Greater Clark County Schools (1010)
PL221 PLAN
Northaven Elementary (0801)
Spring, 2014
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- 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 SWP 2.g
Page 9
Mission/Vision/Belief
Page 10
Data Summary SWP 1 Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Page 11
Conclusions & Guiding Principles
Page 21
Goals/Objectives
Page 25
Implementation Plan
Page 27
Timeline: PL221 Calendar 2012-13
Page 45
Statutes to be Waived
Page 52
Bibliography SWP 4
Page 53
Appendix
Page 55
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
2
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Overview of Northaven Elementary School School Information Northaven Elementary School is a K-5 public education facility. Northaven 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. Greater Clark County Schools is the nineteenth largest school corporation in the state. It is the largest of three school districts in Clark County and growing rapidly. Northaven Elementary is a traditional neighborhood school situated in the southeastern tip of Indiana in Jeffersonville, IN; its southern border is the Ohio River and across the river is Louisville, Kentucky. The community is an area of mixed income. The Northaven community is comprised of mostly single family dwellings and apartments.
Key Student Demographic The current population of Northaven Elementary School is 446 students. Our current population is 57% Non-white, 43% White/Non Hispanic, 24.7% ELL, and 14.6% Special Education. Student demographics show there has been an increase in students of Hispanic, Multiracial, and Asian ethnicity, and a substantial decrease in the percent of white students who attend Northaven Elementary. Northaven Elementary is an LEP magnet for the Greater Clark County School Corporation. In the fall of 2008, 66% of the students are receiving free and reduced lunch. Our current percentage of free and reduced as of May 2014 is 77.4%.
School Learning Climate Our attendance rate for the 2013-14 school year is 96%.
Curriculum and Instruction SWP 2.a-h In accordance with the district and state, Northaven Elementary School has adopted the Indiana College and Career Readiness 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 sequence using power standards, develop pacing guides (Heidi Hayes-Jacobs) and performance assessment process. As a focus of curriculum and instruction, Northaven Elementary School uses the McGraw-Hill Reading series to teach reading with an emphasis on the 5 components of reading; phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary; reading comprehension; and fluency as the primary means of Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
3
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
teaching reading/language arts. We continue to implement the Houghton Mifflin Math series and apply the Balanced Math Framework to teach math. In addition, our students study science and social studies. Other areas of the curriculum include technology, music and physical education. 2014-15 will serve as an adoption year for both Math and Social Studies. Special needs students receive services through the practice of inclusion for social studies and science. Dependent upon the level of support indicated on a child’s IEP, he/she may be pulled out for small group and individualized instruction in reading/language arts and math.
Staff Certified and Non-Certified Northaven Elementary School has 18 certified regular classroom teachers, 1 certified teacher for intervention, 1 certified Academic Improvement Coordinator, 1 certified teacher for each of the following: related arts, physical education, 1 certified speech teacher, 3 certified special needs teachers, 2 certified ELL teachers, 1 ELL translator, 1 media clerk, 5 para-educators for special education, and 4 para-educators for general education. Northaven also has a School Administrative Manager. Northaven Elementary has a total of 31 certified staff and 22 classified staff. Tonja Brading, Principal Wendy