adoption, as well as district wide curriculum guidelines.

·        The district is in the process of implementing Professional Learning Communities district wide. The primary premise of PLC’s is to ensure that no student fails, with immediate intervention provided to students requiring assistance.

·        Winnemucca Junior High has implemented four common assessments in all content areas to drive standards-based instruction.

·        HCSD has implemented a new teacher evaluation system that focuses on best instructional strategies.

·        Winnemucca Junior High offers Algebra I for high school credit.

·        SB 404 grants provide literacy specialists and Response to Intervention in elementary schools.

·        SB 404 provides a “student at risk” youth coordinator for the district.

·        Humboldt County secondary schools offer an Alternative Education program to help meet the needs of at risk students.

·        HCSD has initiated a new teacher mentoring program, utilizing grant funding.

·        The district is in the process of implementing Instructional Consultation (IC) Teams district wide.  As a companion to PLC's, IC teams work toward the implementation of research based instructional techniques for all exceptional students.  IC Teams are also the avenue that is used to implement a response to intervention (RTI) model for the identification of students with learning disabilities.

Concerns

·        As the district implements PLC’s, the availability of funds to provide training is required.

·        Creative opportunities for grade level and departmental meetings need to be provided.

·        The development of common assessment is needed district wide to track student academic progress in all grades.

·        Special Education students still need to spend more time in regular education classes.

·        Opportunities for staff to meet in grade or departmental meetings are limited, reducing the amount of departmental dialogue.

·        There is need for more instructional ESL aides in rural schools.

·        Lack of ESL aide time in ALL schools is a rising concern.

·        The bell schedule at Lowry High School seems to be a concern. A high percentage of staff feel that it is not optimal for student achievement.

·        Curricular transition between school levels needs to be more closely aligned to meet the needs of students.

Parent and Community Involvement

Strengths

·        Board goals have listed 100% parent teacher conferencing at the elementary level as an objective. In addition, parent teacher conferences have been extended to 20-minute meetings twice a year and now include the 5^th & 6^th grades.  Current figures indicate that 99% of parents attended conferences at the elementary level during the 2005-2006 school-year.

·        Parent utilization of Powerschool in significantly increasing.

·        Attendance at extra curricular events is very high.

·        Much of parent communication is sent home in two languages.

·        The district is currently working on implementing School Messenger Communication System.

Concerns

·        Parent Involvement tends to decrease in higher grade levels.

·        Parents currently have very little access to student assignment, attendance and grade information on a daily basis.

·        Information to parents needs to be provided in both Spanish and English.

Learning Environment

Strengths

·        Safety in schools is very high.

·        Research based teacher practices are enhanced through professional development.

·        The district is becoming more proficient in using the RTI to meet the needs of students.

Concerns

·        Students previously identified as LEP are de-certified from the program upon meeting stated objectives. Despite meeting the objectives, many of these students continue to demonstrate a need for academic interventions.

·        Communication between transitional periods (elementary to middle, middle to junior high, junior high to high school) is limited. Increased communication could facilitate identification and intervention for students.

Professional Development

Strengths

·        The Winnemucca Junior High school has maintained a lead in the introduction of Professional Learning Communities. However, all schools, except Lowry High, were provided training in PLCs in the 2005-2006 school-year. Lowry High begins training in 2006-2007.

·        The elementary schools are currently establishing continued training dates for PLC introduction during the 06-07 school-year.

·        Regional NNRPDP site facilitators are providing support for teachers on an ongoing and as needed basis.

·        A formal teacher mentoring program has been put in place.

·        The district has provided intensive IC Team training to develop a cadre of IC Team facilitators throughout the district.

Concerns

·        The school district does not collect a complete list of professional development activities across schools. However, this will be an area of focus for the 2006-2007 school-year.

·        Many professional development activities are “one shot” activities. As a result, follow-through is limited.

·        Throughout the years, HCSD has investigated and implemented a variety of programs. As a result of limited follow-through, it is felt that many of these have not been effectively implemented.

·        Dependence on grant funding for Professional Development activities limits the level of exposure available throughout the district.

·        There has been a lack of direction for implementing district wide common planning time for teachers, data driven decision making training, and common assessment planning.

Priority Needs

The District Improvement Team identified three priority need areas for 2006-07:

·        English Language Arts: At the middle and junior high school levels, the district did not make AYP in ELA. Concerns were greatest amongst the IEP population.

