January/February Teaching and Learning Newsletter

Elementary schools are continuing to work on their Tier 1 behavior systems, based on their work with Solution Tree from December. This work includes improving practices around using student behavior data to help inform decisions. Secondary schools have new support staff to help in key areas. Both the middle school and high school were able to hire student support specialists to assist with monitoring potential problem areas and help students get redirected to appropriate locations - like the counseling office or back to class. The alternative program was able to hire a school social worker to assist with a variety of student needs. These hires were made possible through funding from Kittitas County’s 1/10 of 1% mental health and chemical dependency grant.

In the months of February and March, principals are presenting progress on their School Improvement Plans to the Board. Lincoln, Mt. Stuart, and Ellensburg Choice Schools presented at the February 12th meeting, Ellensburg High School and Morgan Middle School presented at the February 26th meeting, and Valley View, Early Learning Center, and Ida Nason Aronica will present at the March 5th meeting.

You can find those presentations here under the tab “Mid-year Board Presentations on Improvement Plans.”

During our February 19th PLC PD time, both elementary and secondary teachers had the opportunity to choose from 3 options for sessions to attend. Both were offered the following three options: 1) Formative led by a Formative trainer, 2) How to utilize AI to support the PLC process led by Joell Boast, or 3) sessions led by teachers on how unit planning processes assist the PLC process and support student learning.

At secondary 3 EHS science teachers (Ali Burton, Lynnette Nylund, and Kevin Dwight) shared how they have done unit planning built around essential standards and including formative assessment analysis that drives instructional decisions. At elementary, teachers attended two sessions if they chose this option. The first was led by Lincoln teachers Toby Mahre and Jamie Meidl who talked about how they co-teach and build language supports intentionally into unit planning. The second was led by Katie Hull and Kim Gaidos, 2nd grade Lincoln teachers, who shared what their PLC process looks like through the unit planning lens. 

Thank you Joell Boast, Kevin Dwight, Ali Burton, Lynnnette Nylund, Jamie Meidl, Toby Mahre, Kim Gaidos, and Katie Hull for your fantastic presentations and willingness to share the good work you are doing on behalf of students. 

OSPI is conducting a comprehensive review of all the Washington State Learning Standards. For a timeline of the review process and implementation of new standards, see here.

According to OSPI, “Washington state law (RCW 28A.655.070) requires the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to ‘periodically revise the state learning standards, as needed, based on student learning goals.’ These student learning goals, also defined in state law, call on Washington’s public school system to ‘evolve and adapt’ to strengthen student educational achievement.”

Most states that originally adopted the Common Core State Standards have already undergone review and made adjustments. When OSPI began this work, the plan was to review math, ELA, and science standards for full implementation in 2026-27. However, they just announced that they are pushing science out while financial literacy will be reviewed alongside math and ELA. 

OSPI plans to roll out support and professional development throughout next year, though details remain limited. In ESD, we are committed to providing training opportunities for impacted classrooms as the process unfolds.

In May of 2024 we reviewed this information with DLIT. For the relevant slides from that presentation, please see Slides 10-20. A key focus of the review process is to prioritize and refine standards for clarity while addressing gaps. As a district, we will need to analyze how the state’s prioritized standards align with our own selections. This process aims to bring greater consistency and equity to prioritization across Washington.

The work we’ve done in defining collective commitments to guaranteed and viable standards has strengthened shared understanding and skills in meeting student needs equitably. Any upcoming changes should further clarify and support the improvements we’re making.

Draft versions of the new math and ELA standards have been released and can be accessed here and here respectively.

State testing will not be impacted until the 2029-30 school year, so we can anticipate having the SBA for math and ELA until then.

Joel Boast has been busy helping staff with ed tech integration and has spent a significant amount of time providing assistance in how to utilize AI to support teacher practices and student learning. She’s presented to all buildings, DLIT, admin team, the Board, and multiple improvement teams. However, she’s also been partnering in small groups or 1:1 with interested staff members to provide individualized support for various needs. Reach out to her if you’d like to set up a meeting!

Districts in Washington using the Danielson Framework need to transition to the updated 2022 version in the 2025-26 school year. Many of our teachers chose to move to the new Framework this year, but the majority will be transitioning next year. There will be time during our last PLC PD date of the year (May 14th) for an overview of the changes. Then, during one of our fall PLD days we will do a more extensive training, including training on eVAL.  Here is an overview of the changes to the Framework. The updates aim to refine the language for clarity, make the emphasis of growth (for students and staff) more explicit, and integrate and highlight equitable practices. The 4 domains and number of components have not changed.

Here are results from the winter MAP window. Most of you are aware that the algorithm changed last year, and while the reading and science tests did not see a significant change from the comparison group that determines both the achievement and growth percentiles, math saw some changes. The below data is concorded data, so it reflects accurate math percentiles.

The below represents the median growth percentile by building for reading.

And the below represents the median growth percentile by building for math.

We have signed a contract with Abre to provide us with a data warehouse system that will improve our ability to collect, visualize, and synthesize data. This platform was chosen by a multistakeholder team that included, building and district admin, MTSS specialists, IT, and school psychs. It will replace School Data Solutions (Homeroom) and our current behavior tracking applications. The platform should be fully functional by the start of next school year with much of it being ready this spring. We will be sharing more information and support around Abre in the coming months. 

For more information, please see Slides 3-15 on this presentation that was given to the Board in January. 

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Beliefs About Behavior survey! A total of 160 individuals shared their perspectives on behavior, with responses from:

📚 70% Classroom Teachers

‍🏫 12% Paraeducators

🤝 15% Support Staff

⚙️ 3% Operational Staff

The survey aimed to explore the variability in beliefs about behavior and examine how these beliefs align with research-based best practices. The key takeaway: educators who embrace evidence-based behavior supports are more likely to implement them effectively, ultimately leading to better student outcomes.

Survey responses were analyzed through a Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework. Here are the key findings:

✅ Top Three Supportive Beliefs:

✔️ Belief 3: Recognizing and acknowledging students for positive behavior is essential for a supportive school climate. (95.6% agree)

✔️ Belief 15: Educators should be compassionate and sensitive to students’ needs and life experiences. (95.1% agree)

✔️ Belief 9: Proactive strategies are worth the effort to prevent behavioral challenges. (94.2% agree)

⚠️ Top Three Unsupportive Beliefs:

❌ Belief 14: Punitive discipline (e.g., reprimands, office referrals, detentions, suspensions) is an effective way to change student behavior. (Only 36.2% disagreed)

❌ Belief 8: In the long run, punitive discipline does more harm than good. (Only 40% agreed)

❌ Belief 47: It is unfair to other students when students with behavior challenges receive special attention and incentives. (Only 36.3% disagreed)

All survey comments have been carefully reviewed and thoughtfully considered as we continue to improve our approach. We sincerely appreciate everyone's input and are committed to valuing all perspectives moving forward.

These results highlight areas of strength and areas where further discussions on behavior support strategies may be beneficial. Principals will be sent data specific to their building for building level conversations as well. Thank you again for your participation and commitment to fostering a positive learning environment for all students!

What would you like to share with the T& L Team? Please let us know here.