Broady, Kindergarten Kayla Heitz, Kindergarten Tara Thompson, Kindergarten Kelly Allen, 1st grade Stephanie Gardner, 1st grade Taylor Ricke, 1st grade Judy Lunsford, 2nd grade Ellen Rothstein, 2nd grade Barbara Sauer, 2nd grade Adam Stephens, 2nd grade Christina Willis, 3rd grade Christina Sonner, 3rd grade Chelli Lancaster, 3rd grade Daniel Johnson, 4th grade Lindsay Lawrence, 4th grade Keia Wood, 4th grade Megan Conklin, 5th grade Amanda Holt, 5th grade Sandy Lipps, 5th grade Angela McCarthy, 5th grade Ali Thompson, Self-Contained Special Needs Teacher JoEllen Blankenbeker, Special Needs Coordinator Susan Botts, Special Needs Coordinator Tara Spiehs, ELL Teacher Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
4
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Cynthia Santiago, ELL Teacher Stephanie Hilles, Title I Interventionist Beth Valentine, Academic Improvement Coordinator Keri Dean/Whitney Stettenbenz, Related Arts Ryan Bixler, Physical Education Laura Schillizzi, Speech Edna Logsdon, Media Clerk Callita Gullion, Administrative Assistant Seth Hollander, School Administrative Manager Lisa Hylton, Office Assistant Jamie Jackson, Health Assistant Diego Flores, ELL Translator Janie Ison, General Education Para-educator Lisa Bowman, Kindergarten Para-educator Sharon Roehm, Kindergarten Para-educator Heather Leezer, Kindergarten Para-educator Diane Sanders, Special Needs Para-educator Cathy Holman, Special Needs Para-educator Rhonda Aldridge, Special Needs Para-educator Andrea Dawn Mongerallo, Special Needs Para-educator DeLynn Sizemore, Day Custodian Randal Bailey, Night Custodian Charlotte Very, Night Custodian Michelle Metzing, Cafeteria Manager Emma Hoffa, Cafeteria Lynette Kahafer, Cafeteria Cythia Hamby, Cafeteria Michelle Robertson, Cafeteria
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
5
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
PL221 Committees and Steering Committee Northaven Elementary 2013-14 PL 221 Committee Assessment (SAP#4)
Curriculum (SAP #3/#4)
Pedagogy(SAP #1)
Professional Development(SAP #5)
Culture (SAP#8/#2)
Intervention(SAP #6)
Planning (SAP#7)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
Members Beth Valentine* Ali Thompson Kelly Allen Tonja Brading* Ellen Rothstein* JoEllen Blankenbeker* Amanda Holt Tonja Brading* Susan Botts* Chelli Lancaster Angela McCarthy Stephanie Hilles Tonja Brading* Kayla Heitz* Whitney Stettenbenz Wendy Broady Christina Sonner Judy Lunsford Tonja Brading* Christina Willis* Adam Stephens Stephanie Gardner Diego Flores Cynthia Santiago Tonja Brading* Tara Spiehs* Sandy Lipps Barb Sauer Taylor Ricke Tonja Brading* Keia Wood* Ryan Bixler Lindsay Lawrence Megan Conklin Dan Johnson Tonja Brading* 6
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
PL221 Steering Committee
Tonja Brading, Principal Kelly Allen, Classroom Teacher Beth Valentine, Title I Coordinator/AIC Amanda Holt, Parent Christina Sonner, GCEA Representative Ellen Rothstein, Parent Ali Thompson, Special Needs Teacher Leslie Kelley --PTO member/community representative
Schoolwide Process for Improvement SWP 3; 4; 8 SIP Using the Title I Continuous School Improvement Model, the school achievement and improvement plan will be updated yearly 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 Plans show the implementation and outcomes of key instruction/intervention strategies as well as professional development, parent involvement and technology strategies through the 2014-15 school year. The Summative Assessment of Key Strategies is used to show how the level of implementation of strategies and related student performance data for the current year (2013-14) and recommendations for 20142015 based on those outcomes. The ten components of a school wide program will be implemented through the schoolwide planning process which includes implementing & updating a plan in conjunction with staff, community and family members; receiving technical assistance from the Indiana Department of Education; 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.
