Action Plans, 2013-2014

Overview | Process | Reports | Plan | Join in

Focus Group Reports: Student Objectives | Program | Culture | Staff | Finance | Facilities

Definition of "Action Plan"[edit]

Action Plans[edit]

Curriculum[edit]

  • 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
  • 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.
    3. By December 2013, refine scope and sequences for secondary English, secondary social studies, and other subjects as appropriate (see Content 2, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
    4. By June 2014, successfully provide middle school students and parents with standards-based reporting (online, semester report cards) for all middle school learning targets addressed in middle school courses, based on the refined alignment of middle school units in terms of learning targets and assessments.
    5. By June 2014, backward design all appropriate high school department assessments (in secondary Bible, English, social studies, and other subjects as appropriate) from senior comprehensives (see Content 2).
    6. By June 2014, 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).
    7. By June 2014, get unit maps to baseline (see Content 1, WASC Key Issue 1—p. 22).
    8. By December 2014, continued emphasis in

      differentiation

training for teachers (see Instruction 1, see WASC Key Issue 4—p. 22).

    1. 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[edit]

  • 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)

    1. 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 December 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).
    3. By March 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).

    1. By June 2014, train staff in using data.
    2. By June 2014, implement a review process for administrative policies and plans in SOPHIE (see Leadership 1).
    3. By June 2014, develop

      key performance indicators

and core data portfolios for each focus group.

    1. By June 2014, develop

      key performance indicators

for each professional learning community.

    1. By June 2014, develop and implement a SOPHIE entry that provides a

      timeline

for updating key data (see Leadership 1).

    1. 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).
    2. 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,

PHOENI</so>, new business office software, <ow>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[edit]

  • 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 EAL (ESL) strategies
  • Key Action Steps:
    1. By December 2013, integrate reading and writing into secondary standards for Bible, math, and science, and other subject areas as appropriate.
    2. By May 2014, the Leadership Team will facilitate shared faculty understanding of the connection between the EAL (ESL) admission policy regarding English language proficiency and the decisions that are made (see 2011 Program A Report—To Do 3).
    3. By June 2014, 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.
    4. By December 2014, explore student performance data related to English language proficiency (see

      profile

).

    1. By June 2015, train all teachers in English language acquisition and appropriate teachers in effective instructional strategies for language proficiency, including differentiation and EAL (ESL) strategies.
    2. By December 2015, discuss and explore options for nurturing linguistic diversity and ensuring English language proficiency through an American-style program.
    3. 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)




Resource Master Plan[edit]

  • 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. Ongoing refinements to the largely complete background information, including the

      maintenance/purchasing cycles.

    1. By December 2013, collaboratively (staff, administration, board, community) develop "need" statements. Need statements are those significant facility matters that we determine have to be changed in order to accommodate our current student population, staff and program. They also take into consideration needs of anticipated changes in enrollment or program.
    2. By December 2013, collaboratively (staff, administration, board, community) develop "want" statements. Want statements are those facility matters that CAJ desires to have changed in order to accommodate our current student population and staff as well as allow or stimulate positive changes to our program. They also take into consideration the needs of anticipated changes in enrollment or program.
    3. By June 2014, 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
    4. By December 2014, propose a cycle for replacing, remodeling, or adding facilities and equipment that support the educational program for students and account for student safety.
    5. By June 2015, get Leadership Team and Board of Directors approval 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.
  • Responsible Parties: Headmaster*, 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, 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)




Key[edit]

  • 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.