Adams-Cheshire Regional

School District
District Improvement Plan

2016-2018

Adams-Cheshire Regional School District

District Improvement Plan
2016-2018
Vision
To prepare students and teachers for the 21st century

Mission
The mission of ACRSD is to create a partnership of our schools and communities that
develops all of our students into educated, responsible and productive citizens.

Theory of Action
If we develop and implement plans to ensure intentional instruction focused on
state standards and continuously monitor implementation, then we can expect our
students to demonstrate improved achievement and growth on standardized
assessments.

Adams-Cheshire Regional School District

District Improvement Plan
Steering Committee
2016-2018

Robert R. Putnam

Interim Superintendent

Jeremiah Ames

Hoosac Valley Principal

Peter Bachli

Cheshire Elementary Principal

Michelle Colvin

CT Plunkett Principal

Jackie Fortier

Director of Special Education

GOAL 1: To improve student outcomes by developing and ensuring

intentional practices

for improving teacher-specific and student responsive instruction

Massachusetts' Framework for District Accountability and Assistance classifies schools and districts on a five level
scale, classifying those meeting their gap narrowing goals in Level 1 and the lowest performing in Level 5. The ACRSD has been classified
as a Level 3 since the system was implemented in 2012. All three ACRSD schools are among the lowest performing 20 percent relative
to other schools of the same school type based on the 2016 performance on standardized assessment and the trend, as shown in
Appendix A, has not been positive.
It is imperative that the downward trend be reversed. To that end, each of the schools in the district will fully implement the
research-based turnaround practice, Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction, that has been one of the factors found in schools
that have experienced rapid improvements in student outcomes. The Bay State Reading Initiative (BSRI) is a research-based
instructional program currently in the third year of implementation in both Cheshire and Plunkett schools. BSRI will be the vehicle for
implementing Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction. The District and School Accountability Center (DSAC) will be working with
Hoosac Valley to implement practices that are consistent with the indicators for a successful implementation of Intentional Practices for
Improving Instruction.
The choice to focus on Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction, one of four turnaround practices, was made, in part, due to
financial and personnel considerations. Our efforts would be greatly enhanced if we were able to implement the practice of providing
student-specific supports, but budget cuts over several years have reduced intervention personnel positions, increased class sizes, and
removed scheduling flexibility. State accountability reports cite the gap in performance of students with disabilities, but staffing cuts
have limited personnel dedicated to providing support. Given these conditions, our only choice is to focus on the classroom instruction
because we dont have intervention positions that could provide student-specific supports and instruction to all struggling students.
Ultimately, intentional practices for improving instruction for all students is the key to improving student performance in all school
districts. We have no alternative but to accept the challenge. The plan outlined below will require a great deal of work, time, and focus
on the part of all members of the ACRSD community. We must find the way to ensure that all students succeed.

2017 DISTRICT PERFORMANCE GOALS

The Massachusetts' Framework for District Accountability and Assistance system for rating schools is based, in the main, on student
performance on state assessments in ELA, mathematics, and science so this plan will pay special attention to these disciplines. The
tables that present the district and school performance goals show the 2016 performance and the states expectations for the ACRSD
2017 performance expressed in CPI and SGP for the major subgroups in our district. The CPI goals were based on a baseline set by the
ACRSD performance in 2011. The state used this baseline to calculate where year-to-year progress should be to attain the 2017
performance targets. We will not achieve the CPI goals, but I believe we can make significant progress toward the goals if we implement
the plan outlined below. Significant improvements in our CPI will certainly result in attainment of the SGP goals of 51 and will improve
our percentile ranking thereby moving us toward exiting Level 3 status.

Table 1: 2017 District Performance Goals

ALL

ALL

HIGH NEED

HIGH NEED

SPED

SPED

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

ELA CPI 7.4%

78.7

92.3

69.9

89.4

48.5

82.1

MATH CPI

73.3

86.8

63.1

83.2

41.1

74.8

SCI CPI

60.0

86.0

58.6

82.4

46.1

76.3

ELA SGP

37

51

33

51

23

51

MATH SGP

44

51

39

51

25

51

Significant movement toward the 2017 performance objectives listed above should serve to improve the percentile ranking of the
school. Extra Credit points are available in each discipline - ELA, Math, and Science - for increasing the percentage of students scoring
advanced and decreasing the percentage of students scoring in Warning/Failing. Each of the schools will endeavor to take advantage of
the opportunities for extra credit.

Action Plan
Goal I: To improve student outcomes by developing and ensuring intentional practices for improving
teacher-specific and student responsive instruction in Cheshire and CT Plunkett Elementary Schools.

Cheshire Elementary and CT Plunkett are very different schools serving different populations but both schools are in the third year of
partnership with the Bay State Reading Institute (BSRI) so we will build on that work. The schools have different CPI goals because they
were based on the baseline set by each schools performance in 2011. The tables below present the goals for each school. Significant
progress towards the goals will ensure an improvement in each schools percentile ranking.