Description & Location of Curriculum SWP 2.c GCCS curriculum is aligned with 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 using pacing guides and Goal Clarity Windows. Classroom elementary teachers in grades K-5 have created a pacing guide for: language arts, math, science, and social studies which are aligned to the State Curriculum Maps. GCCS adopted the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards based on the state guidelines beginning in 2014-15. Performance data are linked to the maps and routinely reviewed to guide the process for improving instruction and aligning the formativeassessment process. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
7
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Curriculum development occurs in the following areas: Language Arts Mathematics Science/Health Social Studies Library Media Skills Music Art Physical Education Technology Education Positive Behavior Intervention System
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 during the school day and/or after school programs. Supplemental programs are monitored and evaluated with assessments. Student grades and report cards are aligned with Common Core/Indiana State 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 In school remediation Intersession 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 state standards. • 100% of teachers identify their state 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 DOE across grade levels. • The population at Northaven Elementary is changing. Over the last three years the number of Hispanic students has increased from 13% - 23%, with students being serviced for ESL growing to 24.7%.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
8
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Titles and Descriptions of Assessment Instruments SWP 2.g Used in Addition to ISTEP+ Northaven Elementary School
ELA Reading/Writing:
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 3-5 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 3-5 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 2014-15
9
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Mission, Vision, and Beliefs Mission The mission of Northaven Elementary is to provide a safe and nurturing learning environment. Staff, students, family, and community members will work collaboratively to challenge students and maximize their potential. We promote success for all students.
Vision Northaven Elementary School will be a premier provider of education for the Greater Clark County School community by preparing students to successfully meet the changes of the future and to become assets of the community.
Beliefs
Successful learners attend school regularly, come prepared, engage in learning, are productive members of the school community and believe they will be successful.
Staff behavior will direct school climate, and respect will be demonstrated by all staff and students in all settings, with both students and staff members taking ownership of individual behaviors and academic outcomes.
All staff believes that high expectations produce academic achievement through student engagement, positive student behavior, equal opportunities to learn, tailoring instruction to individual learning needs and styles, and through utilization of community resources.
Student learning is a reflection of all staff members and is most productive in a safe and secure learning environment.
A successful highly achieving school supports a positive relationship between parents and school when effective communication is collaborative, accurate, clear, consistent, and frequent.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
10
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Northaven Elementary School Comprehensive Needs Assessment Overview SWP 1 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 the Executive Director of Educational Services, Supervisor for Assessment, and Federal Projects Supervisor. Parents, community members, teachers, and administrators will participate in reviewing and updating the plan through PL221 schoolwide planning committee meetings. During the planning year for Title I Schoolwide planning (2010-2011), workshops, collaboration at team, grade level and cross grade level meetings, all staff provided input to the development of the plan. SWP 6.b, 8 Parents are contacted to participate in the planning and annual updating process, however, parent participation continues to be poor. The process and plan was shared with parents during annual meetings. The Northaven 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 Steering Committee planning meetings. Results, analysis, and recommendations for improvement will be reported on the Implementation Plan. The Assessment of Key Strategies will be developed and monitored during the 2012-2013 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 sign-in sheets, agendas, notes on the plan, scoring/ feedback rubrics, etc., are kept as evidence in preparation for an IDOE monitoring visit.
Northaven staff was divided into various committees to look at assessment, culture, curriculum, intervention, pedagogy, planning, and professional development systems. Data statements were developed and questions were answered based on data collected. The staff discovered strengths and areas for development. Northaven staff met to discuss the strengths and weaknesses gathered from the various committees. Charts were developed for each system. Whole faculty discussion took place based on the charts. The dot system was implemented to identify which concerns needed to be researched in order to determine what would be the focus of the new PL 221 plan. Articles based on the areas of concerns the staff noted were read, studied, and discussed during professional development meetings. Using the research, key strategies were developed that would help Northaven meet the goals set for PL 221. These goals follow the CNA in this document.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
11
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Comprehensive Needs Assessment *A complete CNA including data statements can be found in the appendix.
Assessment Assessment Q1. How many/what % of students meet state standards? Have mastered which skills? Answer: • Based on the 2010 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 79% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2009 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 61% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2007 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 62% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2010 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 75% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2009 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 50% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2007 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 52% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2010 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data, 3rd grade students showed mastery of all skilled areas on the English Language Arts portions of the test.
