CASD’s Strategic Plan: Part II

As we noted in yesterday's article, the strategic planning committee did not actually get to see the strategic plan at any time during their planning meetings, and only received the draft the day prior to the start of the public review period. Members of the committee got together to review the document and highlight concerns or comments that were submitted to Rita Perez and the board by Liz Muirhead during the public review period. In addition, another community member who did not participate in the sessions also provided feedback on the strategic plan. Her comments and a link to her open letter about the plan are provided below.

It is the team’s recommendation that the board not approve this plan.  Meaningful inaccuracies should be corrected before signing - especially as during signing, the board president indicates that the document is accurate. In addition, we noted that the plan does not reflect the input of the committee, and shared that several sections of the document were updated and not identified during the board presentation as updated pages. In fact, some of these sections that were supposedly not updated showed more changes than other sections that were scheduled to be updated. Finally, even in content that was accurate, the lack of detail and HOW the district does or seeks to accomplish the objectives is concerning.  

We debated how best to share our feedback on the plan with the public. Although the number of comments we submitted on the plan were significant (117 in total) we wanted to share as many of them as possible, along with thoughts from the other community member who provided feedback on the plan through the process. Note that color coding in the headers aligns to the graphic below. If you have questions about the plan or the concerns we highlight below, please share your thoughts in the comment section.

Section	Inaccurate  or questionable Content
Planning Process (pg 2)	“The information from the meeting with community and business partners was incorporated into the district plan.”  As many of us went through this draft of the CP, it was unclear that information from our meetings were incorporated into the plan. The meetings did not identify priorities, and possible solutions or actions identified in the meetings are not detailed in the explanations.
Shared Values (pg 3)	We discussed these at strategic planning and were told there were not up for revision. However, there was concern that we are not effectively living into these values. Specifically, the idea that we set and uphold high expectations for students was not universally agreed to by participants. There was also concern that we have a significant number of students not reading on grade level by grade 3, and far beyond, including students in high school who are reading at a grade 3 level.
Educational Community (pg 4-5)	This section typically provides demographic and contextual information on a district that provides a helpful backdrop from which to understand the challenges and strengths of the students and educational community. This section of the CASD plan read like a marketing piece and lacked some of the typical statistical data included in other plans. This section was not slated for review and these pages were not identified in the board presentation as having been updated. However, it was materially changed from the 2016 version. Educates over 6,000 students (4):  The figure at the end of the 2018 school year was less than 6,000 students. The most recent figure was 5640, as of 2/28/2019 “Hands on science instruction with Foss Science from the university of CA, Berkley” (pg4):  Many of us were unaware of this instruction taking place; so as we looked into this further we realized that, though the FOSS Modules were a great concept we found that many teachers had to pay for additional science resources and apply for grants to obtain science materials/units. As we reached out to more teachers we also realized the district hadn’t replaced the kits for some time.  Seeing that the district doesn’t even pay for these supplies it seem misleading to boast about this “Hands on science instruction.” Elementary Students enjoy a number of afterschool opportunities.   (4):  Better to describe these as extracurricular, as some of them take place during the confines of the normal school day either during homeroom or through meetings that students are excused from educational courses to attend. Three years of world language (4):  We should be clear that world language is currently limited to Spanish. Art, Chorus, Orchestra, Band, Family and Consumer Science, and health and physical education.   (4):  The items listed are electives, but are presented as courses all students take. In fact, it's impossible for students to take all of these courses even if they want to. Please represent these as electives. Advanced placement honor roll (4): This honor was last bestowed in 2015. Either cite the year or eliminate the reference. Opportunities with prominent ALS researchers (4):  This is an example of something that was updated in this document from its prior version, as this opportunity did not exist when the document was last updated - this course was first offered in 2018. Boasts acceptance to institutions of higher learning (5):  In the prior draft, this was limited to a time period of the past three years. How many years back are we going to cite these school references? Yale, Harvard and Cornell (and Princeton, not listed) were 5 years ago and under a prior plan and leadership team. It is recommend we highlight acceptances from the period since the report was last updated only (past three years, like the prior plan), or at least only under the current administration, and emphasize the schools that typically have the highest academic acceptances in the student body. Top 100 schools for SAT performance (5):  Again, this is another change to the document from its prior version. The March 2019 article by Philadelphia business journal about the "top 100 schools" listed only 97 schools total, and numbers 59-97 had SAT scores that fell below the national average. We are ranked #482 out of #583 in the state. This attempts to characterize the school as having remarkable SAT scores when they fall below the national average and in the bottom quintile in the state. We believe the district should eliminate this reference. S.P.I.R.I.T. - Student led and student run problem solving leadership team (5):  This is misleading. This program is run by administrators and supported and implemented by student leaders. Students give input and participate, but are not the ones leading, running, or making decisions about the areas of focus. Curriculum resources that are accessible to students & Parents (5):  This doesn't seem correct, since parents have requested and still not received curriculum information for new courses like zoology, microbiology, and nutritional chemistry.
