1. PROGRAM REVIEWS 2013-2014 GETTING STARTED

2. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS To provide for careful and systematic analysis of current programs and help identify the next steps that will make the most impact on student learning. To inform the school’s programs in order to establish a process of on-going discussion, reflection and growth. To provide a basis for developing a plan for improvement which may become a component in the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan.

3. GOALS OF PROGRAM REVIEWS To improve the quality of teaching and learning for all students in all programs To allow equal access to all students to the skills that will assist them in being productive citizens To allow students to demonstrate their understanding beyond a paper-and-pencil test To ensure a school wide natural integration of the program skills across all contents, beyond the program areas

4. WHAT YOU WILL SUBMIT IN 2013-2014 All schools will submit and be accountable for these program reviews: A&H PL/CS Writing Elementary schools will submit K3 program review which will be publicly reported, but not part of accountability for 2013-2014

5. IN DEPTH REVIEW In-depth reviews will be completed on a rotating basis. At a minimum, schools will conduct an in-depth review of at least one program area of their choosing each year and submit the ratings in ASSIST, ensuring all program areas (arts/humanities, Practical Living/Career Studies, writing, and K-3) will receive an in-depth review on a three- (3) to four- (4) year cycle. For program areas not selected for an in-depth review in a given year, schools are required to continue with the program area improvements identified by previous years’ data/ratings. From Terry Holiday’s Fast Five Aug. 27 2012

6. Copy last year’s diagnostics to “Roll Over” information.

8. PROGRAM REVIEW ACCOUNTABILITY THEY COUNT THIS YEAR!

9. PROGRAM REVIEW –ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE 1. Assign a value for each selected performance level: Distinguished = 3 points Proficient = 2 points Needs Improvement = 1 point 2. For each of the 4 Standards, average the characteristic scores.

10. PROGRAM REVIEW –ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE 3. Next, add the 4 standard scores, This will range between 0-12 for each Program Review (8 total is considered Proficient and 10.8 is considered Distinguished) 4. Add the Program Review Scores You will get a number between 0-36 5. Divide this number by 24 (since this is considered Proficient in all three areas). This number would give you the percent of the 23 points (number of points possible in accountability model for Program Reviews for 2013)

11. A&H + PLCS + Writing = X X / 24 = percent of 23 points Percent of 23 points X 23 = program review baseline points

12. PROGRAM REVIEW – ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE EXAMPLE AVERAGE CHARACTERISTIC SCORES PROGRAM REVIEW TOTAL Category ARTS & HUMANITIESCurriculum/Instruction1.2 Formative/Summative Assessment1.5 Professional Development1.0 Administrative Support1.3 ARTS & HUMANITIES TOTAL5Needs Improvement PRACTICAL LIVINGCurriculum/Instruction2.0 Formative/Summative Assessment2.0 Professional Development1.9 Administrative Support2.1 PRACTICAL LIVING TOTAL8Proficient WRITINGCurriculum/Instruction1.4 Formative/Summative Assessment1.4 Professional Development1.8 Administrative Support1.4 WRITING TOTAL6Needs Improvement TOTAL POINTS19 PERCENTAGE OF POINTS (divide by 24)79.17% ACCOUNTABILITY POINTS (out of 23 points possible)18.21

13. will tell each school what it needs in order to be labeled Needs Improvement, Proficient, or Distinguished in 2014.

14. MEET YOUR AMO WITH GROWTH IN PROGRAM REVIEW AND/OR NEXT GENERATION LEARNERS.

15. EXAMPLE In 2012-2013, Sunnyside Elementary set their program review baseline at 18.21 points out of a possible 23. That gives them 4.79 points of growth to meet subsequent AMOs. Their AMO for 2013-2014 is one point. They feel that they might have a slight drop this year in Next Generation Learners because of staffing issues and other issues. Their target in program reviews for this year is an increase of 1.5 points to 19.71.

16. RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF CHARACTERISTICS IN A&H PROGRAM REVIEW

17. RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF CHARACTERISTICS IN PLCS PROGRAM REVIEW

18. RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF CHARACTERISTICS IN WRITING PROGRAM REVIEW

19. PLANNING FOR 2013-2014

20. THE BOTTOM LINE IS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. Review 2012-2013 program review scores. Set your target score for 2013-2014. Review 2012-2013 Next Steps Diagnostic. Refine next steps using the program review calculator (available on the Gheens website) to meet your target score keeping in mind the weights of the various standards. Create an implementation plan.

21. EVIDENCE It is only necessary for the school to identify evidence. There is no expectation that it be collected or stored over long periods of time. Because evidence is a natural product of existing activity within the school, it should be easily retrievable when needed.

22. FOR A GIVEN DEMONSTRATOR Evidence from multiple (two or three) grade levels/subject areas should be identified. Confirms that the characteristics within a demonstrator occur on an ongoing basis throughout the school year.

23. WAYS OF DOCUMENTING EVIDENCE Administrative Walk-Through (Using the Evidence Index) Embedded PD Staff meetings Committees Other

24. RATIONALES Sample Rationales will be available from KDE on CIITS sometime this year.

25. SHARE PROGRAM REVIEW RESULTS WITH SBDM AND STAFF. P P NI P D P NI P

26. JCPS DISTRICT AUDIT (KDE REQUIREMENT) 2 checklists or progress reports, due in October and March, which must be signed by the Principal at each school. Administrative Peer Review in May of “In Depth” review. Central office review and “approval” to KDE.

27. Gheens Home Page

28. LOOKING AHEAD WORLD LANGUAGE PROGRAM REVIEW

29. RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF CHARACTERISTICS IN THE WORLD LANGUAGE PROGRAM REVIEW

30. DISTRICT CONTACTS FOR HELP WITH PROGRAM REVIEWS Technical Questions: Erik Dennes 377-3205 (cell) 485-3937 (office) Erik.dennes@jefferson.kyschools.us Suzanne M. Wright (suzanne.wright2@jefferson.kyschools.us) Specialists Melisa Gano, Art, Dance, Drama and Arts & HumanitiesMelisa.Gano@jefferson.kyschools.us Michelle Lewis, MusicMichelle.Lewis@jefferson.kyschools.us Donna Benton, Practical LivingDonna.Benton@jefferson.kyschools.us Laura Pinkerton, Elementary WritingLaura.Pinkerton@jefferson.kyschools.us Denise Carrell, Middle School WritingDenise.Carrell@jefferson.kyschools.us Jenni Aberli, High School WritingJenni.Aberli@jefferson.kyschools.us

31. THANKS FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!