Assessment Q2. Are some groups not performing as well as others? Answer: • Based on the ISTEP+ for the last three school years, the groups not performing as well as others are: Special Needs, Free/Reduced Lunch in both areas. • Males generally performed lower in English Language Arts and Females in Mathematics.
Assessment Q3. What are the critical errors made by students below mastery? Answer: • Overall, the critical errors made by students below mastery in English Language Arts were in the areas of Writing Process, Language Conventions, and Reading Vocabulary. • In Mathematics the critical errors were Number Sense, Computation, and Problem Solving Assessment Q4. Are students showing adequate yearly progress; are #s of students not-passing decreasing/fewer? Answer: Yes, the students not passing ISTEP+ decreased 18% in English Language Arts, and 25% in Mathematics. Assessment Q5. How well are students meeting standards in non-ISTEP+ grades? Errors? Answer: • Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS 61% of K – 2nd graders are meeting benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS 68% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS 71% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS 39% of K – 2nd graders are meeting benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS 41% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on DIBELS Data from the last three years, the errors shown by K – 2nd graders are: Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Oral Reading Fluency. • Based on MCLASS Data from the last three years, the errors shown by K – 2nd graders are: Missing Number, Number Identification, Computation, and Quantity Discrimination. Assessment Q6. How many students read at/above gr. level? W/ comprehension?
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
12
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Answer: • Based on Fall 2010 TRC scores, 78% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension. • Based on Fall 2010 SRI scores, 46% of 3rd – 5th graders were at/above grade level with comprehension • Based on Spring 2010 TRC scores, 65% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension. • Based on Spring 2010 SRI scores, 49% of 3rd – 5th graders were at/above grade level with comprehension • Based on Spring 2009 TRC scores, 72% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension.
Assessment Q7. Do students w/ As, Bs, & Cs on report cards pass ISTEP+ (elem)? Answer: • No, on average, 73% of students who did not pass the English Language Arts portion of the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ received As, Bs, and/or Cs on their report card. • No, on average, 52% of students who did not pass the Mathematics portion of the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ received As, Bs, and/or Cs on their report card.
Assessment Q9. How well prepared do Kdg. Students come to school? Answer: • Based on Brigance scores from the last three years, on average, 55% of Kindergarten students come to school well prepared.
Culture Culture Q1. Are culturally appropriate strategies utilized in classrooms (racial, ethnic, language-minority, cultural, exceptional learning, and socioeconomic groups)? Answer: About half of the teachers feel they use culturally appropriate strategies and take race, ethnicity, cultural differences, and socioeconomic status into consideration when teaching their students. Most teachers feel they use appropriate strategies when teaching students who have English as their second language.
Culture Q2. Is the number of student disruptions kept to a minimum so that learning time for students is maximized? Answer: The majority of the behavior problems are kept to a minimum, however the majority of teachers felt they lose between 15 and 30 minutes of instruction daily due to behavior problems.
Culture Q3. Do we have a safe learning environment? Answer: All but one teacher felt safe in school. The majority of students feel safe in most areas of the school. Students were most fearful in the bathroom and on the playground.
Culture Q4. How well are our rules or procedures for behavior followed? Answer: The majority of teachers felt out students follow rules and procedures for behavior. A little over half of the behavior that resulted in referrals has happened outside the regular classroom. Less than 10 percent of our students have had an office referral.
Culture Q5. How do we inform families about state standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies & procedures? Answer: The majority of teachers felt out students follow rules and procedures for behavior. A little over half of the behavior that resulted in referrals has happened outside the regular classroom. Less than 10 percent of our students have had an office referral.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
13
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Culture Q6. What level of attendance do we have at parent conf. Open house, other? Answer: a.) Information gathered from Open House sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, shows that we have improved our participation 11% from the 2008 to the 2009 school year. b.) Information gathered from Fall 2009 Parent Teacher sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, shows that we have improved our participation 7%. c.) Information gathered from Spring 2010 Parent sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, did not show adequate information to show improvement. d.) Information was not available yet for the Fall 2010 Parent Teacher Conference attendance.
