Greater Clark County Schools (1010)
PL221 PLAN
Maple Elementary (0869)
Spring 2014
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Table of Contents School Overview
Page 3
Description & Location of Curriculum (SWP 2.a-h)
Page 7
Titles & Descriptions of Assessments
Page 8
(SWP 2.g)
Mission/Vision/Belief
Page 9
Data Summary (SWP 1) Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Page 10
Conclusions & Guiding Principles
Page 27
Goals/Objectives
Page 29
Implementation Profile
Page 31
Timeline
Page 43
Statutes to be Waived
Page 52
Bibliography (SWP 4)
Page 53
Appendix
Page 55
Reading Plan & Frameworks (SWP 2.a-h)
Page 97
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
2
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Overview of Maple Elementary School School Information Maple Elementary School is a K-5 public education facility. Maple Elementary is one of 12 elementary schools under the jurisdiction of the Greater Clark County School Corporation. The corporation has four middle schools and three high schools strategically located to serve a geographically and ethnically diverse community. The Greater Clark County School Corporation is situated in southeastern tip of Indiana; its southern border is the Ohio River and across the river is Louisville, Kentucky. The Maple community is an area of mixed income with 83.1% of the students receiving free or reduced lunch. It is comprised of single family dwellings along with a government apartment housing project.
Key Student Demographic The current population of Maple Elementary School is 248 students. Student enrollment is slowly decreasing, with a high rate of turnover of enrolled students. Our transient rate for 2009-10 was 29.3%; this is an increase of 7.1% from the previous year with a decrease in enrollment of 6 students. Our current population is 34% African American, 3% Hispanic, 53% White/Non Hispanic, .3% Asian and10% Multiracial. The white population continues to be the largest sub-group; however, student demographics show the number of students of Hispanic, multiracial, black and white ethnicity has remained consistent at Maple Elementary. However, the most dramatic change during the last 9 years is steady increase in poverty. In the fall of 2001, 53% of the students received free and reduced lunch. In the fall of 2012, 83% of the students are receiving free and reduced lunch (an increase of 30%).
School Learning Climate Our attendance rate for 2013-2014 stands at 96.5%. This has remained fairly consistent for the last few years and we have met or exceeded the state average for the last 5 year. We have a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) plan in place to promote a positive school climate. We have developed common expectations for areas of the school and are transitioning to using P.R.I.D.E. as our character education framework. The acronym stands for: Persistence, Respectfulness, Initiative, Dependability, and Efficiency. These traits are what successful citizens in the workforce display, and we are
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
3
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
developing curriculum to help our students employ in college and career readiness behaviors.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
4
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Curriculum and Instruction (SWP 2 a-h) In accordance with the district and state, Maple Elementary School has adopted the Indiana Academic Standards as its curriculum. Over the past few years, Greater Clark County Schools has utilized the teaching and administrative staff to develop, review, and adapt a standards based curriculum to develop curriculum maps (Heidi Hayes-Jacobs) and performance assessment process. The curriculum binders are located in Maple Elementary principal’s office and in each classroom. As a focus of curriculum and instruction, Maple Elementary School continues to use The Learning Network framework (includes 5 components of reading; phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary; reading comprehension; and fluency) as the primary means of teaching reading/language arts using our Literacy Library and Houghton Mifflin Language Arts textbooks. We also continue to implement the Houghton Mifflin Math series and Balanced Math. Balanced Math offers such components as Mental Math, Math Review, and problem solving. In addition, our students study science and social studies. Other areas of the curriculum include art, music, physical education and library. Special needs students receive services through the practice of inclusion for language arts, math, social studies and science. Although some students are pulled out for small group and individualized instruction in reading/language arts and math. We have a number of programs to extend learning beyond the regular school day/year. Our intervention programs are intended for students in grades K-5 needing remediation for ISTEP+ and/or to review key concepts and strategies that will help them become more successful. The students of Maple Elementary also receive tutoring through small group instruction in the classroom and/or with an interventionist, Communities In Schools Extended Day Program, and a Communities In Schools Resource Coordinator.
Staff Kindergarten Bettie Peake
Grade 1 Carrie McCoy
Grade 2 Phyllis Ferrell
Grade 3 Courtlon Peters
Grade 4 Gina Gibbs
Kelli Porter
Bridget Maurer
Lea Ann Griffis
Susan Ward
Elizabeth James
Special Needs Lynn Just
Special Area Meredith Terry
Paraeducators Cyndee Ashton
Pre-school Ashli PicassoLaCross
Ellen Williamson Anita Tatum
Katrina Pierce
Cynthia Dukes
Kim Harbin
Anita Mayfield
Office Amber Cook, Principal Cathy Nevils, Ad. Asst. Beverly Couts, SAM Arletta Ashton, nurse asst.
Michelle Corrao
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Grade 5 Hendricks Posey
Interventionist Jenifer Rickard
5
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Lisa Scott
PL 221 Committees for 2010-11 Assessment Sue Anderson Liz James Katrina Pierce
Culture Phyllis Ferrell Kelli Porter Lynn Just
Curriculum Carrie McCoy Erin Naeger Meredith Terry
Intervention Jenifer Rickard Carolyn Rife Anita Tatum
Pedagogy Hendricks Posey Gina Gibbs Stacy Pehlke
Planning Sarah Jones Karen Campbell Lindsey Hill/Heather Hall
Professional Development Lea Ann Griffis Bettie Peake Susan Ward
PL 221 Steering Committee Lauraetta Starks – Principal Sue Anderson – Teacher Leader Support/interventionist Erin Naeger – Kindergarten Teacher Susan Ward – First Grade Teacher Lea Ann Griffis – Second Grade Teacher Carrie McCoy – Third Grade Teacher Karen Campbell – Fourth Grade Teacher Hendricks Posey – Fifth Grade Teacher Jenifer Rickard – Interventionist Katrina Pierce – Special Area Teacher Sarah Jones – Special Education Teacher Mrs. Jyne Elliott – Parent Mike Smith – Jeffersonville City Council District One
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
6
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Schoolwide Process for Improvement (SWP 3; 4; 8) The school achievement and improvement plan will be updated on an ongoing basis using the Title I Continuous School Improvement Model which includes a one year Implementation Profile for each goal with annual benchmarks as well as Summative Assessments specifying key instructional and intervention strategies based on research and student needs derived from ISTEP+ and school performance data. The Implementation Profiles show the 4 implementation and outcomes of key instruction/intervention strategies as well as professional development, parent involvement and technology strategies from the current and following year. The Summative Assessment of Key Strategies are used to show how the level of implementation of strategies and related student performance data for the current year (2010-11) and recommendations for 2011-12 based on those outcomes. The ten components of a schoolwide program will be implemented through the schoolwide planning process which includes implementing and updating a plan in conjunction with staff, community and family members; receiving technical assistance from an outside technical source (TBD); receiving professional development through The Learning Network; conducting team, grade level and cross grade level meetings to analyze student data; modifying strategies based upon student needs and key error patterns, annually updating the comprehensive needs assessment with summative assessments, reviewing current scientifically based research and best practices to guide instruction, identifying at risk students and providing a continuum of interventions, supplementing the core academic program, providing increased learning time during and after school, and conducting ongoing assessments to determine student growth and needs. Maple Elementary did not meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2009-10; this was the first year that we have not made AYP in over 4 years. We missed making AYP in the subgroup of black students in English/Language Arts; we failed to make AYP by 3 students. The school corporation is in District Improvement and as a result, Maple Elementary is receiving technical assistance from an outside source. #5a) Identify current AYP status of all groups and disaggregated subgroups in both English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Current level of AYP/ School Improvement Status: AYP not met for Spring 2010 in ELA but met in Math PL221 Results: Exemplary Progress (Improvement: -0.6%; Performance: 68.7%) English Overall Black White Hispanic Special LEP Poverty Language AYP AYP AYP AYP Education AYP AYP Arts Status= Status= Status= Status= AYP Status= Status= No No Yes NA Status= NA Yes Yes Mathematics Overall Black White Hispanic Special LEP Poverty AYP AYP AYP AYP Education AYP AYP Status= Status= Status= Status= AYP Status= Status= Yes Yes Yes NA Status= NA Yes Yes
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
7
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Description & Location of Curriculum (SWP 2.c) GCCS curriculum is aligned with the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards. Curriculum information is located in the main office as well as on the Greater Clark County Website. All certified staff has been trained and is participating in Curriculum Mapping and Goal Clarity Windows. Classroom elementary teachers in grades K-5 have mapped the curriculum for: language arts, math, science, and social studies which are aligned to the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards and State Curriculum Maps. Performance data are linked to the maps and goal clarity window and routinely reviewed to guide the process for improving instruction and aligning the formative-assessment process. Curriculum development occurs in the following areas: Language Arts Science/Health Library Media Skills Physical Education
Mathematics Social Studies Art Technology Education
(SWP 2.a-h) In order to understand the level of implementation of key programs and strategies, implementation data are collected and analyzed as evidenced by observations, walk-throughs, collaboration, and student work samples. Students failing ISTEP+ participate in remediation and/or summer programs. Supplemental programs are monitored and evaluated with assessments. Student grades and report cards are aligned with the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards, and ISTEP+ as evidenced by correlations of student grades with scores on ISTEP+. The intervention that will address critical areas will include:
Full-day kindergarten IMPACT (Tiered small group instruction for E/LA and Math) After School remediation offered through Communities in Schools
(SWP 2.c)Some implementation activities and persons responsible have changed to address building and district needs. Standardized assessments have remained the same and Local Assessments have been added to each of the goal areas except attendance. Interventions have also changed due to additional research of best practices and their implications for our building. • •
• •
Our curriculum is aligned with the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards. 100% of teachers identify their Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards within their daily lessons plans, maps and/or goal clarity. Consistent language in the academic areas will follow the published ISTEP list provided by the IDOE across grade levels. The population at Maple is changing. In 2004-05, there were 337 students enrolled at Maple and our present population for 2O10-11 our population has decreased to 287. Over the past 5 years, the number of free and reduced lunch students has increased from 71 to 87.8%. The number of (IEP decreased from 67 to 57 over the 5 year period).
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
8
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Titles and Descriptions of Assessment Instruments (SWP 2.g) ELA Reading/Writing:
Used in Addition to ISTEP+
Applied Performance Based Assessments – These ELA assessments focus on Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards providing students with exposure to open-ended response questions. Teachers score the applied assessments with Rubrics designed from State Assessments. The teacher created assessments are administered every two-three weeks then scored and analyzed by the teacher.
Writing: A district writing prompt is administered to K-5 students at the end of each quarter and scored with the Indiana Writing and Conventions Rubrics. Each quarter a different writing genre is addressed. STAR: Grades K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR Reading results three times a year. Acuity - Grades 2-5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity ELA three times per year
Math:
Applied Performance Based Assessments – These assessments focus on Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards providing students with exposure to open-ended response questions. Teachers score the applied assessments with Rubrics designed from State Assessments. The teacher created assessments are administered every two-three weeks then scored and analyzed by the teacher. STAR: Grades K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR results three times a year.
Acuity : Grades 2-5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity Math three times a year.
Science:
Acuity - Grade 4 teachers administer and analyze Acuity Science two times per year.
Social Studies:
Acuity - Grade 5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity Social Studies two times per year.
Technology:
21st Century Skills - Grade 5 teachers administer and analyze technology skills results at the of each year.
Across the Curriculum:
Goal Clarity Window – Grades K-5 teachers create assessments aligned to standards and are administered every two - three weeks to assess Content standards taught. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
9
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Mission, Vision, and Beliefs Mission Statement of Maple Elementary The mission of Maple Elementary School is to develop a community of learners (students, staff, and parents) who: • Feel safe, challenged and inspired. • Are driven toward student achievement. • Engage in quality learning experiences that lead to independence. • Prepare students for collegiate and occupational success. • Build a life-long love for learning.
Vision Maple Elementary will provide exemplary instruction and a positive learning environment that will establish high expectations for students, staff, and the community while inspiring all students to pursue excellence in both academics and character.
Belief Statements of Maple Elementary • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Learning occurs when applied to real life situations. Students from pre-K through adults can learn and deserve support in becoming lifelong learners. There are conditions that must be present for learning to occur. Knowing the learner is central to all decisions about instruction. Learning is developmental and is based on a growth mindset. All learners achieve at different rates and progress is consolidated through plateaus of learning. Teaching and learning are continuous interactions based upon information gathered and used during instruction and application. Learning is supported through a variety of approaches. Learning increases when done in a supportive community. Reflection is essential to learning. Effective instruction is based on attempts, ample practice, and varying levels of support. Self-evaluation promotes effective and independent learning. Resources (books, materials, experiences) are the servant and not the master of learning. There must be professional dialogue (conversation) about teaching and learning. (Adapted from RCOwen Learning Network, 2004)
School Wide Goal To develop lifelong learners who respond to text independently orally and in writing.
Professional Development Goal (Long-Term) Teachers will create an environment in which all students are expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported to learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels (rigor/engagement).
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
10
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Maple Elementary School Comprehensive Needs Assessment Overview (SWP 1) At the beginning of the year, teachers were divided into 7 committees to research, analyze, and determine how the data applied to our students. Each committee met during zero periods to answer the Data Questions that were pertinent to their area. Upon completion of the analysis, data was shared among the groups and the key findings were presented to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee made the final determination as to which of the key findings were the most important and needed our immediate attention. Our key findings are: 1) There is not enough time in the school day to meet all requirements set forth by both the state and the school corporation. 2) From the Applied Skills Frequency Distribution Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+, less than 50% of students in grades 3-5 show mastery on applied skills in E/LA and Math. The difficulty of giving written responses in all areas is evident in both subjects. 3) In E/LA our data shows a large gap between the black and white students. 57% of black student passed the E/LA test while 86% of the white students (an achievement gap of 29%). In Math, the number of white students passing math is 73% while the number of black students is 57% (an achievement gap of 16%). With a poverty rate of 87.8%, data would be skewed to compare with non-poverty students. It is recommended that additional professional development is needed in order to narrow the achievement gap between our black and white students. Assessment Assessment Q1. How many/what % of students meet state standards? Have mastered which skills? Answer: On data summary, for Spring 2010, 76% of Grades 3-5 passed E/LA and 69% passed in Math on ISTEP+. In meeting academic standards, grades 3-5 were low in writing application and language conventions. 5th grade was low in vocabulary and literary text. In Math, 3rd grade was low in number sense and geometry (mc). 4th grade was low in computation, data analysis and probability. From the Academic Standards Summary Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 3rd graders were above the state average in E/LA in writing process (mc), literary text (mc and oe). In Math, algebra/functions (mc), problem solving (mc, oe) were above state average. 4th Graders were above state average in E/LA nonfiction/informational text (mc, oe) and in Math measurement (mc, oe). 5th graders scored above state average in E/LA writing process (mc) and in all areas of Math. Mastered—E/LA--writing process (mc), literary text (mc, oe)—above state average. Math--algebra/functions (mc), problem solving—above state average. Data Statements: On the Academic Standards Summary Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 75% of Gr. 3-5 passed E/LA and 69% passed in Math. Using the Academic Standard Summary, students in grades 3-5 were above the state average in two of the three grades in the categories of nonfiction/informational text, writing process, algebra/functions, measurement and problem solving. There was not a consistent pattern of skills across grade levels.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
11
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Assessment Q2. Are some groups not performing as well as others? Answer: On Data Summary Sheet for ISTEP+, Spring 2010, 18/37 (49%) of special education students passed E/LA. 27/47 (57%) of black students passes E/LA. In math, 25/37 (68%) of special education students passed, 77/114 (68%) of free/reduced students passed, and 27/47 (57%) of black students passed. Data Statements: On the Spring 2010 Data Summary Sheet for Key ISTEP+ Data, the overall E/LA achievement gap is 29% between black and white students. On the Spring 2010 Data Summary Sheet for Key ISTEP+ Data, the overall Math achievement gap is 16% between black and white students. Assessment Q3. What are the critical errors made by students below mastery? Answer: E/LA--5th grade scored low on extended responses in writing application and literary text. 4th grade scored low on extended response in nonfiction/informational text. 3rd grade scored low in extended response on writing application and literary text. Math—5th grade scored low in measurement, problem solving and geometry. 4th grade scored low in measurement, problem solving, computation and number sense. 3rd grade scored low in number sense, problem solving, measurement, and computation. Data Statements: From the Applied Skills Frequency Distribution Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+, less than 50% of students in Gr. 3-5 show mastery on applied skills in E/LA and Math. The difficulty of giving written responses in all areas is evident in both subject areas. Assessment Q4. Are students showing adequate yearly progress; are #s of students not-passing decreasing/fewer? Answer: The percentage doesn’t reflect adequate yearly progress but we had more students pass but just by a few students in both areas. Data Statement: The Data Summary Report for E/LA on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+, shows the overall number of students passing has increased 7% and includes 17 additional students passing from 2009. The Data Summary Report for Math on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+, shows the overall number of students passing declined by 2%. However, this percentage was lower because 8 more students were tested with 2 additional students passing. Assessment Q5. How well are students meeting standards in non-ISTEP+ grades? Errors? Answer: Reading—on the Spring 2010 TRC benchmark assessment, 35/48 (73%) of Kindergarten students met or exceeded the standards, 18/42 (47%) of 1st grade students met or exceeded the standards, 39/43 (91%) of 2nd grade students met or exceeded the standards. Math--on the Spring 2010 Dibels Math benchmark assessment, 18/48 (38%) of Kindergarten students met or exceeded the standards, 22/42 (52%) of 1st grade students met or exceeded the standards, 24/43 (56%) of 2nd grade students met or exceeded the standards. (See data statements below for error analysis) Data Statements: From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, in E/LA TRC assessment, Grade K and 2 met or exceeded the school goal of 73% passing. In math, on the Dibels assessment, no K-2 grade met the goal of 76%. From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, in E/LA the end of year TRC reports do not show errors. Individual teacher comments on the last TRC running record in the individual student portfolio would indicate the strengths and next steps.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
12
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
In Math, on the end of the year Dibels, report, Grade K and 1 are having difficulty counting and recognizing numbers. Grade 2 is having difficulty with quantity discrimination and computation. Assessment Q6. How many students read at/above gr. level? W/ comprehension? Answer: In the spring of 2010, 182/293 (62%) are at or above on Acuity and TRC assessments. In Reading Counts, Grades 2-4, 97/145 (67%) made growth. 5th grade did not participate. Data statement cannot be made for Reading Counts information because one grade did not participate and K-1 do not have the option to participate. Data Statement: From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, Spring 2010 182/293 (62%) of Gr. K-5 students are at or above grade level (scored in the blue or green tier) on Acuity and TRC assessment scores. From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, students in the blue or green tiers were reading with comprehension.