·        Math:  The District, at the middle school level, did not make AYP in math. At the middle school level, students in the IEP and LEP populations demonstrated the greatest concern.

·        Professional Development:  In light of NCLB and AYP requirements, the PLC model and the RTI model create a student centered learning environment. The District Improvement Plan committee believes that this model should be directed as a district model, rather than simply at individual site discretion. With the focus placed on Professional Learning Communities, a plan should be developed to secure a systemic process for data driven decision making. Training in common assessment, standards-based instruction, data driven decision making, and strategies for differentiating instruction must be a focus on a district wide basis.

Part II: Inquiry Process

The District Improvement Team investigated the reasons for the priority needs and selected the most appropriate research-based strategies to address them. Table 1 shows the verified explanations for low student performance in reading/language arts and math. Additionally, reasons as outlined for staffing and PD are also addressed.

Table 1. Explanations of Priority Needs

Priority Need	Reasons include:
Reading/ language arts	·        Some secondary teachers do not believe that teaching reading and language arts is part of their job. ·        Remediation is not integrated into the regular school day. ·        Professional Development is not on-going, job-embedded, sustained, nor based on data. ·        IEP and LEP students often lack exposure to grade level standards based on current pull out strategies.
Mathematics	·        LEP students require general language acquisition which limits the opportunity to address math skills. Many teachers have not yet acquired the necessary skills to address these needs. ·        Math remediation is targeted primarily at the middle and junior high school levels. Some remediation is provided at the elementary level as part of the after school and summer school programs, although participation has been limited.
Professional Development	·         Increased needs in IEP and LEP population require specific PD activities for all staff. ·        Previous trainings have been “shot gun” models, with little to no follow-up. ·        The district has introduced a number of programs throughout the years. Long term follow-through has been limited and left to individual sites. ·        The district must commit long term financial resources for the development of a consistent and effective professional development program. ·        Teacher leadership must be developed district wide and in individual schools. ·        The district will implement teacher leadership cadres, in order to develop leadership capacity.

The District Improvement Team investigated possible solutions to the priority needs and their underlying reasons. Table 2 presents the solutions selected by the District Improvement Team. 

Table 2. Solutions Selected to Address Priority Need

Priority Need	Selected Solutions
Reading/ Language arts	A.     All schools will implement effective instructional strategies based on the Professional Learning Communities model, the Instructional Consultation Model, and other research based professional development programs. B.     Adopt research-based standards of effective teaching. C.     Revise formative aspects of teacher evaluation process based on standards of effective teaching for continuous professional growth and instructional improvement. D.     Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction using alternative ways of utilizing instructional time during the regularly scheduled school day.
Mathematics	A.     Provide on-going and sustained professional development to strengthen teacher knowledge and abilities in geometry, algebra, functions, and problem solving. B.     Schools will ensure that teachers receive professional development in innovative and instructional strategies and in the adopted curriculum for geometry, algebra, functions, and problem solving. C.     All schools will provide math instruction every day, for each student in K-12 or until students reach proficiency. D.     Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction. E.      The district is using the mclass assessment as part of the IC Team to assist in the identification of progress for students with math deficits.
Professional Development	A.   The PLC model and the RTI model, are research based models which effectively address requirements associated with NCLB and AYP. B.  The district has been exposed to the PLC model, with pilot programs in progress. As the district takes a proactive role in providing high quality and ongoing PD, PLCs will be utilized at all levels. C. Provide common planning time for teacher teams in all schools. D. Provide common planning time for teacher leadership cadres, grade level teams in grades K-6, and secondary school department cadres in grades 7-12. E. Provide training in data driven decision making in team settings. F. Provide a system for district wide and site level common assessment which focuses on achievement of prioritized standards and objectives. G. Professional development activities must be on-going, sustained, job embedded, and support the goals of the school and district improvement plan.   H. Further training for administrators, secretaries and counselors, especially those new to the position, in Powerschool.

Part III: Action Plan and Evaluation

This section presents the action plans to implement the strategies for the priority needs, the goals to evaluate success, and the plan to monitor plan implementation.  

Action Plan.

Table 3A presents the action plans for how the school district will implement the strategies for reading/language arts and mathematics. 

Goals.

Reading/Language Arts.

A.     Achievement Level: State AYP calculations. HCSD students will improve their achievement in reading and language arts as shown by the percent of students proficient on State AYP calculations. The table below shows the percent of all students proficient (including the confidence interval) based on statewide 2005-06 AYP calculations for English/Language arts, by school level. At the end of the first year of the improvement plan, all students and subgroups enrolled on or before count day are expected to reach or exceed the state benchmarks for the respective school levels, as shown below.