Culture Q7. What business partnerships do we have? With what outcomes? Role in decision-making? Answer: a.) Northaven has partnerships with 15 local businesses and organizations. These partnerships have assisted with both fundraising and student interaction.
Curriculum Curriculum Q1. Is curriculum aligned with state standards? Instruction? Are curriculum maps completed, reviewed and updated regularly? Answer: a) All teachers are using course overview maps for their grade levels developed by the Indiana Department of Education to align lesson plans to state standards. b) All teachers are using the course overview maps to develop goal clarity windows. c) Curriculum maps are reviewed weekly by the building principal. d) All teachers and interventionists are completing and updating curriculum maps based on the length of the goal clarity windows.
Curriculum Q2. Is staff fully implementing key programs trained in? Answer: a) All classroom teachers are implementing the Daily Math Review and Problem Solving Poster Method steps of the Balanced Math Program. b) All certified staff is in the process of receiving professional development of the Balanced Math Program. c) Most classroom and special needs teachers are partially to fully trained in the Reading First Program. d) All classroom teachers are implementing the 90 minute uninterrupted reading block and 30 minute intervention of the Reading First Program. • • • • • •
Balanced Math Review. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers had implemented biweekly Balanced Math quizzes. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 17/18 (94%) of classroom teachers had a daily 90 minute uninterrupted Reading Block. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers provided a 30 minute Reading intervention. 2008-2009 Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 14/16 (88%) of classroom teachers had a daily 90 minute uninterrupted Reading Block. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 13/16 (81%) of classroom teachers provided a 30 minute Reading intervention.
Curriculum Q3. How are Goal Clarity Windows being used?
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
14
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Answer: The building principal is monitoring Goal Clarity Windows on a weekly basis.
Curriculum Q4. Are rubrics and exemplars being developed and used by teachers AND Students: Are state rubrics posted and used by students? Answer: a) Teachers are expected to develop and use rubrics and exemplars on Goal Clarity Window formative assessments starting January 2011. b) Few teachers have begun to develop and use rubrics and exemplars on Goal Clarity Window formative assessments. c) As of this time, few students at Northaven Elementary School are developing and using rubrics and exemplars.
Curriculum Q5. Are students provided technology classes? How often? How assessed? Answer: a) As of the 2010 – 2011 school year, all students at Northaven Elementary School are being provided technology classes weekly. b) Students are being assessed by checklists and rubrics based on NETS standards. c) During the 2010 – 2011 school year, third graders at NES will be given a district wide technology assessment. d) Prior to the 2010 – 2011 school year, no technology classes or programs were implemented at Northaven Elementary School.
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: Northaven has no students in the highly able program.
Intervention Intervention Q1. Are extended time interventions (i.e., tutoring, summer school, supplemental classes) increasing student learning? Answer: The only supplementary tutoring we have had in the past year is Supplemental Educational Services due to our status as a Year 1 and Year 2 School in Improvement in the state of Indiana. This service was provided by various outside providers deemed qualified by the Indiana Dept. of Education and chosen by the parent.
Intervention Q2. What data is used to identify students, programs and personnel for our intervention program? Answer: Math intervention groups are based on Daily Math Review (K-5), mClass math benchmarks (K-2), and Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (4-5). Reading intervention groups are based on Dibels/TRC (K-2), Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (4-5).
Intervention Q3. How often is student data reviewed for intervention groups? Answer: Student data is reviewed every six weeks in a formal intervention meeting to reform intervention groups.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
15
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Intervention Q4. How is intervention data communicated with the regular classroom teacher? Answer: Intervention data is communicated with the regular classroom teacher during goal clarity meetings held at least twice per week and during an intervention meeting held every six weeks.