Core Foundations (pg 9 – 14)	This section was not supposed to be updated, so there is not much to comment on for this section. However, in comparing it to the prior version, it is clear that changes have been made. Numerous new areas are listed as "Accomplished" when they had been listed as "Developing" or lower in a prior version.
Curriculum (pg 14 – 16)	Processes used to ensure Accomplishment (14): There was a comment in the prior plan that was deleted, despite this section not being framed as having been updated. Modifications & Accommodations (16):  This comment was changed from the prior version. “Numerous support services” is too vague. What are these support services? Noted here are only students with physical impediments. We are also required to provide FAPE to students with mental and emotional impediments. There also is a broad statement of "all teachers differentiate" without any indication of how they differentiate or how the structure or support provided by the district allows them to do so successfully.  For a district with a high percentage of special needs students, we would expect a much more robust and thoughtful response here.
Instruction (pg16- 19)	Formal Classroom observation focused on instructions (17): New inclusion Instructional coating: Title I funding are able to focus our reading specialists (17): This is a sentence that was added to this section in the recent update, yet most reading specialists were redeployed to teaching roles or left the district. How many reading specialists do we still have doing this work? Do we have a reading specialist in every school designated as a Title I school? Peer Coaching (17):  This is a carryover from the last plan, but will point out that the instructional day and scheduling process has only changed to make this type of peer coaching more challenging. How will it be adapted so that this can happen during the course of this plan? District Administrators (17):  How does a teacher get support from a district administrator? My understanding is that the hierarchy requires teachers to get support from principals, and only principals can get support from district administrators.  For example, special education teachers are required to go to building principals and assistant principals for support rather than special education supervisors or the special education director.
Recruitment (pg19)	This section was not specifically scheduled to be updated.  It also discusses the induction program, which was an update to the plan, so I have included comments there. Widely diverse candidate pool that reflects the diversity of the district (19): Is it a goal to have a candidate pool that reflects the diversity of the district? That hasn't been apparent in the actual diversity of those hired into the district. Employees participate In an induction program (19): We discussed this at strategic planning, but it was not fully implemented. There were gaps due to the timing of hires, such that an individual hired during the school year would enter without any of this training and may not receive it until 6-10 months after they were hired. The phrasing "once hired" implies this training program begins before an individual starts teaching in the classroom.
Assessment (pg 20 - 26)	Minimum % Grade Requirement (20):  This was changed to 60 for the 2018-2019 academic year. Unless there is a proposal to move it back up to 69, and given that other parts of the document were updated, this should be corrected. There were a number of other minor changes in this section, including substitutions on charts and items being checked that were not checked in the prior plan. We did not have issues with these changes, but they provide evidence that this section was updated, and therefore subject to review.
Safe & Supportive Schools (pg 26 – 27)	Extra support for students (27):  What extra support is available to students during the school day, when is it available, and from whom? Professional Development (27):  Professional development seems like a baseline requirement that all schools should receive. How underperforming schools are allocated additional professional development support to help them improve? Counseling Services Available for all students (27): As we have reduced our guidance counselor staffing, taking on ratios far above recommended guidelines, can we fairly say that counseling services are available for all students? Students have to put in a request to meet with a guidance counselor and sometimes wait weeks for an appointment. PBIS: Is there not PBIS in the 11/12 building as well? If not, why not, and should we still check that box up above?
Screening, Evaluation and programing for gifted Students (pg 28)	In the 2016 version, there was a much more detailed process described that aligned with the actual process of gifted identification. This section was materially updated but we did not discuss it in strategic planning. Programs available (28): The current process is not sufficient notification to parents, nor are many opportunities called out to parents as related to gifted education. In the last course selection guide at the high school, gifted seminar was listed as an available course for 9-12, but many students were precluded or dissuaded from registering for this course, and told they could not get credit for taking it more than once, although this information was in conflict with the course selection guide. Teachers refer students: What is the referral process and the criteria for which students are referred? Universal Screening: The referral system described does not meet the definition of "universal screening." Teacher and parent referral is not universal screening. Universal screening means every student takes a multidimensional ability test at a particular grade level (usually grade 2) and those scoring above a pre-determined cut score leads to additional testing and possible placement in a gifted program. This should be removed and the actual criteria used to evaluate giftedness be inserted in its place. Describe the Gifted Program: No mention of programs used at the elementary level, like gifted pull-out programs and projects, subject specific acceleration, full grade acceleration, and the like. Most of the programs listed are available to all students, not just gifted students. We should mention pull out programs and push-in enrichment and extension by gifted teachers, as well as the gifted seminar course available at the high school level. What summer enrichment camps are available to gifted students in our district as part of a district program? Advanced Placement: AP and Dual Enrollment courses are not gifted programs, nor do they necessarily meet the needs of gifted learners.