Assessment Q7. Do students w/ As, Bs, & Cs on report cards pass ISTEP+ (elem)? Answer: In E/LA for Grade 3, 54 students made A, B, Cs, 35/54 (65%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. In Math for Grade 3, 52 students made A, B, Cs, 37/52 (71%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. In E/LA for Grade 4, 22 students made A, B, Cs, 18/22 (82%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. In Math for Grade 4, 26 students made A, B, Cs, 21/26 (81%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. (5th grade data was not available because permanent records are at the middle schools.) Data Statements: (5th grade data was not available because permanent records are at the middle schools.) Using the Class Proficiency Grouping Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+ and student permanent records, in E/LA for Grade 3, 54 students made A, B, Cs, 35/54 (65%) passed 2010 ISTEP+ and in Math for Grade 3, 52 students made A, B, Cs, 37/52 (71%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. Using the Class Proficiency Grouping Report for Spring 2010 ISTEP+ and student permanent records, in E/LA for Grade 4, 22 students made A, B, Cs, 18/22 (82%) passed 2010 ISTEP+ and in Math for Grade 4, 26 students made A, B, Cs, 21/26 (81%) passed 2010 ISTEP+. A large portion of 3rd Grade students had quarterly classroom grades of C’s or higher, however, not all of those students passed ISTEP+. 4th Grade Quarterly classroom grades (formative assessments) are low but students are capable of passing ISTEP+. Assessment Q8. How well prepared do Kdg. Students come to school? Answer: In fall 2009, 2/50 (4%) of K students scored proficient on the TRC. On Dibels Math, 6/50 (12%) of K students scored at the proficient level. On the writing benchmark, 7/48 (15%) of K students scored at the proficient level. On the Brigance, 22/30 Kindergarten students tested scored 76 or more (proficient) on the Brigance, however, 29 students were not tested in Spring of 2009. This data could not be used because of not locating test information. Data Statements: From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, based on the Fall 2009 TRC assessment, 2/50 (4%) of Kindergarten students scored at the proficient level. From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative, based on the Fall 2009 Dibels math assessment, 6/50 (12%) of Kindergarten students scored at the proficient level. Overall, our Kindergarten students are not coming prepared in E/LA and Math. From the 2009-2010 Title I Summative showing 2009 Fall scores, percentages are higher but are far from showing that our Kindergarten students are prepared overall.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
13
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Culture Culture Q1. Are culturally appropriate strategies utilized in classrooms (racial, ethnic, language-minority, cultural, exceptional learning, and socioeconomic groups)? Answer: Based on the ISTEP+ Disaggregation Summary there is a 20% gap in scores of black and white students in 2 grade levels in math. There is a 30% gap in grade 3 in language arts between black and white students and a 50% gap in grade 5. Grade 4 did not show a significant gap in either language arts or math. To assist in narrowing the gap between black and white students, Maple uses • Brain Domain • Zany Brainy Teams • small group instruction • roving 2 times around the room to make sure students(all students but especially black) are on track • school wide goals for English/Language Arts and Math are presented in every Instructional Staff Meeting to make teachers aware of educational gap. Based on 80% poverty for the entire school, we don’t see an overall large achievement gap between free/reduced and paid lunches. Data Statements: To increase cultural competency staff needs more professional development on ways to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. Culture Q2. Is the number of student disruptions kept to a minimum so that learning time for students is maximized? Answer: For 2009-10 there were a total of 153 student infractions; 104 occurred during the school day (68%). These infractions include: Bus referrals 49/153 (32%) Defiance 48/153 (31%) Intimidation 32/153 (21%) Most dispositions were detention after school (18), out of school suspension (21), Parent contact-phone- (33); and counseled/principal (51) for a total of 123/157 (78%). Data Statements: Based on information for Title I Summative student referrals are not always logged into the computer system. Principal deems some referrals as to minor or gets too busy. Student suspensions have also decreased over the last 2 years, from 27 in 2007-08 to 21 in 2009-10. Principal attempts all other avenues of discipline before suspensions. These infractions involved 52 different students. They ranged from 1 infraction to as many as 7 per student. Culture Q3. Do we have a safe learning environment? Answer: Based on 2010 Surveys Parent Survey – 94% believe child feels safe at school Certified staff – 90% believe feel safe in class Classified staff – 87% believe feel safe in class
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
14
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statements Based on surveys, the majority of parents believe their child feels safe at school and the teachers and staff feel safe in class. Culture Q4. How well are our rules or procedures for behavior followed? Answer: 64% of certified staff agreed that students obey the rules established. Documented by Title I Summative, 52 students (17%) out of 300 were involved in most severe disciplinary situations. 83% of the students did not need to have any additional discipline outside of what occurs in classroom. Data Statements: The greatest percentage of our students appears to follow the rules and procedures established. Culture Q5. How do we inform families about state standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies & procedures? Answer: Policy and procedures are distributed at registration and in the daily planners. Open House held at every grade level; standards, expectations, and procedures are discussed. Newsletters have listed web site for standards. Kindergarten report card has all standards listed on it. Special needs IEPs use standards for objectives. 2 Parent conferences nights are held to share with parent student classroom performance, ISTEP+ data, and test assessments. In addition, phone calls, notes, and additional conferences are used when needed. All grade levels utilize the daily planner or blue folders to communicate homework and discipline or any other information needed by parents. These items are returned and sent home daily. Data Statements: A variety of methods are used to notify parents of student achievement, state standards, grade level expectations, policies and procedures. Culture Q6. What level of attendance do we have at parent conf. Open house, other? Answer: (53%) 156/293 of students had parent/guardian representation at Open House/Orientation at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. (78%) 227/292 of students had a parent/guardian that conferenced with the teacher at the end of the 1st nine weeks for school year 2010-11. Data Statements: We have a goal to have a conference with every parent before the end of the year. We have already met with 78% of our parents. We do not know exactly why all were unable to attend but we do try to accommodate by giving alternate times and phone conferences. Culture Q7. What business partnerships do we have? With what outcomes? Role in decision-making? Answer: University of Louisville Dental School Community In Schools after school tutoring 3-2-1 Readers Church tutoring Dare to Care backpack food program Ms. Yutunde Counseling
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
15
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statements: All partnerships offer services or goods to the students. The businesses are not involved in any decision making for the school
Curriculum Curriculum Q1. Is curriculum aligned with state standards? Instruction? Are curriculum maps completed, reviewed and updated regularly? Answer: Curriculum is aligned with state standards. Goal Clarity Windows are reviewed monthly, or more, by the principal. They are currently being worked on toward completion by teachers. Meeting Record Forms show professional development for updating Goal Clarity Windows. Data Statement 0/43 Meeting Record Forms (47%) show professional development for Goal Clarity Windows. The principal did not have an organized way to fully monitor all o f the components of each English/Language Arts Goal Clarity Window. It has led her to require hard copies of all of the components on a bi-monthly basis. Curriculum Q2. Is staff fully implementing key programs trained in? Answer: We do not have programs, but models for math and English/Language Arts daily instruction. We have implemented the components of math review, mental math, and problem solving for Balanced Math model. Our English/Language Arts model of Learning Network has fully implemented components of individualized spelling instruction, independent reading, daily writing practice and instruction, and daily reading practice and instruction. Instruction is done whole and small group. Data Statements: Based on teacher survey: • 11/13 (85%) of classroom teachers have fully implemented math review • 11/13 (85%) of classroom teachers have fully implemented mental math • 10/13 (77%) of classroom teachers have fully implemented math review quiz twice a month • 10/13 (77%) of teachers are attempting poster method of problem solving twice a month • 9/13 (69%) of teachers have at least 4 days of small group reading instruction • 12/13 (92%) of teacher have at least 4 days of whole group reading instruction • 8/13 (62%) of teachers have at least 4 days of whole group writing instruction • 7/13 (54%) of teachers have individualized spelling • 9/13 (69%) of teachers have daily independent reading • 12/13 (92%) of teachers demonstrate their thinking during demonstrations. Curriculum Q3. How are Goal Clarity Windows being monitored? Answer: Goal Clarity Windows are monitored by the principal through Rubicon Data Statement: For the Fall 2010, Goal Clarity Windows have been monitored 3/3 months (September, October, and November). Curriculum Q4. Are rubrics and exemplars being developed and used by teachers AND Students: Are state rubrics posted and used by students? Answer: No. We are in the process of exploring and learning how to use these through professional development.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
16
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statements: 2/15 (13%) of teachers display an exemplar for each Goal Clarity Window. 3/15 (20%) of teachers display a rubric for each Goal Clarity Window. 3/15 (20%) of teachers have students use rubrics for self-assessment for each Goal Clarity Window. Curriculum Q5. Are students provided technology classes? How often? How assessed? Answer: No, students are taken to computer lab once a week for 30 minutes by classroom teachers. No technology standards are addressed. Technology classes are not offered due to a lack of a teacher. Data Statement: 0/13 (0%) of classrooms address technology standards during their 45 minutes in the computer lab. Curriculum Q6. How many/what percent of students are enrolled in Advanced Placement and or Honor courses? Served by the corporation’s highly Able program? Answer: 4 students within grades 4 and 5 from 2009-10 data were enrolled in the highly able program. Data Statement: 4/305 (1%) were enrolled in the high able program.
Intervention Intervention Q1. Are extended time interventions (i.e., tutoring, summer school, supplemental classes) increasing student learning? Answer: Grade 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Number of students in intervention 11 9 6 8 10
Test
Percent that passed
Reading Recovery TRC ISTEP ISTEP ISTEP
27% 56% 50% 63% 40%
Data statements: 31/63 3rd graders who took ISTEP in spring of 2010 were enrolled at Maple since Kindergarten and participated in full day kindergarten. Maple has a turn over in student enrollment of almost 30%. 47% of students (for a total of 44) in grades 1-5 who participated in an intervention group met or exceeded the goal based on the spring assessment. Intervention Q2. What data is used to identify students, programs and personnel for our intervention program? Answer: Student Identification Grades Test 4/5 I-STEP 3 Acuity K/1/2 Dibels Preschool Identified through CCSEC
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
17
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statements: Students in need of intervention are identified through ISTEP scores (grades 4/5), Acuity scores (grade 3), Dibels scores (grades K/1/2) and special Education evaluation (preschool). Students in grades K-5 are placed into 3 tiers (levels) of instruction based on their scores. In Tier 2/3 students receive instruction with an intervention teacher. Intervention Q3. How often is student data reviewed for intervention groups? Answer: During 09-10, student data for intervention groups (grades 1-5) were reviewed 3 times a year with the building principal using corporation benchmark assessments. There was limited movement in the tier placement of students. For the current school year, data is collected weekly or biweekly using a standard test for all intervention groups in reading and math. The data is reviewed with the intervention team quarterly and used to determine student’s movement in the tiers based upon progress. Data Statements: A need was identified to standardize the assessments used for data collection and increase frequency of data collection. This prompted increased review of data collected for intervention groups to a quarterly basis. Intervention teachers now use Progress Monitoring Data (weekly/biweekly) to check on student growth between standardized tests. There is more fluidity in movement of student’s placement between tiers. Intervention Q4. How is intervention data communicated with the regular classroom teacher? Answer: All intervention students Hallway conversations Email Students with IEP Goals Annual case conference review Quarterly progress monitoring on goals reported Data Statements: Based on our comprehensive needs study, we need a method to relay student progress on intervention students with the classroom teachers (tier 2/3). For tiered students with IEP academic goals, progress is communicated quarterly with report cards and at annual case conference reviews. Intervention Q5. What methods are used to evaluate and track the effectiveness of intervention initiatives? Answer: Assessments used in 2009/10 1st grade Reading Recovery 1st/2nd grade intervention groups 3-5 intervention groups Assessments used in 2010/11 1st/2nd grade intervention groups 3-5 intervention groups
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Reading Scott Foresman Testing BooksRunning Records MClass –TRC Acuity, ISTEP Reading 1) Dibels Oral Reading Fluency 2) MClass –TRC 1) Dibels Oral Reading Fluency 2)Acuity, ISTEP
Math MClass computation MClass computation
18
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statement: During the 09-10 school year, we used ISTEP and Acuity for grades 3-5. We used running records for first and second grade to track effectiveness in reading intervention. Currently we now are required to progress monitor students on a weekly/biweekly basis using Dibels Oral Reading Fluency for reading and MClass computation for math intervention to track student progress more frequently.
Pedagogy Pedagogy Q1. Is consistent language & strategies used across grades & classes within grades? Answer: Consistent language and strategies are being used across grades and within grade levels as a result of continued professional development across the curriculum. Data Statements: According to teacher dialogue sheets and Action Plans, teachers are consistent in using draftbooks, Balanced Math, small group instruction, and reading and writing demonstrations. Pedagogy Q2. How much time is spent in teach, guided practice, independent practice? Answer: Based on Walk Through from November, 2009, which was a one day observation, the following time percentages were tallied. Teaching 36% Guided Practice 52% Independent 10% Small Group 1% Based on Teacher Survey from November 2010, the following time percentages were tallied. Teaching 30% Guided Practice 28% Independent 18% Small Group 24% Data Statements: Staff reported on the Fall 2010 Survey that on the average, the school day is equally divided between teaching, guided practice, independent work, and small group instruction. Between the survey and Walk Through, there was a big discrepancy between small group instruction (1% to 24%) and guided practice (52% to 28%). The Walk Through Data was collected by Teacher Leaders and they observed the classroom instruction during 1 period on a given day. Pedagogy Q3. What methodologies are used consistently in our building? Answer: We all use Balanced Math, draft books, reading/writing demonstrations, and small groups in English/Language Arts and math. Data Statements: Through weekly documented staff meetings (ISM) on Atlas Rubicon and teacher lesson plans, data shows teachers engaging students in Balanced math and literacy consistently across grade levels.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
19
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Pedagogy Q4. Do we have guidelines for homework that are consistent in each classroom? How do we ensure guidelines are adhered to? Answer: Do all teachers use planner to write and keep track of homework? Do all teachers give homework daily? What guidelines? Conduct a survey to determine. Do all teachers give daily homework (M-Th)? 100% Do students use the planner to write down homework? 75% What other resources are used to keep track of homework? e-mail, teacher made homework paper, write on board, folder, Does your grade level have consistent homework guidelines? 58% Consequences for no homework returned: must complete before the end of the day, do not get to eat lunch in the classroom on Friday, loss of recess, no rewards Data Statements: According to the Pedagogy Teacher Survey, 58% of teachers felt there are guidelines for homework that are consistent with grade levels? Guidelines were not specified on the survey. Pedagogy Q5. What strategies are used to ensure student engagement? Answer: The following strategies are being used with teaching, guided practice, independent practice, and small group instruction: • Small groups • One-on-one teaching • Partner work • Deeper questioning • Consistent daily review Teachers are continuing to learn more about cooperative learning through ISM/Professional Development Data Statement: After analyzing Instructional methods, teachers verbally reported using the following methods in their classroom on a daily basis: small groups, one-on-one teaching, partner work, deeper question, and consistent daily review.