Intervention Q5. What methods are used to evaluate and track the effectiveness of intervention initiatives? Answer: Teachers keep fidelity records which include the daily attendance of their intervention groups. Summaries of these daily attendance sheets are combined with data from benchmarks on a remediation report submitted at the end of each semester. Teachers review progress of students through benchmark testing and progress monitoring of several assessments.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy Q1. Is consistent language & strategies used across grades & classes within grades? Answer: Yes consistent language and strategies are being used across grades and classes within grades.
Pedagogy Q2. How much time is spent in teach, guided practice, independent practice? Answer: The average time teachers at Northaven are engaged in teaching is 82 minutes per day. The average time teachers at Northaven are engaged in guided practice is 88 minutes per day. The average time allowed for independent practice is 41 minutes per day.
Pedagogy Q3. What methodologies are used consistently in our building? Answer: The methodologies that are used consistently at Northaven are: SOAR, student planners, Balanced Math, 90 minute reading block, 60 minute math block, 30 minute math intervention, 30 minute reading intervention, and Writer’s workshop.
Pedagogy Q4. Do we have guidelines for homework that are consistent in each classroom? How do we ensure guidelines are adhered to? Answer: No we do not have guidelines that are consistent in each classroom.
Pedagogy Q5. What strategies are used to ensure student engagement? Answer: Strategies that are being used at Northaven to ensure student engagement are: student/teacher communications; proximity; and student responses.
Planning Planning Q1. Do students have enough time to learn? Answer: We feel that students have enough time to learn, however the intermediate grades feel that students do not have enough time to learn based on the amount of standards that they are required to master.
Planning Q2. Does the school schedule enhance or hinder learning? Time on task?
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
16
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
Answer: The school schedule enhances learning, however, staff would like to have more freedom of flexibility.
Planning Q 3. How are paraprofessionals & special program staff used to support student learning? Answer: Para-professional are used to support student learning in our school by working with small groups of students that need extra support, modify assignments to fit the needs of students, provide support in meeting IEP goals, and help to minimize distractions for other students.
Planning Q4. Are school improvement strategies monitored on a regular basis? Answer: School improvement strategies within the Implementation Plan are monitored, reviewed, and analyzed on a yearly basis for PL 221. Northaven monitors the strategies on a weekly, bi-weekly, or quarterly through procedures built into our goal clarity and/or professional development time. Planning Q5. How is shared leadership demonstrated in the building? What opportunities are available for teacher leaders? Answer: Shared leadership is demonstrated in the building by the creation and utilization of our leadership team.
Professional Development Professional Development Q1. What is the relationship of student achievement, state standards, & professional dev? Answer: Using Balanced Math professional development during 2009-2010, there was a positive correlation with a greater student passing rate on standardized state testing in 2009-2010 as compared to 2008-2009 with no professional development in math.
Professional Development Q2. What impact has PD had on classroom practice? How do we know? How do we evaluate impact? Answer: Using Balanced Math professional development during 2009-2010, all classroom teachers were implementing a Daily Math Review and a bi-monthly Math Review Quiz with fidelity. Certified staff received bi-monthly training/professional development from the Balanced Math Team. Impact was evaluated through analysis of proficiencies by skill on Math Review Quizzes and student passing rate on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ and Acuity Math scores. All classroom teachers were observed implementing Daily Math Review by the Balanced Math Team.
Professional Development Q3. What kinds of collaboration exist? How effective is each? Answer: During 2009-2010, classroom teachers collaborated to create Daily Math Reviews and to analyze grade level results on Math Review quizzes. Interventionists, including ESL and special education teachers, received copies of upcoming Math Review quizzes to reinforce skills and then to remediate based upon proficiency results.