Developmental Services (pg28 – 31)	What behavior management programs are we using? Guidance (29): Given the reduction in guidance counselors, how can we say that they provide academic counseling to students? In practice, this is not happening for all students. Accommodations (30): The use of the words "comprehensive and individualized" do not seem to describe how the district works with students in the special education program. This also doesn't seem relevant to the question, which asks about diagnostic, intervention, and referral services. Truancy Coordination (30): There was significant discussion of this area in the strategic planning, and acknowledged that this is an area for improvement, but it doesn't appear to be highlighted as such. Ideas did include increased home engagement, but this is cited as if it is already happening. Other ideas included positive attendance-based reinforcement, and understanding the root cause for student-driven truancy including classroom and learning-based issues.
Professional Education (pg 42 - 44)	This section was supposed to be updated but there are almost no changes in the beginning section here, and very little of what we discussed at strategic planning is incorporated. Specifically, we discussed how challenging it is for new teachers to start while the year is already underway and how best to ensure they have the tools and resources and training they need before they step foot in the classroom, or know where to obtain assistance if that is not possible. The district is in the initial stages of implementing building data meetings: The 2016 version also said the district was in the initial stages of implementing building data meetings. When will we move beyond the initial stages? Liaison Group (44): Not true - There is no longer a parent-administrator liaison group - this should no longer be referenced. Monthly equity training (44): This is a new inclusion and while I understand this training takes place for teachers designated as equity leaders, the training has not been made available to me or my high school student on a bi-monthly basis or otherwise.
Professional Development (pg 45 - 74)	Equity Leadership Program (45): This was an existing program that did not come out of the strategic planning sessions.  PSSA Data: How will PSSA data tell us if this works? What are we looking for? Mindfulness (48): This is another existing program that was already in place and did not come out of the strategic planning process. Who are the participants being surveyed? Students? Teachers? Co-teaching (51): Again, co-teaching was already in place before the 2018-2019 school year and was not a new program identified through the strategic planning process. Our implementation is not consistent with Dr. Villa's methodology. Again, need specifics here - what PSSA data will show us that this is successful? Reading Comprehension Strategy Groups (54):  While at a high level, this aligns to the mentorship and peer support idea raised in strategic planning, the use of Mosaic Literacy as the provider leads me to ask whether this, also, is an existing program and not something new being implemented based on the input of the committee.  When will these workshops be held? How will new teachers be incorporated if they enter after a workshop has already happened? Teachers College of Columbian University (57): This was not an idea raised at strategic planning, by Dr. Donohue or the participants. University of Pennsylvania Writing Project (60): We are already using Collins writing across all courses in the high school - this is not a new program suggested by the committee. Word Study (63): This is another existing program and not something identified by the committee. Everyday Math (66): This curriculum has been in place for several years and is not a new program identified by the committee. College Preparatory Mathematics (69): This curriculum has been in place for several years and is not a new program identified by the committee.  This should be expanded to include Keystone data. At present, our keystone data shows that students are not making adequate progress, which leads me to believe that our CPM curriculum should be re-evaluated. We did not discuss this at strategic planning. Science and Social Studies (72): We did not discuss this at strategic planning.
Induction Program (pg 75 – 79)	This section was supposed to be updated. It is almost word-for-word identical to the 2016 version and I don't see how the many concerns raised by the strategic planning committee are being addressed. Nowhere do we discuss how to handle our many teachers who enter during the school year, and how to get them the vital training they need not just on the broad aspects of the school environment but on curriculum and district practices. The Induction Plan of Coatesville (76):  This paragraph is identical to the 2016 version except that it does not discuss what happens in year two, as that version does. Induction program timeline (78): The format of this chart is hard to read and align in the bottom half of the chart. Monitoring and Evaluation (79):   When do these surveys take place? What does the data show?
District Level Plan (Pg 142 – 149)	Co-teaching (143): What specifically does this model look like? How many hours each day do we have co-teaching? Is there a plan to expand on that so we have full time co-teaching? How are we changing, adding to, or implementing the co-teaching model in practice/description? Autism (144): District “will” undergo training?  Training is not enough, we need a program with someone who is experienced running it.  Again, only PEAL and the ARC, we have many very experienced entities within our state to use. We should not limit them.  Implementation plan/description? Behavior Support (145): What does it look like in practice? Where is it being expanded?  How will it be expanded to be school wide vs a targeted group of students?  Are parents included in the process?  PATTAN has long been focusing on PBIS, has data, pilot programs that include schoolwide mental health. Are we using them? If so how, if not why? They are experts in the field of PBIS.  Implementation plan, description?  Data Analyses Procedures (147): there are no specifics detailing how CASD has implemented this process of data analysis, data-informed instruction, data teams and data warehousing. Professional Learning Communities (147): Again, there is no clear description of how CASD has implemented PLCs, other than K-12 curriculum and instructional committee. Curriculum & Instructional Committee (148): Do all teachers participate? Or is this a designated subgroup? Are these regularly scheduled, if so what is the frequency? Goal #2 indicates that it “provides professional development in word work “all elementary, middle, and high school English teachers. “ Why is there no mention of the rest of the teachers, one might assume that the district is only focusing on “word work.” To see more of on the thoughts of this contributor: Amelia Mills Open Letter