Planning Planning Q1. Do students have enough time to learn? Answer: When comparing our master teacher schedule to the state guidelines, we found that in 3/6 or 50% of curriculum areas we have the required times for instruction. We are exceeding in the amount of time dedicated to E/LA and Math. This 90 minute block is a requirement set forth by Greater Clark. Because of this, we do not have the required time for Science, Social Studies and Health. Teachers are encouraged to integrate these concepts into their Math and E/LA instruction. Science and Social Studies are rotated in order to allow enough time for the 90 minute blocks in E/LA and Math.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
20
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statement: In general, there is not enough time in the school day to meet all requirements set forth by both the state and the corporation. Planning Q2. Does the school schedule enhance or hinder learning? Time on task? Answer: According to a classroom teacher survey: • 13/13 (100%) of teachers feel Balanced Math has been an addition to the curriculum schedule that has enhance the learning of their students. • 2/13 (15%) of teachers feel their “Brain Domain” schedules enhances the learning of their students. The “Brain Domain” includes stations meant for activating and improving the functions of the brain including hand-eye coordination and eye tracking. • 11/13 (85%) of teachers feel the “Brain Domain” schedule hinders the learning of their students. Some issues include behavior, inconsistency, interruption of core instructional time in Math and E/LA, takes away from their time to teach science and social studies, and time allotted for this activity does not include adequate transition time, therefore taking up more time than the schedule allows. • 9/13 (64%) of teachers stated that their Special Area schedule enhances the learning of their students. These teachers stated that this time allows them to have common planning with their grade level. They also stated that it does not interrupt their core instructional time and is at a good time of the day for their students. • 4/13 (36%) of teachers felt their Special Area time hinders the learning of their students. One grade level was concerned that they are missing out on valuable instructional opportunities first thing in the morning. Another grade level has one teacher which has a different time and prevents them from having common planning time. • 13/13 (100%) of teachers stated that the E/LA intervention times built into their schedule are an enhancement to their student’s learning. Students below grade level are pulled out to participate in differentiated instruction based on their learning needs for 30 minutes of the 90 minute E/LA block. • 12/13 (92%) of teachers stated that the Math intervention times built into their schedule are an enhancement to their students’ learning. Students below grade level are pulled out to participate in differentiated instruction based on their learning needs for 30 minutes of the 90 minute Math block. • 1/13 (8%) of teachers stated that the Math intervention time built into their schedule hinders their students’ learning. This teacher stated that the time is an interruption to core math instruction. • 4/13 (36%) of teachers stated that the time built into their schedule for Science and Social Studies enhances the learning of their students. These teachers stated that there are no issues with this within their schedule. • 9/13 (64%) of teachers stated that the time built into their schedules for Science and Social Studies hinders their student’s learning. These teachers stated that the transition times unaccounted for in their schedules lead to their inability to get these lessons completed consistently and with fidelity. Teachers also state that a lack of materials and time make it extremely difficult to teach these subjects. Teachers admit to integrating the subject matter into their core subject instruction as much as possible. Data Statements: Overall, 9/13 (64%) of classroom teachers say they are able to have a 90 minute uninterrupted block of time in the area of E/LA and Math. They found this to be very beneficial to learning. 4/13 (36%) of teachers stated that their E/LA and Math blocks have an interruption such as brain domain, or their schedule has an instructional time beginning at 8:55, when the transition from gym to class takes until approximately 9:05. Some teachers also noted that an afternoon time for E/LA hinders their student’s learning because they are less focused. According to the teachers, these issues hinder their students’ learning. Planning Q 3. How are paraprofessionals & special program staff used to support student learning? Answer: Maple Elementary has 3 highly qualified para-educators. Two of them work full time in each of the two kindergarten classrooms to support student learning by instructing in small groups, one on one and helping to manage behavior issues and transitions. According to the schedule created by the Special Needs Coordinator, the other para-educator spends 30-45 minutes per day working one on one or with a small group of students with special needs. During this time she instructs based on deficit academic and social skills.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
21
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Data Statements: Planning Q4. Are school improvement strategies monitored on a regular basis? Answer: Grades K-2 takes the DIBELS Assessment in E/LA and Math 3 times a year. Grades 3-5 are monitored using Acuity testing 3 times a year in Math and E/LA. These results are posed on a school wide Data Wall in which students are identified as Tier 1, 2, or 3. The Acuity is also used to predict ISTEP+ performance. Students identified in Tier 2 are monitored monthly using DIBELS (ORF/Oral Reading Fluency) in E/LA. Students identified in Tier 3 are monitored weekly or bi-weekly using DIBELS (ORF). Twice a year 4th and 5th grade students are assessed in Science or Social Studies using the Acuity Assessment. In addition, all students are assessed on state standards with pre-and post tests on the Goal Clarity Windows. Data Statements: All students are assessed on a regular basis through standardized and teacher made assessments. Planning Q5. How is shared leadership demonstrated in the building? What opportunities are available for teacher leaders? Answer: Maple Elementary participates in a program called The Learning Network. As a part of this program the school has a leadership team consisting of 5 Teacher Leaders, Teacher Leader Support Coach and the principal. The leadership team meets once weekly after school to share and discuss new understandings for learning and instruction. The leadership team participated in a summer workshop and several school day meetings throughout the semesters with their Learning Network Coordinator, Chris Kindy. The Teacher Leaders share their new understanding with all teachers during instructional staff meetings 2 times a week. IN addition, once weekly, each teacher meets with their grade level and 2 Teacher Leaders. During this time teachers participate in instructional dialogue and reflection of their current practices and the use of their new understanding and strategies to increase student achievement. In addition to The Learning Network professional development, teachers also meet with the principal for primary and intermediate common planning once weekly. All grade levels have common planning opportunities with the school day except for 4th grade due to their unique special area schedule. Special Needs staff also meets with their supervisor, Jennifer Kelly once weekly. Data Statements: Professional Development Professional Development Q1. What is the relationship of student achievement, state standards, & professional dev? Answer: Data from Maple Elementary Professional Development Log shows the following percentage of time spent during ISM (Instructional Staff Meeting) on each focus area: Reading – 9/79 (11%) Writing – 5/79 (6%) Math – 15/79 (19%) Other – 32/79 (56%) (ISTEP+, Analyzing data interventions, PL 221, Acuity, Walk-Throughs) State Standards – 18/79 (23%) (Curriculum Mapping, learning goals, Goal Clarity Window, Lesson Planning)
Data Statement : Even though 19% of professional development was focused on math, ISTEP+ results showed a decline in math scores. The professional development focus for 2010-11 is math. ISTEP+ English/Language Arts scores showed 7% gain while math showed 2% decrease. 23% of professional development focused on state standards (Goal
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
22
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Clarity Windows, lesson planning). Teachers implemented Goal Clarity Window during 2010-11 school year. The impact of professional development that focused on state standards can’t be determined until 2011 ISTEP+ scores. Professional Development Q2. What impact has PD had on classroom practice? How do we know? How do we evaluate impact? Answer: We began Balanced Math Professional development in late Fall of 2009, but not fully implemented until Fall 2010. 13/13 classroom teachers reported implementing math review. (Data is from Curriculum Committee Survey for PL 221). From Professional development we are in the process of implementing Goal Clarity Window every 2 weeks. We still do not know the impact on student achievement until ISTEP+ 2011. For the last 10 years Maple has had ongoing Professional Development through teacher leader support in the classroom on a weekly basis (Data source Title I Summative). E/LA ISTEP+ scores show student achievement has increased over the last 5 years from 69.7% to 75%. Data Statements: Professional development does impact classroom practices. Professional Development is done through ISM, classroom support, common planning and on-site visits from the Learning Network Coordinator. Professional Development Q3. What kinds of collaboration exist? How effective is each? Answer: Each grade level had the opportunity to collaborate daily at common planning time. 2 We are unable to assess the effectiveness of this collaboration due to the different grade level focuses. Each teacher had weekly support for 60 minutes with their grade level partner(s), teacher support person, and teacher leader coach to collaborate about current classroom practices, school-wide instructional practices, schoolwide language, and classroom and school-wide data. Its effectiveness is noted in the 7% increase in ISTEP+ English/Language Arts scores. We had outside professional development assistance through The Learning Network coordinator for 8 on-site visits for 2009-10 school year to work with the principal, classroom teachers, Teacher Leaders and Coach. Ms. Kindy conducted Instructional Staff Meetings, classroom observations, and meetings with Teacher Leaders and principal. Data Statements: For Common Planning there is no data to support the effectiveness. The 2010-11 school year has changed to once a week for cross grade level in primary and cross grade level in intermediate collaboration with a common topic focus. This will promote consistency. Teacher Leader Support was focused on deeper questioning in reading (Data from Action Plans and Instructional Dialogue Sheets). ISTEP+ reading scores showed a 7% gain (68% to 75%) in English/Language Arts.
Professional Development Q4. Does PD increase cultural competency? Answer: We don’t have data to show if professional development increases cultural competency. 8/79 (10%) of our professional development focused on analyzing ISTEP data (based on Professional Development Log). Teachers looked at gaps (black/white, poverty) in student learning during these sessions. Data Statements: ISTEP+ data is disaggregated into the following subgroups: Poverty, black, white, multi. Our data shows the largest gap between the black and white subgroups in English/Language Arts. The number of black students passing English/Language Arts was 57% and the number of white student passing was 86% (an achievement gap of 29%).
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
23
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
The number of white students passing math is 73% and the number of black students passing is 57% (an achievement gap of 16%). With a high poverty rate of 80%, data would be skewed to compare with non-poverty students. It is recommended that additional professional development is needed in order to narrow the achievement gap between our black and white students.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
24
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
25
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Elementary Summary Sheet for Key ISTEP+ Data English/Language Arts (ELA)
Mathematics (Math)
ELA - OVERALL
MATH - OVERALL
Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report”
Grade* Spring 12 66.7% IREAD 3 4 5 Total
Spring 13
Spring 14
73.5%
21/30 77% 27/36 75% 44/52 74%
34/46 74% 23/28 82% 31/40 71%
30/37 80.6% 27/38 71.1% 35/37 94.6% 22/29 75.9%
92/118 78%
88/114 77%
84/104 80.8%
Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report”
Grade*
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
3
20/30 60% 29/36 81% 46/52 88% 95/118 81%
25/46 56% 19/28 68% 36/40 90% 80/110 73%
27/38 71.1% 24/37 64.9% 24/29 82.8% 75/104 72.1%
4 5 Total
ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3
MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
4/4 100% 17/22 77%
4/4 100% 28/37 76%
2/10 20% 16/26 67% 3/3 100% 5/9 56% 16/21 76% 4/6 67% 1/1 100%
ELL Black
****
White
11/14 79
Hispanic Multiracial
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
9/12 75% 19/26 73%
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
4/4 100% 14/22 64%
4/4 100% 20/37 54%
Black
****
White
11/14 79
5/12 42% 15/26 58%
3/10 30% 16/26 67% 3/3 100% 5/9 56% 16/21 76% 4/6 67% 1/1 100%
Free/Red ELL
Hispanic Multiracial
26
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4
MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
4/6 66% 22/30 73%
1/2 50% 19/22 86%
7/9 78% 29/32 91% 2/2 100% 7/8 88% 20/22 91% 3/3 100% 4/4 100%
ELL Black White
14/17 82% 10/14 71%
10/11 91% 11/13 85%
Hispanic Multiracial
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
6/6 100% 25/30 83%
2/2 100% 16/22 73%
14/17 82% 12/14 86%
8/11 73% 9/13 69%
6/9 67% 18/32 56% 2/2 100% 3/8 38% 14/22 64% 3/3 100% 3/4 75%
ELL Black White Hispanic Multiracial
ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5
MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
3/3 100% 30/36 88%
1/1 100% 30/37 81%
3/6 50% 14/21 67% 1/1 100% 5/9 56%
ELL Black
13/15 80
12/17 71%
White
24/27 89%
9/14 64%
Hispanic Multiracial
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
11/14 79% 1/2 50% 5/5 100%
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
3/3 100% 32/36 89%
1/1 100% 34/37 92%
Black
13/15 87%
17/17 100%
5/6 83% 16/21 76% 1/1 100% 5/9 56%
White
24/27 89%
12/14 86%
Free/Red ELL
Hispanic Multiracial
13/14 93% 1/1 100% 5/5 100%
27
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
ELA-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
11/13 85% 69/88 78%
6/7 85.7% 77/96 80%
12/25 48% 59/79 75% 6/6 100% 17/26 65% 47/57 82% 8/11 73% 10/10 100%
Free/Red ELL
27/32 84% 45/55 82%
Black White
31/40 78% 39/53 74%
Hispanic Multiracial
MATH-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
13/13 100%
7/7 100%
14/25 56%
Free/Red
79/88 90%
80/96 83%
27/32 84% 47/55 85%
30/40 75% 36/53 68%
50/79 63% 6/6 100% 13/26 50% 43/57 75% 8/10 80% 9/10 90%
ELL Black White Hispanic Multiracial
Science
Social Studies
SCIENCE - OVERALL
SOCIAL STUDIES - OVERALL
Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report”
Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report”
Grade* Spring 12 26/36 4
Spring 13
Spring 14
****
24/37 65%
72%
Science - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4
Grade* 5
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
6/6=100%
****
Free/Red
22/30=73%
****
5/9 56% 21/32 66% 2/2 100% 3/8 38% 16/22 73% 2/3 67% 3/4 75%
****
ELL Black
12/17=71%
****
White
12/14=86%
****
Hispanic Multiracial
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Spring 13
Spring 14
39/52 75%
20/40 50%
20/29 69%
Social Studies - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
3/3=100%
1/1=100%
Free/Red
26/36=72%
19/37=51%
Black
8/15=53%
7/17=41%
White
22/27=81%
7/14=50%
2/6 33% 12/21 57% 0/1 0% 4/9 44% 11/14 79% 0/1 0% 5/5 100%
ELL
Hispanic Multiracial
28
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Conclusions/Guiding Principles/Strategies
Conclusions/Guiding Principles
Implementation Strategies
Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching & Learning in America’s Schools, Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, Arthur Hyde, Heinemann Publ., 2005, pg. 49. Teachers should support readers before, during, and after reading. Assigning reading is not teaching reading. Wise teachers “frontload” instruction. Before kids read a particular text, teachers help students activate prior knowledge, set purposes for reading, and make predictions. During reading, teachers help students monitor their comprehension and construct meaning. After reading, teachers help students savor, share, and apply meaning, and build connections to further reading and writing.
Teachers will study and experiment with higher order questioning techniques that enhance students understanding of written text.
Active Learning Through Formative Assessment, Shirley Clark, Hodder Education, 2008, p. 53. The kinds of questions teachers ask determine how far the discussions will go in deepening and furthering children’s learning and understanding. We must ask pupils questions which will extend their thinking and learning, and that has always been a challenging task.
Teachers will experiment with the generic templates for questioning which were derived from analyzing effective questions. The five templates for effective questions are: • A range of answers • A statement • Right and wrong • Starting from the answer or end • An opposing standpoint
Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching & Learning in America’s Schools, Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, Arthur Hyde, Heinemann Publ., 2005, pg. 87-88. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teacher must help children enact and internalize such steps as the following: • Topic selection • Prewriting (planning) • Drafting • Revising • Editing • Publishing When students take ownership of their writing, there’s actually much more teaching than before, and it’s focused on higher-level thinking. Good teaching means helping students learn these authoring processes. Teaching techniques to promote real authorship and decision making include: • Modeling • Brief one-to-one conferences between
Teachers will use 4 Square Writing Method as an instructive tool to help students plan their writing.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Teachers will use the 4 levels of support (demonstration, shared, guided, and independent) to help students to become independent learners
Teachers will use partner talk or cooperative learning to help students work together constructively and meaningfully.
29
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
•
teacher and student Small-group collaborative work and peer evaluation
Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching & Learning in America’s Schools, Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, Arthur Hyde, Heinemann Publ., 2005, pg. 115-116. Five intertwined processes build mathematical understanding. Teaching for conceptual understanding means helping students build a web of interconnected ideas. Teachers provide experiences for students in which the are actively engage in these key processes: • Making connections • Using reasoning and developing proofs • Problem solving • Creating representation • Communication ideas Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program, Larry Ainsworth and Jan Christinson, Lead + Learn Press, 2006, pg. xxix. The five main components of the Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math program are summarized as: 1. Computational Skills (Math Review and Mental Math). 2. Problem Solving 3. Conceptual Understanding 4. Mastery of Math Facts 5. Common Formative Assessment
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
To help make build mathematical understanding, teachers will use: • manipulative material • cooperative group work • word problems with a variety of structures and solution paths • open-ended problems and extended problemsolving projects • daily math review
Teachers will use the Balanced Math Program with an emphasis on Problem Solving computational skills, and Mastery of Facts.
