Board reviews high‑school TSI plan after lower ACCESS results for English learners

The Great Valley School District board discussed a Targeted School Improvement (TSI) plan for the high school after state metrics — notably ACCESS language‑proficiency results for English learners — identified the school for targeted support. A district presenter identified as Steve told the board the TSI designation reflected 2024–25 data and that a local improvement plan is in place and must be approved by the board as a formality.

Steve explained the state considers a set of metrics (including ACCESS and other assessment results) when identifying schools for TSI and said the district’s high school was flagged for additional supports in English‑language acquisition. "Our English language learners and their ACCESS assessment proficiency was not as high as it should have been," he said in the discussion, noting the plan is intended to target that proficiency gap.

The plan described in the packet includes targeted interventions and professional development: teacher planning for English as a new language, learning plans and profiles for students, classroom supports (push‑in instruction), and small‑group instruction models adapted to the secondary level. Staff emphasized that in some cases improvements in student population and testing cohorts could remove the designation in future cycles; they said the district had previously exited a TSI designation at another level.

Board members asked about staffing sufficiency. The presenter said current staffing did not clearly fall short but that implementation emphasizes better tools and professional development for staff: stronger learning profiles, monitoring local grades and attendance, family engagement with multilingual families, and more targeted professional development for teachers working with ELL students.

Board members also confirmed that the document on the agenda for next week is the 2025–26 plan (work completed by the high‑school team last year) and that the vote next week would satisfy the PDE requirement to have the plan board‑approved and on file. Staff offered to provide additional supporting information if board members wanted further detail before voting.