School Level	HCSD 2005-06 AYP Percent Proficient in ELA			State Benchmarks 2006-07
	Percent  above Cut Score	Confidence Interval	Total Proficient
Elementary School	62.26%	2.5%	64.76%	39.6%
Middle School	64.19%	3.5%	67.69%	47.5%
High School	91.0%	3.2%	94.2%	77.9%

Mathematics.

A.     Achievement Level: State AYP calculations. HCSD students will improve their achievement in mathematics as shown on State AYP calculations. The table below shows the percent of all students proficient (including the confidence interval) based on statewide 2005-06 AYP calculations for mathematics, by school level. At the end of the first year of the improvement plan, all students and subgroups enrolled on or before count day are expected to reach or exceed the state benchmarks for the respective school levels, as shown below.

School Level	HCSD 2005-06 AYP Percent Proficient in Math			State Benchmarks 2006-07
	Percent  above Cut Score	Confidence Interval	Total Proficient
Elementary School	62.83%	2.5%	65.33%	45.4%
Middle School	59.29%	3.6%	62.89%	43.3%
High School	76.0%	4.8%	80.8%	52.3%

Monitoring Plan.

Tables 4A through 4D present the plan to monitor the implementation of the Action Plan. To monitor implementation, each subcommittee collected information on whether the action steps were completed, and/or whether the action steps were successful.

Table 4A. Action Plan for English/Language Arts

Goal Statement: Students will improve their performance in reading and language arts.

Strategy/Action Steps		Timeline	Resources	Person(s) Responsible
	1.     Adopt research-based standards of effective teaching. ·       Investigate and select research-based standards of effective teaching. ·       Collaborate to identify best strategies. ·       Provide support to implement research-based standards of effective teaching.	·         ongoing ·         ongoing ·         2006-07 and on going	·         $300 ·         $1000 ·         None	·         Assistant Superintendent and Site Administrators
	2.    Revise formative aspects of teacher evaluation process        based on standards of effective teaching for continuous        professional growth and instructional improvement. ·         Implement the Charlotte Danielson Teacher Evaluation Process in every school. ·         Provide training for all administrators ·         Work collaboratively with teachers to effectively implement the new system.	·         2006-07 ·         2006-07 ·         Fall 2006 ·         Fall 2006 Ongoing	·         None	·         Assistant Superintendent ·         Principals and site administrators ·         Evaluation steering committee
	2.    Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction using alternative ways of utilizing instructional time during the regularly scheduled school day, after school and summer school programs ·         Analyze current school practices and develop alternative schedules for remediation. ·         Schools will determine criteria to identify low achieving students, using State scores and site based assessments, as applicable. ·         Implement targeted remediation.	·         Ongoing ·         Ongoing ·         Ongoing	·         No resources ·         No resources ·         District	·         Principals ·         Principals   ·         Principals and Associate Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent
	3.    LEP and IEP students will spend increased time in the regular         education classroom increasing exposure to grade level standards. ·         Review and address the provision of services to special education students. ·         Review and address the provision of services to LEP students.	·         Ongoing ·         Ongoing	·         No resources ·         No resources	·         Associate Superintendent ·         Associate Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent

Table 4B. Action Plan for mathematics

Goal Statement: Students will improve their performance in mathematics

Solution/Activity		Timeline	Resources	Person(s) Responsible
	1.       Provide on-going and sustained professional development to strengthen teacher knowledge and abilities in algebra, functions and problem solving. ·         Provide in-service on geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving standards.	·         January 2005 – June 2007	·         District	·         Assistant  Superintendent and Principals
	2.      Schools will ensure that teachers receive professional development in: ·         innovative strategies geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving, ·         instructional strategies geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving, and ·         adopted curriculum in geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving.	·         August 2005 – June 2007	·         District ·         NDE Consultants	·         Assistant  Superintendent and Principals
	3. All schools will provide math instruction every day, for     each student in K-12 or until students reach proficiency.	·         Ongoing	·         Prioritize Master Schedule to reflect need for more math instruction at each site.	·         Principals
	4.  Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction based on student need. ·      Schools will determine criteria to identify low achieving students, using State scores and site based assessments, as applicable. ·      Schools will develop plans to provide specific, targeted remediation to non-proficient students.	·         Ongoing ·         Ongoing	·         No Resources ·         Individual school	·         Principals and NCLB Specialist ·         Principals and NCLB Specialist

Table 4D. Action Plan for Professional Development

Goal Statement: Staff will be better prepared to assist students in meeting the academic challenges of all students.