30
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
PL221 Goals from Inquiry 2014-15 (SWP 2.g) Academic Goals: By Spring 2015 > 82.8% of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in ELA as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. By Spring 2015 > 90% of students in grades 3 will meet State Standard in Reading as measured by IREAD3. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 77 % of the students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 54.2 % of the students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67 % of the students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75 % of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. By Spring 2015 > 83 % of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in Math as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. Benchmarks On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75.8 % of the students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 63.2 % of the students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 66.2 % of the students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 82 % of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. Attendance rate: Our attendance rate for 2013-14 was 96.8%; and this has exceeded the state average. Our goal is to continue to increase attendance to 98.8% and stay above the state average. Our number of students with no behavioral referrals for 2013-14 was 80.4%. Our goal is to increase the number of students with no behavioral referrals for 201415 to 82.4%. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
31
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Specific areas where improvement is needed immediately Reading Students need a deeper understanding of contextual meaning. Teachers need to ask higher order thinking questions to guide student learning, and to help develop deeper thinking. Students need more practice in responding to applied questions in reading. Writing Students need to understand the writing process (topic selection, planning, drafting, revision, editing, and publishing) Math Students need more practice in number sense, problem solving and responding to applied questions in math.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
32
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (English/Language Arts) (SWP 2.g) By Spring 2015 > 82.8% of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in ELA as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. By Spring 2015 > 90% of students in grades 3 will meet State Standard in Reading as measured by IREAD3. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 77 % of the students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 54.2 % of the students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67 % of the students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75 % of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5.
System
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation (SWP 10)
Guiding Principle 1 – Developing good questioning techniques that will help guide instruction and allow students to gain more meaning and understanding to the written text. Guiding Principle 2 – Providing students with more practice in responding to applied questions and using rubrics to self evaluate.
Assessment (SWP 2.g)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will use GCW assessments aligned to district/state maps, classroom activities, and technology. Strategy 2 – Teachers will use grade level rubrics and exemplars to evaluate student responses to higher order questions. Strategy 3 – Teachers will use grade level exemplars as the model for what student work should look like. Strategy 4 – Teachers will provide the necessary levels of support (demonstration, shared, guided, and independent) through the gradual release model for their students to be successful readers and responders to text. Strategy 5 – Teachers will use and instruct students in content appropriate vocabulary (Goal Clarity Window) with the expectation that students will understand and use vocabulary appropriately and consistently when responding to text.. Strategy 7 – Teachers will assess student writing quarterly using the writing expectations found in our Literacy Framework as established by GCCS.
Curriculum (SWP 2a-h)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will use the gradual release model in all curriculum areas. Strategy 2 – Grade level teachers will orally model and think out loud what good readers think and do and how they should respond to text in writing. Strategy 3 – Teachers will use the McGraw Hill Reading program and follow the
*Include Technology
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Evaluation Results/Revisions (SWP 1; 2 c.h;4; 8; 10) • •
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? How will we revise?
• When will we monitor? Based upon review of student data, what revisions need to be made? How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teachers will analyze student responses for successes and challenges using Goal Clarity Windows (GCW) and benchmarks scores that are less than 75%+. • Review grade level, school and district wide reading data to determine if student progress from instruction is value added, value lost, or value neutral. How will we revise? • Provide PD for common deficit trends among grade levels • Teachers will begin instruction by giving students text at their instructional level to help thems take on the reading strategy instead of the grade level text. When will we monitor? • Minimum weekly • Every two – three weeks when the GCW assessment is administered How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teachers will use benchmark and GCW assessments where achievement scores of 75%+ must be met
33
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools Literacy Framework as established by GCCS. Strategy 4 – Teachers will use graphic organizers such as Cornell Note-Taking and the Frayer Model to increase comprehension and develop vocabulary. Strategy 5 – Teachers will use the Four-Square Writing model for the writing framework. Writing skills will be taught using different genre each 9 weeks. Strategy 6 – Teachers will find snippets of time during their daily literacy review to work with students who missed an item on the GCW assessments. Strategy 7 – Teachers will provide students with websites that they can explore for literacy development. Strategy 8 – Teachers will allow students to have one published piece done on the computer per semester.
•
•
How will we revise? Teachers will look at the previous grade level’s standards and indicators to determine if students have gaps in their learning that must be taught for achievement to take place at the current grade level. Teachers will self-evaluate their instructional pace using the (GCW) to determine how well they were able to follow the pacing guides and what could have been done more efficiently/effectively. When will we monitor? • Walkthroughs weekly • Survey
Culture (SWP 6.a-b; 7)
Strategy 1 – Teacher will challenge and motivate diverse student populations by using a variety of learning modalities such as “think and read aloud” as well as engaging participation techniques. Strategy 2 – Teachers will gather grade level student data information to know the subgroups within their classroom and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of each student. Strategy 3 – Teachers will integrate our PBIS character traits into all areas of learning to encourage a growth mindset. Strategy 4 – Teachers will routinely collaborate (vertically or horizontally) to create/develop, analyze, and problem-solve whereby a common language and a common achievement goal will be carried to our students and used by both the teachers and students for mastery. Strategy 5 – Teachers will share with parents questioning technique/strategies to use with their children to enhance reading for meaning.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Analyze student work for strengths, challenges, and next steps; achievement results will be based on scores of 75%+ • Walkthroughs to see if students are engaged in their learning and challenged/motivated to try harder because of small group support, rigor, understanding the relevancy of the task, support from LARs, exemplars, and technology. • Possible video snapshots • Grade level discussions • Tally parent participation in Family Nights How will we revise? • Teachers will ask their students about their learning to help them become self-evaluators of their learning as it helps the teacher and the students to know what they have achieved and to determine how to help them to take on new skills/concepts to achieve successfully. When will we monitor? • Weekly (minimum to monthly to quarterly monitoring depending on the need in some cases
Intervention (SWP 9)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will address Tier I instruction through core and differentiated instruction. Strategy 2 – Teachers will address Tier II and III through additional IMPACT time (30
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation?
*Include cultural competency
*Include Tier I, II and III
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
34
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools minutes for Tier II and 45 minutes for Tier III), using a researched based program with fidelity. Strategy 3 – Grade level teachers and interventionists meet at the end of the quarter to discuss the progress of our Tier II and III students which will determine who needs to be dismissed from, kept, or added to the Tiers.
•
Analyze assessment results at every level for progress of our Tier 2 and 3 students • Data meetings How will we revise? • Monitor to make sure all teachers and support staffs are good stewards of their time in that they stick to their schedules so students needing more time will get it on a daily basis during IMPACT time. When will we monitor? • GCW: 2-3 weeks •
Benchmarks STAR and Acuity: Fall, winter, spring
•
Progress Monitor STAR: Every 3 weeks
•
Quarterly teacher/interventionists meetings
Planning/Leadership (SWP 8)
Strategy 1 – Teacher Leaders will plan their PD focuses around the components of literacy block as they follow the guidelines from the State Reading Plan and GCCS Literacy Framework. Strategy 2 – Teacher leaders will set the expectations, model, and serve as change agents who are empowered to lead in order to help their colleagues to take on the research based best practices for teaching and learning for ALL students. Strategy 3 – Building Leadership Team (BLT) meetings will focus on students and student achievement issues and what the teachers need for professional development in order to increase student achievement in responding to questions and reading and writing in general.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teachers will collect, analyze, interpret GCW and benchmark data to determine if 75+ students achieved. • Walkthroughs How will we revise? • Video snapshots of instruction • Surveys When will we monitor? • Weekly walkthroughs (minimum)
Pedagogy (SWP 2 a-h)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will use a variety of “total participation techniques” such as cooperative learning as a strategy to engage students in learning using the gradual release model. Strategy 2 – Teachers will use an effective whole class checking system when teaching or checking for understanding of a skill or concept. Strategy 3 – The approaches for reading instruction will be demonstration, shared, guided, and independent practice (gradual release). Strategy 4 – Lesson objective will be specific, measurable, kid friendly and convey what
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Class and benchmark assessment scores for achievement at 75%+ must be met • Walkthroughs/video snapshots How will we revise? • Have professional development on effective teaching and learning strategies (pedagogy) that help students
*Include Reading Plan
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
35
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Professional Development (SWP 3; 4; 5)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
students will be able to do by end of lesson.
to achieve When will we monitor: • Weekly walkthroughs (minimum)
Strategy 1 – Professional development will be narrow and focused based on our Summative Assessment (ISTEP+) as well as GCW and benchmark assessments. Strategy 2 – Professional development will be based on our district’s initiatives which include reading and writing along with three other categories that will rotate weekly. Strategy 3 – Understandings about how common cultures in our school learn will be revisited through the study of books, such as, A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. Strategy 4 – Besides the district’s initiative, two other days during the week will be used for further teacher training and analyzing. Strategy 5 – Professional development will be data driven.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Walk-throughs, video snapshots • Student work and assessments analyzed to monitor instructional strategy implementation and student achievement • Maintain and update the PD calendar to make it a living document How will we revise? • Monitor teacher attendance/participation in professional development When will we monitor? • Weekly to monthly (“As needed” if adequate progress is not made quarterly among the subgroups)
36
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (Math) (SWP 2.g) By Spring 2015 > 83 % of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in Math as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. Benchmarks On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75.8 % of the students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 63.2 % of the students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 66.2 % of the students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 82 % of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in Math in grades 3-5.
System
Assessment (SWP 2.g)
Curriculum (SWP 2a-h) *Include Technology
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation (SWP 10)
•
Based on our guiding principles and/or best practice research, what strategies will help us reach our goal?
•
What actions will we take to implement the strategies?
Evaluation Results/Revisions (SWP 1; 2 c.h;4; 8; 10) • •
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? How will we revise?
Guiding Principle 1 – Developing mathematical understanding using Balanced Math structure (using manipulative material, cooperative group work, word problems with a variety of structures and solution paths, and open-ended problem solving projects).
• •
Strategy 1 – Teachers will use GCW assessments aligned to district/state maps, classroom activities, and technology to guide instruction. Strategy 2 – Teachers will use grade level rubrics and exemplars to evaluate student responses and to see what achievement oriented work should look like. Strategy 3 – Teachers will provide the necessary testing environment for their students to be successful test-takers and learners. Strategy 4 – Teachers will use and instruct students in math content appropriate vocabulary (Goal Clarity Window) with the expectation that students will understand and use vocabulary appropriately and consistently. Strategy 5 – Teachers will use Balanced Math strategies such as Math Review quizzes, problem solving posters, etc. to guide instruction.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teachers will analyze student responses for successes and challenges using Goal Clarity Windows (GCW) and benchmarks scores that are less than 75%+. • Review grade level, school and district wide math data to determine if student progress from instruction is value added, value lost, or value neutral. • Walkthroughs (weekly or more) How will we revise? • Teachers will review at a lower grade level the concept before teaching at grade level for struggling students. When will we monitor? • Every two to three weeks (GCW)
Strategy 1 – Grade level teachers will use the gradual release model during math instruction. Strategy 2 – Grade level teachers will orally model and think out loud what good mathematicians think and do when calculating a problem and how they respond to text
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • 75%+ of the class must pass the assessment • Data walls
When will we monitor? Based upon review of student data, what revisions need to be made?
37
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools when problem solving Strategy 3 – Grade level teachers will use the GCW pacing guide for daily instruction to help students to master a standard. Strategy 4 – Teachers will use graphic organizers, Cornell Note-taking and Frayer Model as an aid to master mathematical concepts and vocuabulary.
Culture (SWP 6 a-b; 7)
*Include cultural competency
Strategy 1 – Teacher will challenge and motivate diverse student populations by using a variety of learning modalities such as “think and read aloud” as well as engaging participation techniques. Strategy 2 – Teachers will gather grade level student data information to know the subgroups within their classroom and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of each student. Strategy 3 – Teachers will integrate our PBIS character traits into all areas of learning to encourage a growth mindset. Strategy 4 – Teachers will routinely collaborate (vertically or horizontally) to create/develop, analyze, and problem-solve whereby a common language and a common achievement goal will be carried to our students and used by both the teachers and students for mastery. Strategy 5 – Teachers will share with parents questioning technique/strategies to use with their children to enhance reading for meaning.
Intervention (SWP 9)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will address Tier I instruction through core and differentiated instruction. Strategy 2 – Teachers will address Tier II and III through additional IMPACT time (30 minutes for Tier II and 45 minutes for Tier III), using a researched based program with fidelity. Strategy 3 – Grade level teachers will have planned collaboration time weekly to discuss progress and placement.
*Include Tier I, II and III
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
How will we revise? • Teachers will look at the previous grade level’s standards and indicators to create an easier assessment that will help the teacher to see if there are gaps in student learning When will we monitor? • Every two weeks or sooner How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teachers will analyze the subgroups’ work for strengths, challenges, and next steps; 75%+ of the class must pass on their benchmark assessment • Students will be engaged in their learning and challenged to try because of small group support, rigor, routines, support from rubrics and exemplars. • Walkthroughs/video snapshots • Data walls • Tally parent participation in Family Nights How will we revise? • Teachers will talk to their students about their learning to help the student to become reflective as it helps the teacher to know what their students know how to do and to determine how to help them to take on new skills/concepts to achieve successfully. When will we monitor? • Weekly and monthly monitoring depending on the need in some cases. How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Data meetings • Analyze assessment results at every level for progress of our Tier 2 and 3 students How will we revise? • Make sure all staffs are good stewards of time and that they stick to their schedules so students needing more time will get it on a daily basis during IMPACT time.
38
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
•
When will we monitor? Quarterly
Planning/Leadership (SWP 8)
Strategy 1 – Teacher Leaders will plan their focuses for math to include the components of reading process and reading comprehension to help students to be able to read and to understand what they have read when reading math instructions and word problems. Strategy 2 – Teacher leaders will set the expectations, model, and serve as change agents who are empowered to lead. Strategy 3 – Teacher leaders will give weekly support to help their colleagues to use research based best practices for teaching and learning Strategy 4 – Teacher Leader meetings will focus on students and student achievement issues and what the teacher need for professional development in order to increase student achievement in math.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Teacher will collect, analyze, interpret data from student work or assessments to drive decisions made by the LT to support their colleagues. How will we revise? • Walkthroughs/video snapshots • Surveys found on GCW analyze form • When will we monitor? • 2-3 week GCW assessments
Pedagogy (SWP 2 a-h)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will use “total participation techniques” as a strategy to engage students in math lessons with more emphasis on the guided practice component. Strategy 2 – Teachers will use an effective whole class checking system when teaching or checking for understanding a skill or concept Strategy 3 – The approaches for math instruction will be demonstration, shared, guided, and independent (gradual release). Strategy 4 – Lesson objective will be specific and convey what students will be able to do by end of lesson
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • 75%+ of the class must pass benchmark assessments with a score 75%+ • Walkthroughs/video snapshots How will we revise? • Have professional development on effective teaching and learning strategies (pedagogy) that help students to learn When will we monitor? • Daily to weekly
Professional Development (SWP 3; 4; 5)
Strategy 1 – Professional Development will focus on Balanced Math using student data from applied math assessments and cooperative learning activities such as the poster method. Strategy 2 – Teachers Leaders will support classroom teachers in research based instruction during the monthly zero period Balanced Math PDs. Strategy 3 – Professional development will be data driven
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Walkthroughs and analysis of student work • Student assessments are analyzed to monitor instructional strategy implementation How will we revise? • Principal will increase the amount of time spent in classrooms to a minimum of weekly visits to see if best practices learned in professional development and are transferred to classroom application. • Look at teacher attendance/participation in professional development When will we monitor?
*Include Reading Plan
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
39
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
• • • •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Weekly walkthroughs 2-3 weeks for GCWs Fall, winter, spring for Acuity and STAR Every 3 weeks progress monitor
40
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (Behavior/Attendance) (SWP 2.g) By the spring of 2015, Maple Elementary attendance rate will be ≥ 98.8%. (SWP 2.g) ) By the spring of 2015, ≥ 82.4%.of students will have received no Behavioral Referrals for the 2014-15 school year.
System
Assessment (SWP 2.g)
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation (SWP 10)
•
Based on our guiding principles and/or best practice research, what strategies will help us reach our goal?
•
What actions will we take to implement the strategies?
Evaluation Results/Revisions (SWP 1; 2 c.h;4; 8; 10) • •
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? How will we revise?
