FLEXIBLE LEARNING YEARA Brief Overview and Update

August 20, 2012By Klint W. Willert

Basis of Flexible Learning Year

• Increase the number of instructional days prior to high-stakes State assessments.

• Increase alignment of professional development activities among participating school districts.

• Increase alignment of schedules across the K-16 educational spectrum.

So, what do people think . . .

• Have multi-year data points gathered from a perception survey conducted by the Southwest Marketing Advisory Center (SMAC) at SMSU.

• Data is perception data.• Have student achievement data to

consider as well – but with a word of caution. . .

WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY?Time for a closer look . . .

I feel students and teachers are ready to return to school before Labor Day.

Year 1 Year 2 Average0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2.61 2.9 3

**NOTE: AVERAGE ON A 5 POINT SCALE IS 3.0

I don't think school should be in session after the completion of state tests.

Year 1 Year 2 Average0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2.62

3.223

**NOTE: AVERAGE ON A 5 POINT SCALE IS 3.0

I dislike having homework or projects over breaks.

Year 1 Year 2 Average0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

3.72 3.86

3

**NOTE: AVERAGE ON A 5 POINT SCALE IS 3.0

I feel the flexible year will improve educational quality.

Year 1 Year 2 Average0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2.75

3.23

**NOTE: AVERAGE ON A 5 POINT SCALE IS 3.0

SO, WHAT’S NEXT?Looking ahead . . .

Vision sub-committee . . .

• Several member school districts representing: – Jackson County Central– Redwood Area– Minneota– Marshall– Luverne– Ivanhoe– Windom

Several items of discussion . . .

• Continuation of current focus – PLC’s and joint staff development opportunities.

• Considering other options –– Continuum of learning (ungraded, standards

based and performance based rather than time based)

– Early childhood– Technology

Next steps. . .

• Preliminary plan developed• Present to the board• Present to the community• Board determines if we will proceed• Submit to the Commissioner• Goal – answer from the Commissioner in

early spring

Possible timeline . . .MONTH   ACTION

Jan. 27, 2012 Vision committee meeting in Window to discuss and formulate FLY 2.0 framework.

February 2012 Vision committee completes framework for next application.April – May 2012 LEA’s indicate intent to continue.June 13, 2012 Vision committee met – reviewed the framework, the RTT-D grant, and the

future options of a FLY application. General consensus was to focus the FLY application on existing efforts of PLC implementation, student achievement, student instructional days, and teacher induction. Any interest in the framework items of competency based systems, open source curriculum, and early interventions will be addressed in an ancillary fashion outside of the FLY application.

End of August 2012

A proposed draft of the new FLY application will be presented to the current FLY district superintendents for discussion and consideration.

October 2012 Potential joint school board meeting in Tracy for discussion regarding current FLY efforts and proposed FLY application.

December 2012 Conduct 3 public meetings per FLY requirements.January 31, 2013 By the end of January, boards confirm commitment and participation

through formal board action at their regular January meetings.February 1, 2013 Submit applications to MDEMarch 15, 2012 Target date for response from the Commissioner of Education for new 3-

year Flexible Learning Year.

 

Factors that could impact Marshall Public School participation

• Focus of the plan

• Race to the Top District application

• Community feedback and input

• Alignment to our goals

Any questions . . .

Ultimately . . .