Solution/Activity		Timeline	Resources	Person(s) Responsible
	1.       The PLC model is a research based model which effectively addresses requirements associated with NCLB and AYP. 2.       The district has been exposed to the PLC model, with pilot programs in progress. As the district takes a proactive role in providing high quality and ongoing PD, PLCs will be utilized at all levels. 3.       Provide common planning time for teacher teams in all schools. 4.       Provide common planning time for teacher leadership cadres, grade level teams in grades K-6, and secondary school department cadres in grades 7-12. 5.        Provide training in data driven decision making in team settings. 6.        Provide a system for district wide and site level common assessment which focuses on achievement of prioritized standards and objectives. 7.       Professional development programs will be submitted to the district for review. Professional development activities must be on-going, job-embedded, and support the goals of the school improvement plan. 8.       The district will provide continued professional development for the improved implementation of the IC Team Model as an avenue to meet the new Federal requirement for the use of RTI in the identification of students with learning disabilities.	·         October 2006 and ongoing ·         October 2006 and ongoing ·         Spring 2006 and ongoing ·         Fall 2006 and ongoing	·         District and Title II ·         Title II ·         District and Title II ·         No resources	·         Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent and Associate Superintendent ·         Site Administrators

Table 4A. Monitoring Plan for English/Language Arts

Strategy/Action Steps	Data to collect	When to collect	Person responsible
1.     Adopt research-based standards of effective teaching. ·         Investigate and select research-based standards of effective teaching. ·         Disseminate standards of effective teaching. ·         Provide support to implement research-based standards of effective teaching.	·         Standards ·         Standards ·         Observation/        Assessment tool	·         April 2006 and ongoing ·         August 2006 ·         Ongoing	·         Assistant Superintendent and RPDP ·         Assistant Superintendent and RPDP ·         RPDP
2.    Revise formative aspects of teacher evaluation process        based on standards of effective teaching for continuous        professional growth and instructional improvement. ·         Implement the Charlotte Danielson Teacher Evaluation Process in every school. ·         Provide training for all administrators ·         Work collaboratively with teachers to effectively implement the new system.	·         Percent of certified staff at school site evaluated using the new system	·         April 2007 ·         April 2007	·         Assistant Superintendent ·         Principals and site administrators ·         Evaluation steering committee
3.    Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction using alternative methods of utilizing instructional time during the regularly scheduled school day, after school and summer school programs ·         Analyze current school practices and develop alternative schedules for remediation. ·         Schools will determine criteria to identify low achieving students, using State scores and site based assessments, as applicable. ·         Implement targeted remediation.	·         Schedules for remediation ·         Criteria to identify eligible students ·         Student roster	·         August 2007 ·         August 2007 ·         June 2007	·         Principals ·         Principals and Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent ·         Principals and Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent
3.    LEP and IEP students will spend additional time in the regular education classroom increasing exposure to grade level standards. ·         Review and address the provision of services to special education students. ·         Review and address the provision of services to LEP students.	·         IEP and LEP documentation ·         LEP Data Base	·         March 2006 ·         June 2006	·         Director Special Education and Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent ·         Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent

 

Table 4B. Monitoring Plan for mathematics

Strategy/Action Steps	Data to collect	When to collect	Person responsible
1. The PLC model, and the IC Team Model are research based models which effectively address requirements associated with NCLB and AYP	·         Effectiveness Survey	·         After workshops ·         1 month post training	·         Assistant Superintendent ·         Principals
2.      Schools will ensure that teachers receive professional development in ·         innovative strategies geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving, ·         instructional strategies geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving, and ·         Adopted curriculum in geometry/algebra/functions/problem solving.	·         Attendance list and agenda ·         Effectiveness Survey	·         After workshops ·         1 month post training	·         Assistant Superintendent and Principals ·         Principals
3. All schools will provide math instruction every day, for    each student in k12 or until students reach proficiency.	·         Master Schedules form each school	·         January 2007	·         Assistant Superintendent
4.  Provide low achieving students with specific targeted remedial instruction based on student need. ·      Schools will determine criteria to identify low achieving students, using State scores and site based assessments, as applicable. ·      Schools will develop plans to provide specific, targeted remediation to non-proficient students.	·         Criteria to identify eligible students ·         Schedules for remediation	·         August 2006 ·         August 2006	·         Principals ·         Principals