Guiding Principle 1 – Effective behavior can be taught to all students. Guiding Principle 2 – Intervene before problem behavior(s) increase. Guiding Principle 3 – Additional support must be provided to students who fall into Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories.
• •
Strategy 1 – Develop and teach consistent rules and routines and make adjustments to the classroom environment as needed. Strategy 2 – Staff and students must know the behavior expectations we are working on both general and specific. Strategy 3 – Appropriate behavior expectations must be displayed throughout the school. Strategy 4 – Tally the number of referral written per quarter and per student.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Collect disciplinary referral data per day, month, and quarter and reporting to the students and staff.
When will we monitor? Based upon review of student data, what revisions need to be made?
•
Collect data according to the time of day, problem behavior, and location.
•
At the end of the day report the number of students absent or tardy.
How will we revise? • Make sure all staff members (cafeteria, custodial, and para educator) are on board. When will we monitor? • Weekly to monthly to quarterly
Curriculum (SWP 2a-h) *Include Technology
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Strategy 1 – Utilize PBIS IN for resources (articles and videos to be shown on Chromebooks/Promethean board) need to teach and support all of the members of the school staff in the implementation of PBIS.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • 80% + of a class or school will have 3 or less referrals
41
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools Strategy 2 – Teachers will be the primary teacher deliverer of PBIS instruction which will include teaching the rules, character traits, bullying prevention, and having discussions in community groups and videos. Strategy 3 – Teachers will use the Promethean board to show movies about good attendance and punctuality BIC (breakfast in the classroom).
Culture (SWP 6 a-b; 7)
*Include cultural competency
Strategy 1 – The entire staff, who will have been informed about the targeted behavior, will be proactive instead of reactive. Strategy 2 – All students will be taught the expected behavior and rewarded for following through. Strategy 3 – Follow the guidelines of the IMPACT Plan for Behavior
per quarter. Tier 2 and 3 students will reduce their referrals by one or fewer per quarter. • Less tardies by our consistently tardy students. How will we revise? • The community classroom group will meet to discuss the effectiveness of reducing the targeted behavior and address other behavioral concerns individual students may have. When will we monitor? • Weekly (minimum) •
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Observations •
Decrease in disciplinary referrals
•
Tally the number of whole class rewards
How will we revise? • Monitor the number of minority students vs white students with disciplinary referrals. When will we monitor? • Daily to weekly and monthly monitoring depending on the need in some cases.
Intervention (SWP 9) *Include Tier I, II and III
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Strategy 1 – A minimum of 80% the school enrollment should be in Tier 1. Strategy 2 – Tier 2 students must have in place one, some, or all of the following: a positive check-in/checkout intervention system, social skills instruction, school-based mentors, and/or behavior contracts Strategy 3 – Tier 3 students must have tried the Tier 2 implementations and include the following for Tier 3: Parent conference, get signed consent for an FBA/BIP and once developed reconvene with the parent to discuss and sign for implementation. Strategy 4 – Students and classes will be rewarded for their successes. Strategy 5 – During morning announcements, students/classes will be recognized for successful behavior. Strategy 4 – Offer detention to students who have 4 or more tardies in a quarter.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Decrease in office referrals • Decrease in suspensions • Observations • Decrease in tardies How will we revise? • The use of SWIS will be used to manage data When will we monitor? • Daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly
42
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Planning/Leadership (SWP 8)
Strategy 1 – PBIS Committee will meet at least once a month with the Building Leadership Team to plan for PBIS PD, share monitoring information regarding behavior and attendance. Strategy 2 – Teachers will plan how to teach the character traits for each grade level in order to help the students to understand that the implementation of the traits into their lives will be one of the main components that will make them ready for college and/or any career they choose. Strategy 3 – Teachers will read stories to the class that will allow discussions about character.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Decrease in office referrals • Decrease in suspensions • Observations How will we revise? • If needed PBIS PD may need to increase from twice a month to either 3 or 4 times a month. When will we monitor? • Daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly
Pedagogy (SWP 2 a-h)
Strategy 1 – Each teacher, classroom and special area, will hold a short community meeting to allow students to present behavior issues that are a concern to them daily. Strategy 2 – Use a reward system to recognize classes that are successful with behavior and attendance (perfect attendance and students who came every day but had 3 or fewer tardies during the quarter).
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Decrease in office referrals • Decrease in suspensions • Observations • Decrease in number of tardies How will we revise? • Teachers may decrease or increase community meetings to as needed When will we monitor? • Daily to weekly to every two weeks
Professional Development (SWP 3; 4; 5)
Strategy 1 – Teachers will receive PD on the character trait of the month using the resources provided by the PBIS, and in turn, the teachers will teach the trait to their students. Strategy 2 – Present PBIS expectations/implementations in general, such as SWIS, as they are presented to the committee or committee representative at office-site locations. Strategy 3 – Hold PBIS data collection meetings to determine if misbehavior is increasing/decreasing.
How will we monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and implementation? • Decrease in office referrals • Decrease in suspensions • Observations How will we revise? • With all of the teacher responsibilities, data collection and compilation may be given to another staff member. • Look at teacher attendance/participation in professional development When will we monitor? • Bimonthly to monthly
*Include Reading Plan
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
43
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
44
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
P.L. 221 Calendar 2014-2015 Greater Clark County Schools Week
Professional Development
Group
Monitoring Who – How monitored How results are used
July 28-August 1, 2014
August 4-8, 2014
August 11-15, 2014
August 18-22, 2014
August 25-29, 2014
September 1-5, 2014
NO SCHOOL, Sept. 1
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
July 28th Welcome and Kick-off at CHS July 29th Corporation Training at Jeff High July 30th Building Level Professional Day Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
District District Principal BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders 45
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
September 8-12, 2014
September 15-19, 2014
September 22-26, 2014
September 29-October 3, 2014
October 20-24, 2014
October 27-31, 2014
November 3-7, 2014
Teacher only Nov. 4
November 10-14, 2014 Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT
Lesson Plans 46
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
November 17-21, 2014
November 24-28, 2014
NO SCHOOL, Nov. 2628
December 1-5, 2014
December 8-12, 2014
December 15-19, 2014
January 5-9, 2015
January 12-16, 2015
January 19-23, 2015 Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery
Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders 47
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
NO SCHOOL , Jan. 19
January 26-30, 2015
February 2-6, 2015
February 9-13, 2015
February 16-20, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make up– Feb. 16 February 23-27, 2015
March 2-6, 2015
March 9-13, 2015
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders 48
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
March 16-20, 2015
April 6-10, 2015
April 13-17, 2015
April 20-24, 2015
April 27- May 1, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make up– May 1 May 4-8, 2015
May 11-15, 2015
May 18-22, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make up– May 22 Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (P.R.I.D.E. PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level Data Teams
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through 49
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
May 25-29, 2015
NO SCHOOL– May 25
June 1-5, 2015 Last student day- June 3 Last Teacher day-June 4
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
GCW/Data Analysis Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices EOY
Data Teams
MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices EOY
50
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
51
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
No statutes and/or rules will be waived by Maple Elementary School.
Spring 2014 Planning Year
Bibliography Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
52
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
E/LA Herzog, 1997. Inside Learning Network Schools Herzog, The Kindergarten Book -Harvey, 1998. Nonfiction matters, Reading, Writing, and Research in Grades 3-8 -Harvey, et al, 2000. Strategies That Work Howard,2009. RTI From All Sides, What Every Teacher Needs to Know -Allington, et al, 2002. Schools That Work -Allington, 2009. What Really Matters in Response to Intervention Kagan. 2009. Kagan Cooperative Learning Marzono, 2003, What Works in Schools Marzano, 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works. -Mooney, 1988. Developing Life-Long Readers -Mooney, 1990. Reading To, With, and By Children -Mooney, 2001. Text Forms and Features: A Resource for Intentional Teaching -Mooney, 2003. The Books for Young Learners Teacher Resource -Mooney, 2006. A Book is a Present -New Zealand Ministry of Education, 1996. Reading For Life -Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty. -Clay, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. -Fountas & Pinnell, Guided Reading. -Duncan, 2006, Literacy Coach, Developing Effective Teachers through Instructional Dialogue -Clarke, Active Learning Through Formative Assessment -Zemelman,, Daniels, and Hyde, 2005. Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools
Writing -Calkins, 2010. Units of Study for Primary Writing Kagan. 2009. Kagan Cooperative Learning Marzono, 2003, What Works in Schools Marzano, 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works. -Gould, 1999. Four Square Writing Method for Early Learners -Gould, 1999. Four Square Writing Method for Grades 1-3 -Gould, 1999. Four Square Writing Method for Grades 4-6 - Herzog, 1997. Inside Learning Network Schools -Harvey, 1998. Nonfiction Matters, Reading, Writing and Research in Grades 3-8 -Harvey, et al. 2000. Strategies That Work Howard,2009. RTI From All Sides, What Every Teacher Needs to Know -Allington, et al. 2002. Schools That Work -Allington, 2009. What Really Matters in Response to Intervention -Mooney, 2001. Text Forms and Features: A Resource for Intentional Teaching -Wellington, 1996. Dancing With the Pen: The Learner as a Writer -Graves, 1994. A Fresh Look At Writing -Lane, 1993. After The End -Snowball, Spelling K-8. -Gentry, Spelling is a Four Letter Word. -Turbill, 2000. Developing a Spelling Conscience -Duncan, 2006, Literacy Coach, Developing Effective Teachers through Instructional Dialogue -Fletcher, 2000. How Writers Work -Calkins, 1994, The Art of Teaching Writing -Wood Ray, 1999. Wondrous Words -Calkins, Hartman and White, 2005. One to One, The Art of Conferring with Young Writers -Clarke, Active Learning Through Formative Assessment -Zemelman,, Daniels, and Hyde, 2005. Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools
Math - Herzog, 1997. Inside Learning Network Schools -Burns & Silby, 2000. Do You Have to Teach Math? Howard,2009. RTI From All Sides, What Every Teacher Needs to Know Kagan. 2009. Kagan Cooperative Learning Marzono, 2003, What Works in Schools Marzano, 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works. Mokros, Russell, Economopoulos, 1995. Beyond Arithmetic, Changing Mathematics in the Elementary Classroom -Harvey, et al. 2000. Strategies That Work -Allington, et al. 2002. Schools That Work -Allington, 2009. What Really Matters in Response to Intervention -Burns,et al. 2000. So You Have To Teach Math? -Chapin, et al. 2000. Math Matters, Understanding the Math You Teach, -Sullivan, et al. 2002. Good Questions for Math Teaching -Ainsworth & Christinson, Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program -Clarke, Active Learning Through Formative Assessment -VanderWalle, 2006. Teaching Student Center Mathematics K-3 -VanderWalle, 2006. Teaching Student Center Mathematics 3-5 -Zemelman,, Daniels, and Hyde, 2005. Best Practices, Today’s Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
53
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I Requirements Appendix A: Parent Involvement
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
54
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
MAPLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TITLE I PARENT INVOLVEMENT POLICY Maple Elementary School intends to follow the parental policy guidelines in accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Maple Elementary provides this policy to parents and the policy will be updated periodically. The mission of Maple Elementary School is to create a cooperative working partnership between our staff, parents and students to establish positive educational programs which challenge all students and promote high student achievement. POLICY GUIDELINES • Maple Elementary School will hold an annual Title I meeting each fall. For the convenience of our parents, it will be offered once in the morning and evening. During these meetings we will discuss our Title I Program, Parent Compacts and Parent Involvement Policy, the Schoolwide Program, and Parent’s Right to Know. As a parent at Maple you have a right and responsibility to be involved in the education of your child. If you invest your time and energy into your child’s school, statistics show your child will become more successful. •
At Orientation each fall, teachers will give parents an explanation of student expectations, and helpful hints on studying and homework. Parents are also given a Compact and asked to sign it. A copy of the Compact will go home with parents. The Compact is a specific outline of what is expected of the staff, parents, and students of Maple Elementary to ensure the success of each child.
•
Maple Elementary School will provide students with Planners/Agendas, Communication Folders, and regular academic/behavioral reports. Student Planners will be sent home nightly with your child’s homework marked in each subject. Homework is given to reinforce what your child learned at school that day. Parents are expected to sign the Planner/Agenda nightly in recognition that you are aware of your child’s homework assignments and they have been completed. Planners also serve as communication between teachers and parents. When homework is incomplete, your child may miss recess In order to complete the work at school. Communication Folders are brought home each night. That day’s work papers and homework papers will be included along with school notices or informational materials.
•
Mid-term reports and quarterly report cards are sent home. The mid-term reports may include grade average and behavior reports. Quarterly report cards contain grades for the reporting period along with comments from the principal.
•
Parent/Teacher Conferences are held twice a year. At this conference, teachers will discuss your child’s academic strengths and needs, behavioral strengths and needs, benchmark assessments, and ISTEP+. Parent Involvement Policy and Parent’s Right to Know Letter will be given to parents at the first conference. Parent Compacts will be included for anyone who did not attend Orientation. Any parent not attending a conference will receive them via your child in the Communication Folder.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
55
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Maple Elementary School Parent Involvement Timeline 2014-15 August • School Enrollment • Parent Orientation for grades K-5 in conjunction with Family Night September • Parent Orientation for grades K-5 continues • Title I Annual Meeting, TBD • Monthly newsletter from principal • Mid-term academic/behavioral reports • Parent Involvement Committee meeting • Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders • Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5 • District Parent Involvement Council Meeting October • Monthly newsletter from principal •
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make A Difference Newsletter to Pre-School
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
1st report card will go home
•
Parent Involvement policy sent home
November • Parent/Teacher Conferences •
Mid-term academic/behavioral reports
•
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
56
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
December • Monthly newsletter from principal •
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
January • 2nd quarter report card will go home •
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
February • Parent/Teacher Conferences •
Mid-term academic /behavioral reports
•
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
March • 3rd report card will go home •
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
April • Mid-term academic/behavioral reports •
Monthly newsletter from principal
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
57
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
•
Parents Make a Difference Newsletter to Pre-school
May •
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
June • 4th report card will go home •
Monthly newsletter from principal
•
Daily use of Student Planners and Communication Folders
•
Reading Connection Newsletter to Grades K-5
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
58
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Maple Elementary School Parent Compact Our pledge together for your child’s education Our Staff Pledge Maple Elementary School provides an aligned, balanced curriculum to meet to diverse needs of our students. We use data from a variety of assessments including ISTEP+ to support our classroom instruction. The results of our assessments help us to vary the intensity of instruction to insure that all children meet Indiana’s student academic achievement standards. We understand how important it is to communicate with parents. We strive to make contact with every parent nightly through the use of parent folders that are sent home containing homework, letters, and other parental information and materials. We hold grade level orientation at the beginning of the year to discuss our instruction, student expectations, and this Parent Compact. Parent teacher conferences are held twice a year to discuss student progress and achievement; additional conferences with parents are also held throughout the year on an as needed basis. Maple Elementary hosts a family night activity for all parents to relate ways parents can assist their children with reading, writing, and math. Monthly newsletters are sent home to share important dates and activities that will occur. As a staff, we are available daily by calling 812-288-4860. During the year, we welcome parents to our school to volunteer to help classroom with making copies, reading to children, helping with fall festival, etc. To volunteer, please contact Lauraetta Starks, principal, at Maple Elementary.
Teacher’s Signature/Date
Principal’s Signature/Date
Our Parent Pledge As a parent of a student at Maple Elementary, I will be responsible for supporting my child’s learning. I will have my child to school on time daily. I will be sure my child is well rested and will only allow my child to miss school when absolutely necessary. I will check my child’s homework nightly and help with homework when needed. I will monitor video games and what my child watches on television and keep the television off during homework time. I will attend parent conferences and participate in decisions relating to my child’s education, such as extracurricular activities my child should participate in, serve on parent committees, and other decisions as appropriate. I will read with or to my child for 20-30 minutes nightly and volunteer at Maple Elementary when possible.
Parent’s Signature Our Student Pledge As a student at Maple Elementary, I will be responsible for my learning and my actions. I will do my homework nightly and turn it in when it is due. I will be kind and respect my classmates, my teacher, and other adults in the school. I will pay attention to teachers and not distract my classmates. I will read to or with a parent for 20-30 minutes nightly. I will not fight or bully.