Cheshire Performance Objectives

ALL

ALL

HIGH NEED

HIGH NEED

SPED

SPED

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

ELA CPI

82.5

91.3

72.1

89.1

NA

NA

MATH CPI

81.8

88.0

73.6

84.0

NA

NA

SCI CPI

69.0

85.3

NA

NA

NA

NA

ELA SGP

34

51

NA

51

NA

NA

MATH SGP

35

51

NA

51

NA

NA

Significant movement toward the 2017 performance objectives listed above should serve to improve the percentile ranking of the
school. Extra Credit points are available in each discipline - ELA, Math, and Science - for increasing the percentage of students scoring
advanced and decreasing the percentage of students scoring in Warning/Failing. Each of the schools will endeavor to take advantage of
the opportunities for extra credit.

CT Plunkett Performance Objectives

ALL

ALL

HIGH NEED

HIGH NEED

SPED

SPED

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

ELA CPI

72.9

89.3

67.0

86.4

49.1

75.0

MATH CPI

74.0

85.8

68.7

81.9

50.9

72.7

SCI CPI

67.9

84.0

62.8

80.8

NA

NA

ELA SGP

38

51

36

51

32

51

MATH SGP

50.5

51

44

51

24.5

51

2016-2018 STRATEGIES FOR CHESHIRE AND PLUNKETT

The strategies outlined below are ambitious. We have neither the time nor the resources to fully implement them in the course of one
year. It will take two to three years but we will see improvement in student performance as our teachers and administrators develop
the skills and knowledge required to reach all students.
The strategies outlined below are based on Turnaround Practices that have been associated with rapid improvement in student
performance in many Massachusetts schools. We are focusing on the practice called Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction.
We will be implementing the following practices:

Specific expectations for teachers classroom practices

Instructional schedules and coordination of content instruction aligned across grade levels and with interventions.
Formal processes for identifying and addressing student academic needs such as Instructional Learning Teams, Professional
Learning Communities.
Effective use of observation and student performance data to inform school-wide practices and classroom instruction.
Structures for instructional improvement

Many of these practices are incorporated into the BSRI model. We will be working with BSRI trainers and DSAC staff to ensure fidelity of
implementation and ongoing evaluation.
The strategies, resources, and measures of implementation are shown in the table below.

STRATEGY
Ensure full implementation of the BSRI
Model in K-5 classrooms

RESOURCES

Bay State Reading Initiative

(BSRI) Training
BSRI Principal Coaching
BSRI Training for Coaches
Non-Negotiable Classroom
Practices List
Template for Recording
Observations
In-Service Days for training and
work
DSAC Training on forming an
Instructional Leadership Team
(ILT)
DSAC Training in grade-level
Professional Learning
Communities (PLC)

MEASURE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Improving Administrator Skills at

Classroom Observation and Feedback

DESE Calibration Videos:

Administrators, MCLA, and DSAC
staff will watch and score
teaching videos to develop
common expectations for
teaching.
Administrator/Superintendent
observations of all classrooms
Administrators and
Superintendent will conduct
observations in all three
buildings
Research for Better Teaching
(RBT) Training for Principals and
Coaches
Guidebook for Inclusive Practice
Skillful Teaching by RBT

Observations by administrators
will confirm implementation of
program components in all
classrooms. Each classroom
teacher will be observed a
minimum of 2x per month.
Training on forming and using
ILT completed by May 2017 with
a plan for implementation in
September 2017.
Training on forming and using
grade level PLCs completed by
May 2017 with a plan for
implementation in September
2017.
Progress on Benchmark
Assessments (DIBELS and Track
My Progress)
Feedback from BSRI Consultants
One Cabinet meeting a month
will include scoring DESE
teaching video.
Each principal will schedule
observations with the
superintendent. All teachers will
be observed monthly.
Starting in February the cabinet
will schedule team observations
in each school.
Principals and coaches will
attend the RBT training
Feedback from DSAC

Increase teacher understanding enVisions

math program and how it relates to state
standards

Pioneer Valley DSAC

Engagement Observation Tool
Webbs Depth Of Knowledge
(DOK) Tool
Logic Model and Calendar

Ian Stith from DSAC will plan professional

development in K-5 mathematics for
in-service days.
Oct. 28 training:
January 27 Training
Dedicated Time for Mapping

Organize math instruction around BSRI

practices (High Student Engagement,
Small Group Instruction, Differentiated
math Centers: Listening, speaking,
reading, and writing about math, and
Reciprocal Teaching and Debate)

Implement standards-based science units

in grades K-5.

Non-Negotiable Practices List

Dedicated Time to work on
centers during the school year
Advantage Math Recovery K-2
and Math Recovery

Each classroom will have a focus

wall for mathematics, classroom
instruction will utilize small
group instruction and
differentiated centers by
January.

Dedicated Time to work on units

during the school year
MCLA Consultation with Nick
Stroud
National Science Foundation
(NSF) Grant and Units
Improving Teach Quality (ITQ)
Grant

K-2 Units in K-2 implemented

based on ITQ input and mapped
by June 2017
3-5 Units mapped by June 2017
Surveys staff on frequency of
science instruction and
understanding of standards
completed by 11-15
Observations of lessons
Grades 3-5 will have 4 science
units by January implemented
before the Test.

