Kildeer Countryside School District 96

School Information

School Name: Kildeer Countryside School District 96
School Address: 1050 Ivy Hall Lane
                       Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
School Phone:  (847) 459-4260
School Fax:  (847) 459-2344
Superintendent:  Dr. Tom Many
Superintendent E-Mail:  tmany@district96.k12.il.us

Demographics

Number of Students:  3365
Number eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch:   130
Percent of Limited English Proficient:  3%
Percent of Special Education:  16%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

• White  (82.2%)
• Black  (1.2%)
• Hispanic  (3.3%)
• Asian/Pacific Island  (12.3%)
• Other (1%)

Present Student Achievement Data in at least three points to demonstrate trends – for example, three consecutive years or the first, third, and fifth years. The data report should always include the most recent school year and should always offer a basis of comparison (for example, state scores, national scores, similar SES schools)..  

Total percentage (District level results) of students meeting and exceeding state standards

	Math			Reading
	3rd	5th	8th	3rd	5th	8th
2002 School Year	94	90	80	83	86	87
2004 School Year	98	94	85	90	87	86
2006 School Year	98	99	98	92	94	96

Total percentage (District level results) of students meeting and exceeding state standards

	Science
	4th	7th
2002 School Year	93	86
2004 School Year	91	91
2006 School Year	96	94

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the data that you feel is particularly significant.

Results are at the District level for all scores. Data represents the total number (in percentage) of all students meeting or exceeding state standards in each year for each grade.

 Please elaborate upon strategies you have found to be effective in any of the following areas:

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

We use many forms of assessment to monitor student learning. We think of our assessment practices on a continuum ranging from most formative (daily) to most summative (annually). Our goal is to use a balanced and coherent system of assessment to guide our instruction.

Before we begin to design the assessments, teams of teachers representing every grade level assemble at the district level to work together to identify and prioritize the essential outcomes by grade level and by course. Teachers use state standards to help align our local standards, which are published in a Board-approved Curriculum Framework.

In addition to the once-a-year, high stakes state exams which we define as an example of the “most summative” kind of assessment, teams of teachers work together to develop district (benchmark) assessments based on the essential outcomes found in the Curriculum Frameworks to monitor how groups of students are progressing through the curriculum. These benchmark assessments are given every quarter or trimester and represent a “more summative” form of assessment.

While the faculty and staff determined that data from this type of “more summative” assessment was better than the once-a-year autopsy data we were getting from the state tests, the benchmark assessments were not frequent enough for teachers to use in guiding their instructional decision making so we began to develop more frequent and formative common assessments at the building level.

These frequent, formative common assessments are designed by teams of teachers at the building level and represent a “more formative” type of assessment. Teachers also regularly use progress monitoring – one of the “most formative” assessment practices - to manage and monitor student learning in individual classrooms.

Our goal is to be very skilled around the most appropriate use of assessments and data and to consciously use all aspects of a balanced and coherent system of assessment to guide our instruction.

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

Schools in District 96 develop intervention plans based on specific, agreed-upon criteria. The intervention plans are systematic and school wide, and typically include both short-term intervention and longer-term remediation programs. We believe both intervention and remediation are necessary and appropriate responses when students demonstrate that they did not learn what was expected.

In District 96, we ask that the schools use the SPEED (Systematic, Practical, Effective, Essential, and Directive) criteria as a guide when evaluating the appropriateness of an intervention strategy. The actual intervention plans may be slightly different from one school to the next, but each school designs a systematic and school-wide plan to provide more time and support for students that meets the SPEED criteria as closely as possible.

The “S” stands for systematic. The intervention plan is school-wide, independent of the individual teacher, and communicated in writing (who, why, how, where, and when) to everyone: staff, parents, and student.

“P” is for practical. The intervention plan is affordable with the school’s available resources (time, space, staff, and materials). The plan must be sustainable and replicable so that its programs and strategies can be used in other schools.

“E” is for effective. The intervention plan must be effective, available, and operational early enough in the school year to make a difference for the student. It should have flexible entrance and exit criteria designed to respond to the ever-changing needs of students.

“E” is for essential. The intervention plan should focus on agreed-upon standards and the essential outcomes of the district’s curriculum and be targeted to a student’s specific learning needs as determined by formative and summative assessments.

“D” is for directive. The intervention plan should be directive. It should be mandatory–not invitational–and a part of the student’s regular school day. Students should not be able to opt out, and parents and teachers cannot waive the student’s participation in the intervention program (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many, Learning By Doing, 2006, pp.84-85).

All strategies are created at the building level and are based on assessment data for that particular student. We regard some of the specific strategies in our intervention plans as interventions and others as remediation. A lot of time and energy were spent defining and clarifying the differences between remediation and interventions; we have come to believe that good schools offer both kinds of support according to the needs of the students.

For example, a teacher might notice that, based on the results of a common assessment, a particular student was struggling with the consonant blends “pl” and “bl.” In this case we might prescribe an intervention: this student would participate in the “Lunch Bunch” tutorial program in which, after eating his lunch, he would receive 20 minutes of extra time and support from a tutor.