Student’s Signature
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
59
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I School Wide Program (SWP) Component # 1 Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA): An updated comprehensive needs assessment of all students in the school, including subgroups was used to review and revise the schoolwide comprehensive plan to improve teaching and learning. The needs assessment includes data collection and analysis as well as integration with key teaching strategies. The plan was developed in consultation with Director for Curriculum and Instruction, Supervisor for Assessment, Supervisor of Federal Programs, Supervisor of Curriculum, Supervisor of Instruction, Technological Services Coordinator, Director of Student Services, and Director of Special Populations. Parents, community members, teachers, and administrators will participate in reviewing and updating the plan through PL221 schoolwide planning committee meetings. Technical assistance in developing the plan was provided by an outside source through the Statewide System of Support for Schoolwide Planning (Indiana Department of Education, Division of Compensatory Education) during the initial planning for SWP. During the planning year for PL221, workshops, collaboration at team, grade level and cross grade level meetings, all staff provided input to the development of the plan. SWP #6b: SWP #12: Parents are contacted to participate in the planning and annual updating process; however, parent participation continues to be poor. The process and plan were shared with parents during parent training opportunities and annual meetings. The Maple SWP/ PL221 School Improvement Plan is shared on the school’s website for access by parents and community members. Parents, community members, teachers, and administrators will participate in reviewing and updating the plan through PL221 schoolwide planning meetings. Results, analysis, and recommendations for improvement will be reported on Summative Assessment forms within the plan. The Summative Assessment of Key Strategies is to be developed and monitored during the 2009-10 school year. The plan will be evaluated annually to determine whether the key strategies of the schoolwide program have increased the achievement of students, particularly the students who are the lowest achievers of academic standards on ISTEP+. Evaluation results are used to make necessary revisions to the plan. Peer review process of the school improvement plan/ SWP is conducted annually to align with the SWP/ SIP components per NCLB. The District provides support to the school in revising the plan and responding to the feedback from the outside review process. The District and outside review process/ revisions ensure the NCLB statutory components are included and all components are identified. Documentation of meetings, such as signin sheets, agendas, notes on the plan, scoring/ feedback rubrics, etc., are kept as evidence in preparation for an IDOE monitoring visit. CNA-Curriculum and Instruction: Description and Location of Curriculum (SWP 2 c) The curriculum is aligned with state standards. Curriculum guides and information is located in the main office as well as in teacher classrooms. Staff participated in training for Curriculum Mapping. Maple Elementary teachers in grades K-5 have mapped the curriculum for: Math, science, social studies and English/Language Arts. In 2008-09, Curriculum Maps changed and teacher began to diary in their Language Arts and Math consensus maps. Performance data are linked to the maps and routinely reviewed to guide the process for improving instruction and aligning our formative-assessment process. Next year this will continue into science and social studies. (SWP 2 h) In order to understand the level of implementation of key programs and strategies, implementation data is collected and analyzed as evidenced by observations, walk-throughs, collaboration, and student work samples. Students failing ISTEP+ participate in remediation groups during the year. Supplemental programs are monitored and evaluated throughout the school year with assessments. Student grades and report cards are aligned with Indiana Academic Standards and ISTEP+ as evidenced by correlations of student grades with scores on ISTEP+. The interventions that will address critical areas will include: Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
60
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Full-day kindergarten Communities In Schools Extended Day Program Intervention Groups for E/LA and Math, grades K-5 for students in Tier 2 and 3 Brain Domain, grades K-5 Individual/small group instruction by classroom teachers during regular classroom instruction Small group instruction for Tier 2 inventions for 30 minutes during the day (after classroom instruction) Individual/small group instruction for Tier 3 interventions for 30-45 minutes during the day (after classroom instruction)
CNA-Organization and Management Student achievement data from ISTEP+ and school performance assessments were analyzed by staff to determine key error patterns, student use of key strategies, and progress toward mastery of Indiana Academic Standards. Professional development activities are developed to link teaching strategies to student needs based upon data analysis. Teachers collaborate on a weekly basis at grade level meetings to develop Goal Clarity Windows (GCW) for standards mastery. In addition during collaboration, teachers complete Meeting Record Forms, discuss student work samples, complete key error analysis sheets, update Summative Assessments and update Data Wall Information. Struggling students are provided additional time to learn in small guided reading and math groups, individualized instruction, student conferences and managed independent learning activities. Para-educators and special education teachers support student learning by providing intensive interventions during small group and/or individualized learning activities, for students qualifying for special education services. An intervention structure for all grades in reading and math addresses student achievement in three tiers. Tier 1 is the core instruction delivered in the regular classroom while Tier 2 and Tier 3 students are identified as behind grade level performance and receive 30 minutes of additional instruction in their area of need. CNA-School Climate-Safe Learning Environment: Students are provided a safe learning environment by having school and classroom procedures, individual behavior management plans, classroom discipline plans, parent involvement, and preventive programs. Discipline referrals will continue to be analyzed to determine how well rules and procedures are being followed. The Positive Behavior System is being developed during this school year and implemented to address these issues. CNA-Family and Community Involvement: Parent/family involvement in the school is measured by parent/family participation in school conferences, meetings, and activities. Expectations for parent involvement are described in the school Parent Involvement Policy and the Home-School Compact. The policy is given to each parent at the first parent/teacher conference and if no conference is held the report card is sent home with students. Home-School Compact is shared with parents at the Annual Meeting in August and sent home to every parent. During the annual Title I meeting and at parent conferences, families are informed about Indiana State Standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies and procedures. Parents are also given student handbooks that described policies and procedures. School newsletters and websites keep families updated on current events and activities as well as providing resources. Written communication to parents is provided in English and Spanish when needed. Parents will be included in reviewing and updating the PL221 Schoolwide Plan to provide feedback to inform the development of new programs and to evaluate the school’s current program. Cultural Competency: As related to the Schoolwide Plan, the school’s planning committee has (1) identified the racial, ethnic, language-minority, cultural, exceptional learning, and socioeconomic groups that are included Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
61
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
in the school’s student population, (2) incorporated culturally appropriate strategies for increasing educational opportunities and educational performance for each group in the school’s plan, and (3) recommended areas in which additional professional development is necessary to increase cultural competency in the school’s educational environment. The committee will update annually the information previously identified. Student Summary of Key ISTEP+ Data Every spring, the third, fourth and fifth students at Maple Elementary take the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus assessment (ISTEP+) to determine progress and identify students’ proficiency in English/ language arts and mathematics. The following information demonstrates Maple student performance from Indiana’s state-wide assessment ISTEP+. This test will be administered in the spring of the year. See Attached ISTEP+ Summary Sheet in Student Achievement for CNA for disaggregated subgroup performance data and analysis of significant differences in performance. These data represent all students enrolled at MAPLE who took the test. This data does not represent students who MAPLE prepared (162 day students).
SWP Component #2: Schoolwide Reform Strategies SWP 2a: Strategies provide opportunities for all children to meet proficient and advanced levels of student academic achievement: The schoolwide reform strategies provide opportunities for all students to meet the state’s proficient and advanced levels of student achievement through a continuum of interventions designed to meet the needs of each student (individual tutoring, small group instruction). Ongoing assessments determine if students’ needs have been met. Title I staff and provide additional assistance for students with targeted interventions, small group instruction in the classroom, or interventions with individual tutoring by teacher or para-educator Intervention activities are provided throughout the school year for students not meeting academic standards on local assessments. SWP2b-d: Use effective methods and instructional strategies that are based on scientifically based research that strengthens the core academic program and increases the amount of learning time: Teachers use effective methods and instructional strategies based on scientifically-based research that strengthens the core academic program in this school, increases the amount of quality of learning time, and includes strategies for meeting the education of specific subgroups (minority, poverty, LEP, Special Education). Leadership Team planning and cross grade level teams review student data, attend professional workshops, and participate in 2 weekly Instructional Staff Meetings to develop strategies that are supported by scientifically research based evidence. A reference list of citations that support key strategies is included with the Schoolwide Action Plans for reading, writing and math. SWP 2e-f: Includes strategies for serving underserved populations and strategies to address the needs of all children in the school, but particularly low achieving children and those at risk of not meeting state standards: Instructional strategies focus on the specific needs of at risk and low achieving students. Staff is aware of and addresses the needs of the lowest achieving students by meeting in Instructional Staff Meetings and collaboratively in cross grade level teams on a weekly basis to share and analyze student work, including formative assessment (monthly) and informal assessment data. Based upon key errors, students are provided intensive instruction aligned with specific needs to improve achievement. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
62
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
SWP 2g: Address how the school will determine if those needs of the children have been met: To determine if the needs of these students have been met, students participate in ongoing school performance assessments for reading, writing and math.
Titles and Descriptions of assessment instruments (SWP 2.g): Reading: Corporation Benchmark Assessments nd • Kindergarten—2 grade teachers will administer and analyze DIBELS Reading 3 times a year. • Gr. 3 – 5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity Language Arts 3 times a year. Writing Corporation Benchmark Assessments • K-2 teachers administer Writing Application/ Applied Assessment 3 times during the year using IN Reading Assessment and rubric. • Gr. 3 – 5 teachers administer, score and analyze independent writing prompts 3 times a year. Math Corporation Benchmark Assessments nd • Kindergarten—2 grade teachers administer and analyze DIBELS math assessment 3 times a year. • Gr. 3 – 5 teachers administer, score and analyze Acuity Math Assessment 3 times a year. • Grade K-5 teachers administer, score and analyze Balanced Math Assessment
Reading Intervention Students • Kindergarten – Dibels Benchmarks • Grade 1 – Dibels Nonsense Word Fluency, bi-weekly (Tier 2), Weekly (Tier 3) • Grades 2-5 – Dibels Oral Reading Fluency, bi-weekly (Tier 2), Weekly (Tier 3) Math Intervention Students Kindergarten-Grade 1 – Dibels Counting Grades 2-5 – Dibels Computation
SWP Component #3 Highly Qualified Teachers in all Core/ Academic Areas The Greater Clark County Schools (GCCS) ensures that teachers hired for positions are “highly qualified” in academic subjects in which they are the primary instructor and requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Application for positions with the Greater Clark County Schools and initial screening process for holding the appropriate licensure in the teaching area is conducted through the Central Office. Hiring of staff for the Greater Clark County Schools elementary, middle and high school is conducted by the Greater Clark County Schools through the Central Office, building level principal and staff consisting of grade level representation. Background checks are conducted prior to hiring. All GCCS teachers take the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation/ HOUSSE and new teachers must take the PRAXIS II. Original records of these are kept at the school where the teacher is assigned the position and a copy is on file at Central Office. The Greater Clark County Schools annually submits “highly qualified” data/information regarding every certified employee teaching core academic subjects via the STN Application Center at www.doe.state.in.us. New teachers participate in the “mentor” program as required by Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
63
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
the State of Indiana and overseen by the Division of Professional Standards. During their second year, teachers develop a portfolio and receive support from their building mentor on a regular basis. Paraprofessionals must pass the Parapro Test. Instructional assistants are hired only of the pass the Parapro Test or have 60 hours of college credit. The Greater Clark County Schools provides a competitive salary base for paraprofessionals. Paraprofessional salaries competitively increase incrementally with each year of experience. Qualifications of teachers and paraprofessionals are reviewed and updated bi-annually to meet NCLB requirements using HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation) Summary Report. When principals update the “highly qualified” information twice during the year, principals sign off that they have verified current information as accurate for teachers and paras as meeting highly qualified under federal law l07-110, Section 119, as mandated by the No Children Left Behind Act of 2001. This HOUSSE Summary Report is filed with Highly Qualified records and documentation is kept on file at the schools and Central Office.
SWP Component #4: Professional Development High Quality and on going Professional Development for Teachers, Principals, and Paraprofessionals Professional development is provided to all staff (teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals) throughout the school year to prepare them to help students meet the State’s academic achievement standards. Professional development is provided by the Division for Curriculum and Instruction that includes the Office for Title I/Reading First/Federal Programs, the Technology Services, and Assessment Services. The Special Populations Office oversees Special Education, Gifted and Talented, and Bi-Lingual Education, and provides professional development in addition to that in individual school plans. Collaboration among staff occurs through grade level and cross grade level meeting as well as through staff development faculty meetings through the support of The Learning Network. GCCS has implemented zero periods to allow time for professional development to be delivered in the morning before students arrive.
SWP Component #5: Strategies to Attract High Quality, Highly Qualified Teachers to this School Human Resource information and GCCS positions are posted and regularly updated on the District website. The Greater Clark County Schools provides a competitive salary base for beginning teachers with no years of teaching experience. Teacher salaries competitively increase incrementally with each year of experience. Teacher salaries are increased when a Masters/+30 is acquired. Certified staff receives benefits and may carry family options with additional contributions. The Greater Clark County Schools is committed to having Teacher Mentors certified through the Indiana State Teacher Mentoring program in all GCCS schools. New teachers in the schools will have support from a teacher mentor who is teaching in the same school. This will provide more continuous support related to the school’s specific school improvement plan and school improvement goals and strategies. Currently, new teachers receive mentoring but may receive support from a teacher mentor not assigned to the same building. In Title I buildings, weekly collaboration is scheduled to provide ongoing grade level support for new teachers as well as all grade level teachers. Grade level teachers and special education teachers participate in grade level collaboration weekly. This collaboration focuses on examining formative assessments (student work samples) that monitor errors in reading, writing and math and the student’s level of use of key strategies that teachers focus on. Teachers review how students are using the strategies and discuss how to revise and refine their Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
64
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
modeling of those key strategies in order to impact student performance on the next formative assessment. During collaboration time, teachers use the data to reflect on current practices, expand, refine, and build new skills that focus on meeting school improvement goals and help address barriers to implementing key reform strategies in the school improvement plan. This infrastructure for job-embedded professional development provides new teachers support for progress monitoring of students and allows them access to their teaching peers on a regular basis that is facilitated, focused, and outcome based. Eligible teachers have opportunities to have educational loans repaid using the Perkins Grant. Staff may receive credit renewal points for workshops. IU-Southeast offers graduate credits for professional development opportunities provided in collaboration with Greater Clark County Schools as well as the Wilson Educational Service Center. All Maple Elementary staff will have opportunities to participate in professional development that is focused on the school improvement goal and benchmarks (framework/model for reading, writing and math and key strategies based on the identified errors). Staff receives appropriate professional development resources such as books and publications to support study group discussions that are guided by the weekly teacher collaboration and looking at student work. Staff receives stipends, when money is available, (e.g. data analysis, use of reading assessments, curriculum alignment, checkpoint monitoring) that allow them to extend their professional growth time beyond the regular school day to meet as grade levels and/or school-wide.
SWP Component #6: Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement, such as Literary Services Strategies to promote effective parent involvement in the school: Identify strategies in place to ensure effective parental involvement. Include information on any collaboration with Regional Education Laboratories, Education Service Centers, Parent Involvement Resource Center, etc. (Include strategies in addition to the NCLB requirements for parental notification which were described in Component #6.) To promote parental involvement, the staff has developed effective strategies that will engage parents as partners with teachers in educating their children and will involve them in meaningful decision-making at the school. Parent involvement strategies include family literacy nights, parent newsletters, parent conferences, parent open houses, parent participation on the review of the schoolwide plan and the Title I school and district parent committee, and PTO meetings.
SWP #6a; #11: Program information and student progress for parents Description of how the school will provide individual academic assessment results to parents: Through parent conferences, school newsletters, the school website, Indiana’s Academic Standards booklets, standards based report cards and ISTEP+ and other school performance assessment reports, parents are helped to understand the state’s academic content and achievement standards as well as how students will be assessed and how to monitor their children’s progress. Maple Elementary will inform parents of student progress in core academic areas aligned to Indiana Academic Standards and performance on benchmark assessments for reading, writing and math on a regular basis. Maple Elementary School will provide individual academic assessment results and/or progress to parents 8 times during the school year (mid-term and quarterly report cards). Grades 3-5 have additional academic assessments provided to parents through ISTEP+ parent reports. Communicating performance results to parents will include: September: mid term student progress report (sent home with student), ISTEP+ scores and results with a letter explain results from spring of 2010 will be mailed home to parents unable to access them from home computers.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
65
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
October: Parent/Teacher conference and Report Card (Parents receive Report Cards during Parent/ Teacher
conference. Report Cards are sent home with the student for parents unable to attend conference). The goal is to meet with 100% of parents. November: mid term student progress report (sent home with students). December: Title I school improvement status and Public Law 221 status January: Report Cards sent home with the student, District Benchmark Assessment, (per district plan). February: mid term progress reports (sent home with students). Parent/Teacher conferences focusing on benchmark assessment and upcoming ISTEP+ Assessments. March: third quarter student report sent home with students April: mid term student progress reports (sent home with students). May/June: Final report card sent home, benchmark assessment, running records, DIBELS. Monthly school newsletter will contain cross grade level expectations, announcement of parent activities, information about Title I and parent related issues (i.e., GED).
During communications, especially at conferences, parents are encouraged to work with teachers to improve their children’s achievement. Parents are provided information about how they can participate in decisions relating to the education of their children. Parents participate in reviewing the schoolwide plan to help improve student achievement. Parents are invited to attend the annual Title I meeting to learn about the school plan, curriculum, academic standards and assessments.