Ensure clear linkage between SPED

services and ELA, math, and science
objectives.

Each grade level will have a

curriculum map by June 2017.
Online grade level sharing will be
set up by December and teachers
will share information.

Guidebook for Inclusive Practice

Training for teachers on how to
craft an IEP using common core
frameworks
Data meetings among SPED
teachers
Development of ISSPs for
students
List of Acceptable SPED
Assessments

Action Plan

SPED paperwork will show the

use of acceptable assessments.
IEPs will show inclusion of
common core objectives.
Schedules of data meetings and
next steps.

Goal I: To improve student outcomes by developing and ensuring intentional practices for improving
teacher-specific and student responsive instruction in Hoosac Valley Middle and High School

Hoosac Valley Middle and High School CPI goals were based on the baseline set by the 2011 MCAS performance. The table below
presents the goals for the school. Significant progress towards the goals will ensure improvement in the schools percentile ranking.

Hoosac Valley Performance Objectives

ALL

ALL

HIGH NEED

HIGH NEED

SPED

SPED

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

ELA CPI

81.4

96.1

71.1

94.3

49.7

90.9

MATH CPI

71.1

88.0

56.5

85.7

33.7

78.6

SCI CPI

67.9

87.5

57.1

84.2

45

76.0

ELA SGP

37

51

32

51

18.5

51

MATH SGP

44

51

37.5

51

29

51

Significant movement toward the 2017 performance objectives listed above should serve to improve the percentile ranking of the
school. Extra Credit points are available in each discipline - ELA, Math, and Science - for increasing the percentage of students scoring
advanced and decreasing the percentage of students scoring in Warning/Failing. Each of the schools will endeavor to take advantage of
the opportunities for extra credit.

2016-2018 STRATEGIES FOR HOOSAC VALLEY MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL

The strategies outlined below are ambitious. As is the case with the elementary schools, we have neither the time nor the resources to
fully implement all of the strategies outlined below in the course of one year. It will take two-three years but we will see improvement
in student performance as our teachers and administrators develop the skills and knowledge required to reach all students.
The strategies outlined below are based on Turnaround Practices that have been associated with rapid improvement in student
performance in many Massachusetts schools. We are focusing on the practice called Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction. As
in the case of the elementary schools, we will be implementing the following practices but they will take a different form because of the
organizational structure of the middle and high schools:

Specific expectations for teachers classroom practices

Instructional schedules and coordination of content instruction aligned across grade levels and with interventions.
Formal processes for identifying and addressing student academic needs such as Instructional Learning Teams, Professional
Learning Communities.
Effective use of observation and student performance data to inform school-wide practices and classroom instruction.
Structures for instructional improvement

The strategies, resources, and measures of implementation are shown in the table below.

STRATEGY

RESOURCES

MEASURE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Implement curriculum with fidelity in core

subjects.

Establish a shared understanding of

quality instruction.

Establish procedures for using data to

inform instruction.

Ensure clear linkage between SPED

services and ELA, math, and science
objectives.

Template for Recording

Observations
In-Service Days for training and
work
Ian Stith Lesson Study in math
DSAC
MCLA Nick Stroud consultation
Logic Model and Calendar from
Joe Wyman
DSAC PLC Training
DSAC ILT Training

DSAC
Dedicated time to develop
instruction rubric informed by
research.
DESE Calibration Videos: Staff
will watch and score teaching
videos to develop common
expectations for teaching.
Learning walks by the ILT with
aggregate feedback
Guidebook for Inclusive Practice
Pioneer Valley DSAC Engagement
Observation Tool
Webbs DOK Tool

Create PLCs
Train staff on analyzing
benchmark and common unit
assessment results
Train staff on the cycle of inquiry
Train staff on using daily
assessments to drive instruction
Strengthen annual goal setting
process for teachers
Implement student survey of
current instructional practices

Guidebook for Inclusive Practice

Training for teachers on how to
craft an IEP using common core
frameworks
Data meetings among SPED
teachers
Development of ISSPs for
students

Lesson plan and unit reviews

Observations by administrators
will confirm implementation of
curriculum maps/programs in all
classrooms.
Each classroom teacher will be
observed a minimum of 2x per
month.

One Cabinet meeting a month

will include scoring DESE
teaching video.
Written definition of elements of
highly effective instruction by
January 2017.
Rubric based on definition of
highly effective instruction by
January 2017
Meeting agendas and minutes
from faculty meetings and PD
sessions

PLCs formed by January 2017

Agendas and meeting minutes
from PLCs
Administrator observations of
PLCs
Administrator classroom
observations
Agendas and staff feedback
from trainings
Student survey results
Staff goal setting results
SPED paperwork will show the
use of acceptable assessments.
IEPs will show inclusion of
common core objectives.
Schedules of data meetings and
next steps.