Table 4D. Monitoring Plan for Professional Development

Strategy/Action Steps	Data to collect	When to collect	Person responsible
1. The PLC model, and IC Team Model, are research based models which effectively addresses requirements associated with NCLB and AYP. 2. The district has been exposed to the PLC model, with pilot programs in progress. As the district takes a proactive role in providing high quality and ongoing PD, PLCs will be utilized at all levels. 3. Provide common planning time for teacher teams in all schools. 4. Provide common planning time for teacher leadership cadres, grade level teams in grades K-6, and secondary school department cadres in grades 7-12. 5. Provide training in data driven decision making in team settings. 6. Provide a system for district wide and site level common assessment which focuses on achievement of prioritized standards and objectives. 7. Professional development programs will be submitted to the district for review. Professional development activities must be on-going, job-embedded, and support the goals of the school improvement plan.	·         Percentage of staff actively participating in PLCs. ·         Same ·         Master Schedule for each school site ·         District Meeting Schedules, Agendas and Minutes ·         Professional Development Calendar ·         Pre and Post Assessment Data at each school site ·         Request Forms	·         May 2007 ·         May 2007 ·         September 2006 and May 2007 ·         All Year ·         Monthly ·         September and May ·         Ongoing	·         Assistant Superintendent, Director of Federal Programs, RPDP ·         Assistant Superintendent, Director of Federal Programs, RPDP ·         Principals ·         Principals, Assistant Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent ·         Assistant Superintendent, Principals, trainers ·         Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent ·         Principals

Other Required Elements of a School District Improvement Plan.

Resources Available to the School District to Implement Plan.

The school district will use funds from the resources below to fund the school district improvement plan activities.

Funding Source	Amount	How funds are used
General Fund	As Needed	Staffing, Professional Development
Title II	$28,000	PLC Professional Development activities
SB 404	1.3 Million	Position funding, professional development, extended day and year.

Summary of Effectiveness of Legislative appropriations.

Class Size Reduction.

The allocation for state CSR funds are utilized to reduce class sized in grade 1, 2, and 3. During the 2005-06 school year, HCSD received $943,244.00. The overall reduction in student to teacher ratio allows for greater individualized attention that would not be available should class sizes be increased.

HCSD has found that the CSR allocation has not met our fiscal need. In previous years, the district has covered up to a $50,000 deficit in CSR. During the 2005-06 fiscal school year, we are anticipating a shortfall of approximately $9,000.

ECECP.

Funds allocated for the support of our Pre-Kindergarten program continue to have a tremendous impact academically on students who have attended. During the 2005-2006 school year, services were being provided to 40 students. Funds ($178,500) provide staffing and general supplies for the provision of services.

In past years, HCSD had benefited from a dual program, Even Start and Pre-K. During the last biennium, our funds were significantly reduced. At that time, the ESL and parenting components provided through Even Start were terminated, with funds allowing for only the Pre-K services. This has had a negative impact on our ability to impact the education of our large Hispanic community.

Additionally, funds are only sufficient to provide one Pre-K program in HCSD. Should funds be allocated for this vital program, services would be provided to Pre-K eligible students in the other elementary schools located within the district.

SB 404

Humboldt County School District received funds in excess of 1.3 million dollars through the SB 404 grant process. This program affected all schools in our district, except one school. Funds are being used to expand innovative programs and are having a noted impact. However, the time frame for complete data collection may be limited as a result of the time frames in which funds were released.

In addition, the format for the application, 2/3 year one, 1/3 year two, created a significant difficulty for schools to comprehend and process. As a result, it created a great deal of work for the schools, district and, I’m sure, NDE to review, approve and track. I would suggest that should SB 404 funds be made available again, the award is given as a complete funding cycle award, rather than breaking it into years.

Full Day Kindergarten

Humboldt County School District received in excess of $150,000 dollars for the support of FDK for qualifying schools. Funds were used to purchase two portables, one for WGS and one of McD, to accommodate that ability to provide this service. Remaining funds were utilized for basic supplies and equipment for the new programs. As a result of this opportunity, an additional 3 FTE teachers are scheduled to be introduced during the 2006-2007 school year.

This program will provide tremendous benefit. The only recommendation relative to this funding would be to expand it such that all kindergarten students could benefit from a full day program. Research supports the long term positive effect of such programs.