SWP #6b; #12: Materials and Training: Parents are provided with instructional materials and training to help improve their children’s achievement when parents attend family literacy and math activities, and parent conferences. Parents are provided information about additional websites that will provide games and learning activities related literacy and math, as well as parent involvement centers, such as Parent Information Resource Center (Indianapolis). Parents participate in developing and reviewing the school parent involvement policy. Educate educators:
During collaborative meetings, teachers, the principal and other staff, with the help from parents, are educated about the value of parent contributions and about how to reach out, communicate and work with parents as equal partners, to coordinate and implement parent programs, and to build ties between home and school. Parents participate in conferences with staff to discuss the home-school compact.
SWP # 12 Understandable communication: Information related to school and parent programs, meetings, and other activities are presented in a format and language that parents can understand. Information is made available to all parents on the school website, through conferences and meetings, and through direct mailings. Notices are sent to parents regarding the updating of policies and procedures and reviewing the School Improvement Plan. This information requests parents’ participation in these processes. Parents are involved in updating compacts, parent policies/ handbooks and school improvements plans. With the support of the Title I consultant, parents participate in developing and reviewing the school parent involvement compact and policy. Policies, handbooks and compacts are prepared in English and Spanish (when needed).
Other reasonable support:
When parents request other parent involvement activities, staff provides support for these activities by collaborating with parents and developing plans for implementation and evaluation. Parents are encouraged to Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
66
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
participate more fully in their children’s education through activities such as parent conferences, phone calls, letters, extra curricular activities and literacy nights.
SWP Component #6b: #12: Strategies to involve parents in the planning, review and improvement of the schoolwide plan Parents were contacted to participate in the planning process. The process and plan were shared with parents and the plan is shared annually in the fall. The Maple SWP/ PL221 School Improvement Plan will be shared on the school’s website for access by parents and community members. Parents, teachers, and administrators will participate in reviewing and updating the plan through PL221 schoolwide planning meetings. The Title I consultant will continue to contact parents throughout the year and use parent training sessions to involve parents in the planning, review and improvement of the schoolwide plan.
SWP Component #7: Transitions Plans for assisting Preschool Children in the Transition from Preschool to the Kindergarten To promote Pre-Kindergarten – Kindergarten transition Maple Elementary hosts Camp Kindergarten in the spring for the Head Start and GCCS Pre-K students and their parents. Pre-school students and parents are invited to visit school for tours, information, and school supplies. The preschool teacher participates in professional development activities with other preschool GCCS staff. In August at the beginning of school, schools hold open enrollment/ orientation for Kindergarten students. Kindergarten teachers meet parents and children to help with enrollment and get acquainted with students and parents. During the first week of school, parents of Kindergarten students are invited to attend an orientation meeting to learn about school policies and procedures. Parents are introduced to the kindergarten curriculum, student academic expectations, Indiana State Standards for kindergarteners, class expectation both academic/behavior, homework policy for parents and parent volunteering. GCCS and Maple are developing a systematic procedure for receiving pre-kindergarten records transferred with parental consent from a Head Start and GCCS preschool program, and or, where applicable, another early childhood development program. Channels of communication established between school staff and their counterparts (including teachers, social workers, and health staff) in Head Start, GCCS preschool and other agencies carrying out early childhood development programs to facilitate coordination of programs. Plans for assisting Elementary Children in the Transition from Elementary to the Middle School In the spring, parents and students of out going 5th graders are invited to visit the new middle school for orientation, and during the summer, Camp Parkview is provided for students to become familiar with the middle school setting. Middle school 6th grade teachers, guidance counselors and/or principals visit feeder elementary schools to discuss with 5th grade students the middle school experience. They discuss transitions and expectations for 6th grade students and ways the 5th grade teachers can better prepare their students academically for the middle school experience.
SWP Component #8: Opportunities and Expectations for Teachers to be included in the Decision making related to the use of Academic Assessment Results leading to Improvement of Student Achievement The School-wide plan will be updated annually using the Title I Continuous School Improvement Model. All teachers participate in schoolwide plan revisions, collaboration and/or inquiry teams that meet in team/ grade level and cross grade level committees to determine the use of academic assessments in order to provide Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
67
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
information about and to improve student achievement as well as the overall instructional program. Teachers identify key error patterns on assessments to modify their instructional strategies. Framework for Monitoring the School Improvement Plan: The principal and staff will monitor the School Improvement Plan by collecting and analyzing implementation and impact data. The implementation data will focus on collecting data based on the research-based models, strategies and activities described in the Action Plans for reading, writing and math. Impact data will focus on collecting and analyzing the performance of students as a result of implementing the strategies and activities. Impact Data: Analysis of ISTEP+ Results The principal and K-5 teachers will review ISTEP+ results. All classroom teachers, including special education teachers, will participate in the analysis process of the state’s large-scale assessment annually. Staff will review the Disaggregation Summary Report for ISTEP+ standards in English/ language arts and mathematics for grades 3-5. The staff will use a Data Summary Sheet to identify overall performance of students in English/ language arts and mathematics. This data reflection tool will be used to identify subgroup performance for NCLB requirements and to meet the cultural competency requirement for PL221. Using the Disaggregation Summary Report we will also identify subgroup performance for each academic/ intervention subgroup, where resources have been allocated to provide additional instructional support for students not at proficient levels/not meeting standards on ISTEP+ and/or benchmarks. These “intervention” subgroups will be analyzed for impact/outcomes to determine revisions to our interventions. Staff will review the Applied Skills Frequency Distribution ISTEP+ report and complete a Key Error Sheet for each grade level. This report shows how students perform on application tasks and problems, such as the Writing Applications, integrated reading and writing where students must read passages and respond to short answer, extended response items. In math, students must apply their knowledge in solving complex problems, show and explain their work. Staff will analyze how students perform on performance-based items. We will analyze those items where the lowest percent of students meet mastery. An error analysis will be conducted using Teachers Scoring Guides (i.e., review prompt, exemplars, rubric) and Error Checklists for reading, writing and math. Teachers will review Student Test Booklets and check for errors on those identified items and students level of use of strategies, if applicable. The school will update Summary Sheet of Key ISTEP+ Data for English/ language arts and mathematics for needs assessment. Analysis of District Assessments Reading: The principal and K-5 teachers will review reading benchmark results 3 times a year. All classroom teachers, including special education teachers, participate in the analysis process. Each teacher completes a class KWL (What we KNOW, WHAT we need to Know, and What we have LEARNED chart), and then updates their Data Wall Information. The KWL includes key findings from the data related to the particular assessment. Key findings will focus on identifying numbers of students in “risk groups” (i.e., Tiers 1, 2 or 3) and reviewing specific interventions matched to students. Overall proficiency and subgroup(s) proficiency will be analyzed using the following reading assessments (benchmarks) and recorded on Data Walls: Grades K-2 teachers administer mclass Wireless TRC and DIBELS; Grades 3-5 teachers administer Acuity Assessment. Writing: The principal and K-5 teachers will review writing benchmark results 3 times a year. All classroom teachers, including special education teachers, participate in the analysis process. Error analysis will be conducted for the writing assessment using the rubric. Each teacher will complete a class KWL; this will include key findings from the data related to the particular assessment. Key findings will focus on identifying numbers of students in “risk groups” and reviewing specific interventions matched to those students. Overall proficiency and subgroup(s) proficiency will be analyzed using the following writing prompt assessments Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
68
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
(benchmarks): Writing Applications. K-5 teachers will administer the writing prompt assessments 3 times during the year. Grades 3-5 teachers score and analyze the Writing Applications assessment using IN ISTEP+ Writing Rubric (mastery = >4/6); K-2 teachers will score and analyze the Writing Application assessment using IRA rubric (varies according to grade level). Math: The principal and K-5 teachers will review math benchmark results 3 times a year. All classroom teachers, including special education teachers, will participate in the analysis process. All teachers will complete a class KWL, and then update their Data Wall findings. This KWL includes key findings from the data related to the particular assessment. Key findings will focus on identifying numbers of students in “risk groups” (i.e., Tiers 1, 2, and 3) and reviewing specific interventions matched to those students. Overall proficiency and subgroup(s) proficiency will be analyzed using the following District Math Assessments (benchmarks): K-2 teachers will administer the Dibels Math Assessments; Grades 3-5 teachers will administer Acuity Math Assessment 3 times during the year; Grades K-5 will administer Balanced Math Assessments (TBD). Analysis of Formative Assessments GCCS has implemented a process called Goal Clarity Windows to increase student achievement by defining what grade level standards are asking the child to know and be able to do. Formative pre and post tests in reading and math are standards aligned in Goal Clarity Window documents by grade levels. Every two weeks, students are assessed in the GCW format. These determine student mastery of the quarterly standards or if additional small group instruction is needed. This allows for the pacing of grade level standards according to state curriculum map. Other formative assessments in reading, writing, and math determine the attainment of critical strategies identified to address errors, the attainment of the different concepts and skills, the attainment of most critical standards. These are addressed in differentiated instruction.
Reading Formative Assessment K-5 teachers align grade level reading applied skills assessments through the GCW process by using integrated reading/writing extended response items to monitor students’ comprehension. These formative assessments will monitor students’ progress toward quarterly standards. Teachers in grades 1-5 will administer grade level GCW with 2-3 questions that reflect ISTEP+ -like format with multiple choice, short answer, extended response items (i.e., released ISTEP+ items and Teacher’s Scoring Guides with exemplars and rubrics; ISTEP+ sample assessments; Curriculum Frameworks; basal series ISTEP+ formative assessments). Kindergarten teachers will use read alouds and a question with picture response with details about the story (end of the year will include picture w/ written response). These formative assessments will reflect tasks students are asked to perform on ISTEP+ and match the skills and strategies that have been instructed. Strategies will be implemented across a variety of reading genre (fiction/ non-fiction; expository text structures; content areas). Meeting Record Form, GCW test score sheets, will be completed and analyzed during grade level collaboration.
Writing Formative Assessment K-5 teachers will schedule and conduct aligned grade level writing assessments to monitor students’ writing applications based on identified error patterns. This formative assessment will monitor students’ progress toward the benchmark. Teachers in grades K-5 will administer a grade level prompt (i.e., released ISTEP+ items and Teacher’s Scoring Guides with exemplars and rubrics; ISTEP+ sample assessments; Curriculum Frameworks; basal series ISTEP+ formative assessments). These assessments will reflect tasks students are Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
69
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
asked to perform on ISTEP+ Writing Applications with an extended response that will be scored for writing applications. Students would have previously practiced these skills and strategies. Teachers will use aligned grade level assessments (work sample tasks) to monitor and assess the use of strategies to determine if students are making fewer key errors. Meeting Record Forms and KWL’s will be completed during grade level collaboration. Math Formative Assessment The structure of Balanced Math allows the teacher to collect formative data weekly through Math Review quizzes and problem solving activities. K-5 teachers align grade level math assessments to monitor students’ math application and problem solving skills based on identified error patterns. This formative assessment will monitor students’ progress toward the quarterly benchmark. Teachers in grades K-5 will administer a GCW problem solving items that will include 2-3 complex, multi-step problems with ISTEP+-like format and mathematical processes (i.e., released ISTEP+ items & Teacher’s Scoring Guides with Exemplars and rubrics; ISTEP+ sample assessments; Curriculum Frameworks). These assessments will reflect tasks students are asked to perform on ISTEP+ math applied skills. Teachers will use complex problems with multiple steps that require students to “figure out” what kind of answer is needed to make a decision/find a solution and which math operation(s) is (are) appropriate in doing so. These formative assessments will require students to “show their work” and/or “explain their answers”.
Implementation Data: Work Sampling (monitoring students’ use of key strategies) All grade levels/ teachers will collect and analyze purposeful work samples (the Formative Assessments in reading, writing and math will be used as the work sampling analysis) in order to monitor the extent to which students are using key strategies to address the errors in reading, writing, and math. The Goal Clarity Window process is used to determine pacing and mastery of grade level standards. At grade level teachers collaborate, identify power standards in reading and math, and write the GCW. These are implemented using pre and post tests in 2 week instructional time periods to check for standard mastery and additional instruction needed.
Modeling and use of “gradual release” must reflect what teachers need to “show” students explicitly how to do in order to complete the task accurately (i.e., levels of proficiency and/or at mastery). GCW strategies will be implemented across reading (fiction/ non-fiction; expository text structures; content areas), writing, and mathematics. Teachers will use the formative assessment to analyze: 1. How many of the students used the strategy effectively to obtain mastery level performance/ proficiency? 2. How many of the students used the strategy but did not obtain mastery/ proficiency (earned some of the points)? 3. How many of the students did not use the strategies at all; no evidence?
Walk-throughs will be conducted to monitor the consistency of the implementation of the key components of the model and key strategies. The purpose of the walk-throughs will be to regularly review the transfer of bestpractice to the classroom and the consistency and frequency that the practice and model is being implemented across the grade level and across all grade levels. The walk through will help to identify where teachers and Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
70
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
appropriate staff need additional support in implementing the model and/ or specific components or elements of the model; where there are strengths in implementation of the model that can be used for purposes of job embedded professional development (classrooms used for observations and demonstrations). Protocols will be used to conduct the walk throughs. These protocols will focus on key components and elements of the model/ framework and includes the following frameworks/ models and school-wide reform strategies: READING Balanced Literacy Program [The Learning Network Model] • Modeling of key strategies • Reading block with small groups • Phonemic awareness and phonic taught in whole and small groups) • Shared and Guided Reading (reading comprehension; vocabulary development) • Independent reading WRITING • Modeling of key strategies • The 4 Square Method • Process Writing (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, publishing) • Daily draftbook writing • Small group conferences MATH • Modeling of key strategies • Houghton Mifflin Math Series • Balanced Math Conducting the Walk-throughs: Reading: The Principal will conduct or supervise the walk throughs for reading. The Principal may select a group of teachers to conduct walk throughs for reading. Walk-throughs will be conducted each semester; however an exact date or time will be determined during the semester for the walk-through. Also, principal might collect lesson plans, running records and observe use of instructional time. Writing: The Principal will conduct or supervise the walk throughs for writing. Walk-throughs will be conducted each semester; however an exact date and time will be determined during the trimester for the walkthrough. Also, principal might collect lesson plans, student draft books and observe use of instructional time. Math: The Principal will conduct or supervise the walk throughs for math. Walk-throughs will be conducted each semester; however an exact date or time will not be identified during the trimester for the walk-through. Also, principal might collect lesson plans, student response books and observe use of instructional time.
Use of the Data: Implementation data (information learned from the walk-throughs) will be used to identify strengths in the implementation of the plan and specific components of the framework and/or elements of the model. The walk through data will be used to identify gaps and inconsistencies in implementation of the model and the key strategies; where additional teacher support is needed (focusing demonstrations; modeling; and how teachers arrange their observations/feedback at grade levels to target in areas of greatest need); and how student performance is being impacted. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
71
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Checkpoints: A summative will be used to summarize and organize team/ grade level data related to implementation and impact for key strategies/ activities/ interventions. Annually, a school summative will be organized to update the school’s comprehensive needs assessment to monitor how all teachers were supported with high quality professional development and how the school improvement plan was monitored and implemented. District Checkpoints may be conducted during the year and involve each building principal, the Director for Curriculum and Instruction and/or other administrative staff as deemed necessary. This checkpoint ensures the ongoing implementation of the continuous school improvement process in each building. The school’s summative will be used to discuss how teachers are monitoring student progress at each grade level and how the school improvement plan is being monitored and implemented.
SWP Component #9: Activities and programs at the school level to ensure that students having difficulty mastering proficient and advanced levels of academic achievement are provided effective, timely additional assistance In the classroom students identified as not meeting academic achievement standards are provided with specific interventions designed to meet their needs through individual and small group instruction. Ongoing assessments determine if students’ needs have been met. Teachers can track student progress and interventions to determine further services needed. Interventionists provide additional assistance for students with small group instruction focusing on key strategies in reading and math. Additional interventions could include Brain Training, Communities In School Extended Day Program, Augustus Hawkins Literacy Tutoring and Afternoon R.O.C.K.
