Roseburg High School

Comprehensive School Improvement Team:

CSI Team

Our Journey—year one2009—2010

The CSI Core Team was formed Hand-picked representatives from each department got

together to look at some data—all different kinds Developed a common understanding of MTI/RTI

vocabulary Explored aspects of Professional Learning Communities

to prepare for moving to a new PD model Adopted the idea that change in school our size was like

changing course of a large ship Concerned with the idea of the instructional lottery READ A LOT OF BOOKS

The Extended Team was formed Hand-picked representatives from all departments The CSI core team—the virus that spread

Our Journey—year two2010—2011

The CSI Core Team determined Goals and Focus Areas Developed from Extended team feedback 8 focus areas in total: Goals, Behavior, Healthy Core,

Grading, PLC, Research-based Instruction, Staff Knowledge, PD & Collaboration prep

Met with department teamsDeveloped “Protocols”—examined course offerings

according to Tiered modelDeveloped placement decision rules for Tier 2

Began to educate larger staffShared some readings with staff—few and very deliberately

chosen READ A LOT OF BOOKS

The Extended TeamBegan department goal setting which carried over to

department meetings

Our Journey—year three2011—2012

The CSI Core Team Condensed Focus areas to four

Aligned these areas with other school and district goals

Planned action steps for each area & made time lines Explored the idea of a Behavior subcommittee of CSI

then formed the Behavior team (HARD WORK)

Continued to educate staff

PLC work

READ A LOT OF BOOKS

Behavior team took over energy of Extended Team briefly

Researched, read, attended conferences

Our Journey—year four2012—2013

The CSI Core Team New members added Fewer meetings this year because we launched a lot of work

that was now continuing on “without” us But recently met and begin to refocus our efforts—revisited

focus areas and revived action steps

The Behavior team Met, established norms, researched best practices Is working to make sure Tiered instruction model is applied to

behavior work Recently shared progress with staff—no pixie dust or magic

wands Collected information/data from stuff to help guide their work

New PD model implemented this year Staff reading focused on PLC model—social studies teacher

and PLC levels explanation article

Tiered Instruction is Layered

Tier 1for ALL

students

Academic Systems

Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Multi-tiered InstructionMulti-tiered Instruction

5-15%

5-15%

Evaluate the quality of our Evaluate the quality of our core instructioncore instruction

Are 80% of your students successful?

Are 80% of students reaching benchmarks and “on track” for next goal?

If not, then the core needs to be addressed before adding tier 2

interventions

BehaviorHealthy

Core

BehaviorHealthy

Core

Academic

HealthyCore

Academic

HealthyCore

Mutual Influence

ProfessionalDevelopmentProfessional

Development

Clear Long and Short Term GoalsSchool-wide and Departments

Research-BasedInstructional

Practices

Research-BasedInstructional

Practices

GradingGrading

PLCsPLCs

Build Staff KnowledgeBuild Staff Knowledge

Research-BasedInstructional

Practices

Research-BasedInstructional

Practices

Condensed F

ocus

Areas

Long Term Department Goals

Short Term Goals

English Protocols

RHS STATE ASSESSMENT DATA

All Students Meeting or Exceeding SCHOOL YEAR READING WRITING MATHEMATICS

2008-2009 64.3% 45% 56.9%

2009-2010 79.8% 57% 53.9%

2010-2011 92.5% 75% 67.2%

2011-2012 90.8% 79% 61.4%

RHS STATE ASSESSMENT DATA

This Year 10th Grade Math

10th graders who had completed the test (347)

52% met

11% exceeded

37% not met (but 23% of those w/in 2 points of passing

72% of the completed 10th grade tests are either passing or within 2 points of passing (and the majority of our 10th graders are in Geometry)

We Are Excited for the Future