La Jolla ISD leaders on Aug. 27 outlined an annual school‑planning process centered on a districtwide instructional framework and a tiered system of supports that adapts help based on each campus’s needs. The board heard that the work is guided by a “North Star” goal of having more than 90% of students on A or B campuses by 2029.

District staff said the plan uses a Quality Seats Analysis (QSA) to create a single source of data that feeds each campus’s annual school plan and assigns campuses to quartiles. "The annual school planning process really helps us clarify what we need to do school by school in the district to get academic progress," said Dr. Little, a district presenter.

Why it matters: Board members were told the new approach is intended to move instruction from fragmented initiatives to a common set of expectations across grade levels and subjects, enabling the district to target its limited central resources where schools need them most.

District presenters described two core ideas: managed instruction, which establishes required foundational instructional practices for every campus; and performance autonomy, where schools that demonstrate higher performance can earn increased flexibility. The instructional framework centers on a daily lesson cycle—plan, teach, assess, reflect—backed by an explicit lesson structure and classroom culture expectations. Chief Najella (staff presenter) described the framework’s purpose: "This instructional framework really ties together all of the work that we are doing academically across the district regardless of grade level." Direct instruction, interactive practice and a demonstration of learning were identified as the essential internal lesson components.

The QSA goes beyond state accountability ratings (STAAR/STAR) to include growth, chronic absenteeism, student discipline and other indicators, producing a score that places campuses into quartiles (top 25% to bottom 25%). District staff said six of eight middle schools fell into the lowest quartile in the most recent analysis, and emphasized the tiered response: universal professional learning for all teachers; responsive supports and more frequent central‑office visits for mid‑tier campuses; and intensive coaching for select teachers at quartile 3 and 4 schools.

Key operational changes listed in the presentation include: increased frequency of central‑office instructional visits (a plan to visit every campus six times a year for spot checks), an expectation that network executive directors visit quartile 4 campuses at least weekly, and a new practice of short "instructional sprints"—two‑week, rapid cycles of classroom observations and feedback focused on explicit instruction and demonstration of learning.

Board members asked about teacher attendance and substitute use; the district said it is tracking substitute requests and will add teacher attendance to future analyses. Staff also highlighted efforts to clarify central‑office roles so principals receive targeted information rather than being the single funnel for all supports.

District leaders said materials and links to the instructional framework and the full data set will be published for the public. The district emphasized the plan is annual and that the QSA will be updated each year to show movement and allow adjustments to the indicators and weightings.

The presentation prompted multiple board questions and produced commitments to provide unit assessment data and periodic updates on implementation throughout the school year. "We're committed to rapid changes, and we're gonna be side by side with you to make that happen," Dr. Little said as the district closed the segment.