SWP Component # 10: Incorporates a teacher-mentoring program (in addition to any the LEA might offer for new teachers): Discuss the procedures in place to provide mentoring to new teachers: New teachers receive support from Teacher Leaders on a weekly basis. For 1 period every week a Teacher Leader and Teacher Leader Support Coach works at each grade level providing support in reading, writing, and math. This may be through modeling, dialogue, analyzing student work, working with small groups or individual students, always guiding teachers into their next steps for instruction. This model provides the classroom teacher support from a Teacher Leader and Teacher Leader Support Coach, as well as, from other teachers at their grade level. In addition, these teachers are given guidance during grade level meetings, ISM, and other professional development activities. This collaboration supports a classroom teacher to examine student work (data), improve their classroom instruction and understand the school wide plan. Walk-throughs will be conducted by the Principal during each semester. A protocol will be used to focus on the implementation of key components of the model and key strategies. Also the principal will review lessons plans and review for key components of the plan, schedules/ times as well as key strategies. The district’s mentoring program pairs beginning teachers with more experienced professionals who serve as role models and provide practical support and encouragement. Mentors have been trained through the Indiana State Mentorship Program. These highly qualified mentors provide support to teachers through modeling, coaching, observing, debriefing and collaborating. Discuss the procedures in place to provide ongoing support for teachers. Include information on how you retain highly qualified teachers. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
72
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Professional development is provided to all staff (teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals) throughout the school year to prepare them to help students meet the State’s academic achievement standards. Professional development is provided by the Division for Curriculum and Instruction, the Title I Office, the Informational Services (technology) Department, the Special Education and Bi-lingual Education Department as well as by the school planning committee. Professional development is also job-embedded at Maple Elementary. Teacher Leaders provide support on a weekly basis to all K-5 classroom teachers and special needs teachers. For 1 period every week Teacher Leaders and Teacher Leader Support Coach works at each grade level providing support in reading, writing, and math. This may be through modeling, dialogue, analyzing student work, working with small groups or individual students, always guiding teachers into their next steps for instruction. A schedule of support is followed weekly and this work is documented on Action Plans and dialogue sheets.
All staff is required by the GCCS Human Resource Department to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind prior to hiring. All teachers are teaching in areas of certification and are licensed by the state of Indiana. Paraprofessionals have met the NCLB requirements. Teacher qualifications are available to parents at the district office, at the school, and on the IDOE website. These documents will include the 2010-11 Schoolwide Improvement Plan; the Title I Parent Involvement Policy; the Title I Home School Compact; and a letter (included in the SWP attachments) that verifies that all Maple Elementary School staff are highly qualified. The GCCS Human Resource Department, Title I Supervisor and the school principal work together to interview and hire high quality teachers in schools with the greatest need. Interviews and informational programs are conducted throughout the state at universities and colleges with high quality education programs. An online application system provides easy access to high quality teachers throughout the country. During the hiring process, only high quality teachers are selected after extensive interviews, contacts with references, and reviews of academic records, and a demonstration lesson.
SWP Component # 10 SEA programs and other federal programs that will be consolidated in the schoolwide program: Title I, Instructional Services (staff development), Informational Services (technology), Student Services (Title II, IV, V) and Special Education funds will be used to improve the academic achievement of all students. In addition, PL221 Professional Development funds will be used to support Maple School SWP/ School Improvement Plan.
Technology • •
Teachers use document projectors (visual presenter) to model skills and key strategies across the curriculum. Teachers use IDOE Curriculum Frameworks and performance assessment disks for reading, writing and math applied skill assessments. • Teachers have been trained and have access to: computers, computer projectors, visual presenters, and Smart Boards (4 available) students’ computer stations. • Computer lab available to students for 45 minutes on a weekly basis • Computers in classroom to students to use during the day
Safe and Orderly Environment The following information concerns the safe and orderly environment at Maple School:
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
73
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools Nature of Facility
Safety Procedure
Doors are locked at all times –the only entrance into the building is through the main office. Everyone entering the building must check in at the main office and receive a visitor’s pass before continuing in the building. Every classroom and the instructional areas are equipped with telephones that dial both throughout the building and through outside lines. Every classroom also has an intercom communication with the office. All teachers and staff must sign-in and out of the building. All substitute teachers must sign-in and out of the building and must wear a sub badge while in the building. Before visitors may enter, they must sign in. When they leave, they must do so through the main entrance. All staff members are required to wear staff identification at all times. Other safety procedures conducted: fire drills are conducted monthly; tornado drills are conducted 4 times a year.
State Reading Plan submitted to Department of Education on May 31, 2011 and on file with PL 221 Plan in the main office of Maple Elementary School.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
74
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
READING PLAN(SWP 2.a-h) GRR Model for Strategy Instruction ⇔
Teacher Regulated
Student Regulated
Reading Aloud
Shared Reading
Guided Reading
Independent Reading
• Teacher reads aloud, stopping periodically to model the strategy through a think-aloud • Teacher gives explanation of the strategy • The teacher demonstrates with a brief modeling of how the strategy is used to understand the text
• Teacher and students practice the strategy together with the teacher reading and students helping to think through the text • The teacher purposely guides large-group discussion • The teacher scaffolds the students attempts to use the strategy and provides support and feedback
• The teacher provides support as the students read in small groups
• Students apply their knowledge and strategies while reading alone or with partners • Students use strategies on their own and with partners • Students and the teacher provide feedback • Students apply strategy across genres, settings and contexts
• I do, you watch.
• I do, you help
• The teacher guides students use of the strategy providing support as needed • Students share how the strategy helped them while reading • The teacher assesses and responds to students needs (see Characteristics of Text Levels for observable behaviors) • You do, I help
• You do, I watch
Text Selection • Teacher choice
• Managed choice, matched to • Student choice students needs Source: Creating Lifelong Readers Through Independent Reading, Moss and Young, IRA Publications, 2010, pp. 94 (Table 13)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
• Teacher choice
75
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Literacy Framework --- How We Teach Strategies and Skills Using a Gradual Release Model Reading is comprehension. We must have a context for understanding the importance of foundations skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, but the critical importance of focusing on vocabulary and comprehension. Guiding Principles: 1. Independent Reading/ Read to Yourself: The best way to become a better reader is to practice each day, with books you choose, on your independent level. It soon becomes a habit. 2. Partner Read/ Read to Someone: Reading to someone allows for more time to practice strategies, helping you work on fluency and expression, check for understanding, hear your own voice, and share in the learning community. 3. Work on writing/ Response to Reading: Just like reading, the best way to become a better writer is to practice writing each day. 4. Listen to Reading: We hear examples of good literature and fluent reading. We learn more words, thus expanding our vocabulary and becoming better readers. Focus Lesson --- Establishing Purpose and Modeling/ Demonstration Phase --- Teacher has 100% responsibility -- “I do it” 1. Instruction begins with the teacher. Inductively or explicitly the teacher instructs students on the strategy, skill, or procedure. The responsibility belongs to the teacher. 2. Establish a purpose and model teacher’s own thinking (i.e., think-aloud to solve problems, understand directions or in the case of literacy, comprehend text using a strategy or skill) 3. Teacher carries the responsibility for “knowing” 4. Teacher models the procedure, skill, strategy or standard using a read aloud (modeling the procedure, strategy, skill or standard in grade-level or above level text) 5. Components of the gradual release model can be used during this phase. Teacher does the modeling to emphasize cognition & meta-cognition: a. Teacher names the strategy, skill, procedure or standard. (what the strategy is) b. Teacher states the purpose of the strategy, skill, procedure, or standard. (why is it important) c. Teacher explains when the procedure, strategy, skill or standard is used (explicitly describe the strategy and when/ how it should be used) d. Teacher uses analogies to link prior knowledge to new learning. (provide examples) e. Teacher demonstrates how the procedure, skill, strategy, or standard is completed 1) Teacher thinks aloud to model the mental processes she/ he uses when she/ he reads; model the strategy in action 2) Teacher demonstrates how to apply the strategy successfully; 3) Then involves students collaboratively using the strategy; students share their thinking processes with each other (Think-Pair-Share; EEKK) during large-group discussions; teacher checks understanding based on students’ oral response 4) Link/ reinforce demonstration to skill or strategy chart (if appropriate)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
76
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Guided Instruction/ Practice --- Collaborative Learning --- Instruction, Practice and Application 1. At this point, students “practice” the strategy or skill. Depending on where students ability to successfully complete the task, students may practice individually, in small groups, or with a partner. Guided practice reinforces the learning from Guided Instruction. 2. Students consolidate their thinking and understanding 3. Negotiate with peers 4. Discuss ideas and information 5. Engage in inquiry with other students allowing them to use what they learned during focus lessons and guided instruction 6. It is not the time to introduce new information to students, but rather a time for students to apply information in novel situations or to engage in a spiral review of previous knowledge Opportunities for Guided Practice and Collaborative Learning Guided Instruction/ Practice --Partner Reading – Read Listen to Reading/ Comprehension Review Word Work “You do it, I help” --- Teacher/ student “You do it” to Someone Repeated Reading Practice and Application “You do it” “You do it” “You do it” Cues, Questions, and Scaffolding 1. Good readers are strategic readers and Word work has several foci: 1. Students reading w/ a teachers must explore and provide guided 1. Monitoring for students use 1. building grade-appropriate sight partner 1. Fluency instruction based on a research-anchored vocabulary of and application of the 2. Students share their 2. Accuracy framework for the strategies that good 2. decoding/ word recognition skills strategies I am teaching in thinking processes with 3. Expression readers use; making connections between 3. structural analysis skills guided reading lesson as each other during paired 4. Student(s) use Ithose research-based strategies and the 4. vocabulary connections well as review/ reinforce reading. chart for Listen to expectations in CCSS ELA Reading learned strategies. 3. Partner Reading with Reading Literature and Informational Text. Develop a framework for Word Work 2. Monitoring how students strategy chart 2. Modeling and guided practice during at each grade level are internalizing strategies 4. Check for Poetry/ Readers Guided Instruction is a core instructional 1. discuss day-to-day organizational used by independent understanding Theater practice for teaching strategies pragmatics of conducting Word readers (what good readers 5. Students use I-chart for “You do it” 3. Teacher carefully takes small groups Work instruction do when they read partner reading/ reading through the new learning or reinforces 2. make grade level connections to independently to someone 1. Fluency 3. Application of the Strategy learning of strategy or skill. Initially, the CCSS ELA Reading Foundational 2. Accuracy in leveled text teacher may model as the students practice Skills and Language 3. Expression (instructional or with the teacher observing and supporting. 3. Word Work needs to match 4. Word Work (e.g., challenging/ approaching There is “guided practice” during guided students’ instructional level Rimes and making level) instruction when students may practice words with onsets; 4. Students apply a clearly individually, in small groups, or with a sorting the words understood strategy to a partner as the teacher observes and aids in into Nonsense and supported genre or format the practice. Guided practice during Real Words I Can guided instruction is the “joint” Use When Writing) 5. Students demonstrate the effective use of a strategy responsibility of both the teacher and 5. Student(s) use Iin more difficult text. student. Teacher guidance is still needed. chart 4. Effective strategy instruction is about 6. Students use graphic (change Poetry/ rotate developing readers who actively and organizers and/or advanced genre and use Joke independently monitor and regulate their organizers to summarize own comprehension. Books --- good for their understanding of the Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
77
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools 5. Teacher focuses guided instruction on the specific strategy, skill or procedure: a. Provides guided practice using the strategy. Gradually release responsibility for task completion b. Teacher and students practice the strategy together in small groups c. The teacher scaffolds the students’ attempts and supports student thinking, giving feedback during small group discussions 6. Key processes & skills align to standards & learning targets; target and support w/ Independent Reading Inside the Box &/or Making Meaning) 7. Teacher uses a variety of leveled text 8. Teachers must be “teaching in the zone” 90% of the time where readers are engaged in texts within their independent/ instructional range and connect this to Guided Instruction groups as a key for building reading comprehension 9. Small group models a common text; using predicting, questioning, summarizing and clarifying to understand the text 10. Use skill or strategy chart during Guided Instruction/ visual support to understand how to use the strategy 11. Focuses on a specific procedure, strategy or skill (1-2; no more than 2) 12. Small purposeful groups; composed based on students’ performance on formative assessments 13. Groups consist of students who share a common instructional need that the teacher can address 14. Guided instruction is an ideal time to differentiate; differentiate content, process and product; varying the instructional materials, the level of prompting or questioning and the product expected 15. A series of guided instructional events, over time, with cues, prompts and questions, teachers can guide students to Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
inferring and figurative language) Demonstrate how to have students monitor fluency and accuracy rates (take responsibility for learning and improving; setting/ meeting “ambitious” goals)
text 7. Embed classroom assessment --- Assessment on the fly --- a check to see how well students are able to apply the skill or strategy from the lesson; guides re-teaching/ instruction for small group 8. Model the role of using checklists and rubrics; providing students with guidelines and expectations followed by interactive discussions and feedback. Examine how rubrics and checklists look K-5. Relate to the IN ISTEP+ rubric for constructed and extended response as well as strategy rubrics, such as those found in Independent Reader. 9. Students work w/ partners; small groups; independently 10. Use I-charts for Comprehension Review 11. Use a variety of response options based on GI questions/ cues (HoTs) to monitor their use of strategy and engagement with text (these same questions could be used during conferencing):
78
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools increasingly complex thinking (thinking about the text; thinking beyond the text). Guided instruction is, in part, about establishing high expectations and providing the support for students to reach those expectations. Independent Use and Application --- “You do it, I watch/ observe/ assess/ check for understanding” Teacher progress Formative-assessment Process; measurable behavior and Application of the Strategy in Real Reading Situations monitoring, 1. At this point, students can successfully use the procedure, strategy, skill or characteristics 1. Focus on key aspects of the Focus Lesson and the read-aloud; observation/ standard. The teacher’s role is to observe and assess. interactive discussions; reading practice for fluency, students’ selfconference (3+ min. 2. Encourage independent use of the procedure, strategy, skill or standard 3. Self-selected reading selecting in their zone; and understanding the critical role of conferences) 4. Independent and (approaching) challenging levels of text conferencing. 5. Provide individual skill or strategy chart for support during independent 2. Progress monitoring ⇒⇒⇒⇒ reading; use I-charts for Read to Self/ Independent Sustained Reading 3. ISTEP+ like assessment(s) focused on learning targets at grade level; 6. Variety of genre Goal Clarity assessment at grade level 7. After working with the teacher in small guided instruction groups, the 4. Organization of the classroom library needs to support SSR students try to apply the strategy on their own; independent use of the 5. Teacher spot checks well-anchored strategy use during independent strategy. reading 8. Independent tasks should require individual application of information 6. Students receive regular feedback from the teacher --- Conferencing previously taught and practiced about the skill or strategy with supporting evidence during 9. Provide opportunities to use their knowledge to produce new products (i.e., independent reading apply strategies reading new text; applying strategies using new prompt; 7. Teacher uses key question(s) across the lesson (whole group; small apply strategies using new problem/ task; apply strategies then ask students group; now one-on-one/ individual support) to self-assess/ reflect based on rubric --- am I getting closer to the expected 8. Scaffold strategy questions used during conferences to support depth level of knowledge and skill) of knowledge 9. Quick checks (records) that use rosters and key criteria (based on strategy and key indicators, such as, answered question asked; used information from text; responded using complete thoughts, ideas and higher order thinking). 10. Process for formally analyzing data guides small group instruction, collaboration discussions and identification of Goal Clarity Window for improvement Wrap-up --- Whole group Essential Question(s) --- Revisit the strategy chart. 1. What have we learned about … 2. Let’s reread the chart. 3. What can we add to the chart to capture what we learned today?
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
79
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Writing Framework for Maple Elementary Writing instruction follows the state standards curriculum map and is based on the consistent language within classrooms using writing process. Maple instruction uses a level of support model. Teachers model/demonstrate an objective daily from a standard as well as using assessments of student draft book work, and then use the approaches of shared, guided, and independent as student performance is monitored. Teachers and students use The 4 Square Method as a planning/organizing tool schoolwide. Each student has a draft book for their writing as a record of their growth over the school year. Draft books are used to plan daily for small group instruction based on key errors, Indiana Standards, and other student needs. Teachers also conduct writing conferences with students at various stages of the writing process.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
80
Maple Elementary (0869) – Greater Clark County Schools
Balanced Math Framework Week One Monday Thursday
Week Two Math Review
10 minutes
Process Math Review
Monday Thursday
Math Review
10 minutes
10 minutes
Process Math Review
10 minutes
5 minutes
Mental Math
5 minutes
35 minutes
Conceptual Unit
35 minutes
(conceptual unit extension or computational skill practice) 5 minutes
Assign homework
Assign homework
(conceptual unit extension or computational skill practice) 5 minutes
Replace conceptual unit with problem solving
Math Review Quiz
30 minutes
35 minutes Score quiz together (optional)
10 minutes
Mental Math Conceptual Unit
Friday
Friday
Math Review self-reflection 5 minutes Assessment of week’s conceptual unit learning or Conceptual lesson game/activity that supports unit
Monday – Friday
Intervention Block
30 minutes daily Total minutes: 95 daily
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012
Monday – Friday
Intervention Block
30 minutes
30 minutes daily Total minutes: 90 - 105 daily
81