Suppose that a second student in the same class is struggling with the same skill, but after reviewing data from the common assessments as well as other more formative assessments, the teacher concludes that, in addition to blends, the second student struggles with many other essential reading skills. To help this second student move forward, we might prescribe a long-term remediation in the building’s Title I reading program as well as participation in a short-term targeted intervention on consonant blends.

For us, interventions are best described as short-term, skill-based experiences that are more narrow in scope and based on the results of our “more formative” common assessments. Remedial programs are described as long-term, programmatic assignments that are broader in scope and based on the results of our “more summative” or benchmark assessments. Teachers rarely use the data gathered from the “most formative” classroom assessments or the “most summative” state assessments to trigger a student’s participation in either the intervention or remediation programs.

Depending on the needs of the student and based on the results of the “more formative” and “more summative” assessments, we will utilize a variety of different intervention and remedial strategies either alone or in combination to help students learn.

3. Building the capacity of teachers to work as members of high performing collaborative teams who focus the efforts of their team on improved learning for students.

There is a conscious effort to organize a variety of opportunities for teachers to collaborate and be a part of collaborative teams. While there always is a focus on learning, there also is a focus on developing leadership skills in all teachers. Expertise is shared across the entire district. This collaborative spirit–known as “the 96 way”–contributes to the high performance of our teacher teams.

At the elementary schools, teachers are organized as grade-level teams and meet a minimum of two times per week for 45 minutes of common planning time. At the middle schools, teachers are organized in traditional interdisciplinary and subject-specific teams. The teams meet daily, but alternate the organizational pattern between interdisciplinary and content-specific teams, depending on the requirements of the work at the time.

Teachers who demonstrate leadership skills are selected as “teacher leaders” and serve on building leadership teams. The leadership teams support the building principals and act as a guiding coalition at the building level. These teacher leaders receive additional training from an outside consultant so they are effective in their buildings as they help to facilitate the work of our collaborative teams.

The District has also created vertical job-alike teams who meet once a month to discuss subject areas and specific content. Vertical teams comprise one teacher representative from each grade in each subject area. For example, membership on the mathematics team includes a teacher representing each grade in kindergarten through eighth. It is the same in reading, writing, science, social studies, physical education and health, and the fine and applied arts. Special education teachers also meet once monthly by job assignment to share best practice. These job-alike teams collaborate on identifying the essential outcomes and developing better assessment instruments for each content area.

We are currently experimenting with two new initiatives. One of our schools will be piloting the “Japanese Lesson Study” model. According to Catherine Lewis of Mills College, Japanese Lesson Study is a three-phase process in which a group of teachers collaboratively develop a lesson, teach or observe the lesson, and then discuss the lesson. We are also investigating a collaborative effort involving teams of teachers from one school working with teams of teachers from another area school to perform audits of each other’s PLC practices.

Learning Retreats are used to encourage collaboration and capacity building. These one- or two-day, in-depth training events are organized as trainer-of-trainer experiences and present our teachers with the opportunity to work with nationally recognized experts. Teacher leaders are regularly trained on the best ways to identify essential outcomes, analyze data, and design high-quality assessments.

Finally, another vehicle we use to build capacity and enhance our collaborative culture is the Chautauqua. The Chautauqua is an annual, one-day planning retreat focused on assessing the level of implementation of the PLC model at the building level. Each school sends a team of teacher leaders to a day-long, District-level meeting. We discuss and document our progress towards becoming a more collaborative culture that has a focus on student learning. Teachers who participate in the Chautauqua are expected to build action plans to improve implementation of important PLC concepts at the building level.

By participating in a variety of collaborative initiatives, teachers benefit from authentic, job-embedded staff development with their colleagues. We do not believe that it is enough to ask that teachers collaborate. Rather, we believe that collaboration is a learned skill that our teachers develop through training.

List any Awards and Recognition Garnered by Your District

Twin Groves Middle School (Buffalo Grove, Illinois) was nominated by the Illinois State Board of Education for the federal blue ribbon award of excellence program.

Two District 96 middle schools named among Illinois Top 50 l Middle Schools in the State of Illinois. Chicago Sun-Times posting of School Report Cards.

Two District 96 elementary schools named among Illinois Top 50 l Elementary Schools in the State of Illinois. Chicago Sun-Times posting of School Report Cards.

Three District 96 elementary schools named among Illinois Top 50 l Elementary Schools in suburban Chicago Illinois. Chicago Sun-Times posting of School Report Cards.

Chicago magazine (October 2006) names three District 96 elementary schools among the Top 15 Public Schools in Lake County, Illinois

Three schools (Country Meadows, Ivy Hall, and Kildeer Countryside Elementary Schools) were selected by the Illinois Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (IAHPERD) as blue ribbon schools and models of excellence for physical education programming in elementary schools.

Kildeer Countryside CCSD 96 Board member Jacqueline Walton was recognized by the Illinois State Board of Education with an Award of Recognition. She accepted this prestigious award at the 2006-2007 Those Who Excel awards banquet on October 7 in Decatur, Illinois.