Professional Development Q4. Does PD increase cultural competency? Answer: No. Balanced Math professional development and Reading First professional development do not address strategies specific to cultural groups. Both programs do teach to differentiate, instruct on student’s level and address multiple learning styles, but neither is geared toward specific cultural groups.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
17
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- 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 * 3 4 5 Total
Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report”
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
Grade*
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
89% 79%
78.6% 81.7%
69.2% 89.3%
86% 64%
76.1% 67.1%
73.8% 76.3%
81% 83%
66.7% 75.8%
71.8% 77.3%
3 4 5 Total
88% 79%
72.3% 71.8%
86.1% 78.9%
ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3
MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red LEP Black Hispanic White Multiracial
Spring 12
Spring 13
11/14 79% 46/52 88% 6/11 55% 11/12 92%
8/11 73% 35/50 70% 8/14 57% ***
Spring 14 5/13 37/59 5/14 4/6
8/12 67% 38/39 97%
10/14 71% 33/42 79% 9/10 90%
6/14 43% 28/33 85% 5/10 50%
38% 63% 36% ***
Group Spring 12 Spring 13 12/14 86% 7/11 64% Sp Ed 43/52 83% 30/50 60% Free/Red 9/11 82% 7/14 50% LEP 9/12 75% *** Black 10/12 83% 8/14 57% Hispanic 36/39 92% 31/42 74% White 8/10 80% Multiracial
ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4 Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
7/12 58%
8/15 53%
8/11 73%
45/59 76%
45/55 82%
43/52 83%
12/14 86%
***
11/17 65%
1/6 17%
10/15 67%
5/7 ***
13/13 100%
8/10 80%
10/16 63%
32/40 80%
34/41 83%
41/42 98%
***
10/10 100%
6/13 41/59 9/14 4/6
46% 69% 64% ***
10/14 71% 26/33 79% 6/10 60%
MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red LEP Black Hispanic White Multiracial
Spring 14
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red LEP Black Hispanic White Multiracial
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
8/2 67%
9/15 60%
7/11 64%
37/60 62%
35/55 64%
35/52 67%
8/14 57%
***
7/17 41%
2/6 33%
10/15 67%
3/7 ***
9/14 64%
6/10 60%
8/16 50%
27/40 68%
26/41 63%
37/42 88%
***
9/10 90%
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
5/8 63% 29/38 76%
4/14 29% 37/57 65%
2/9 *** 39/59 66%
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
6/8 75% 32/38 84%
6/14 43% 38/57 67%
6/9 *** 49/59 83%
18
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
LEP Black Hispanic White
4/9 44% 5/6 83% 2/7 29%
*** *** 9/12 75%
3/6 *** 9/15 60% 8/12 67%
30/32 94%
27/41 66% 7/10 70%
28/38 68% 5/7 ***
ELA-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red LEP Black Hispanic White
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
23/34 68%
20/40 50%
15/33 45.5%
120/149 81% 22/32 69%
117/162 72%
119/170 70.0% 19/37 51.4%
LEP Black Hispanic White
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
27/36 75%
24/42 57.1%
100/111 90%
94/124 76%
95/113 84% 20/27 74.1%
Multiracial
Multiracial
Science
6/6 *** 12/15 80% 11/12 92%
31/32 97%
31/41 76% 8/10 80%
31/38 82% 5/7 ***
MATH-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades
25/32 78%
18/28 64.3%
*** *** 7/12 58%
Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
LEP Black Hispanic White
17/24 71%
6/9 67% 5/6 83% 4/7 57%
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
27/34 79%
22/40 55%
19/33 57.6%
112/150 75% 23/34 68%
103/162 64%
125/170 73.5% 22/37 59.5%
16/24 67%
19/28 67.9%
23/33 70%
21/36 58%
29/42 69.0%
94/111 85%
88/124 71%
94/113 83% 20/27 74.1%
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 47/70 67% 4 Total
47/70 67%
Spring 13
Spring 14
Spring 13
Spring 14
49/77 64%
Grade* 5
Spring 12
39/74 53%
30/52 58%
35/68 51%
43/74 58%
39/74 53%
49/77 64%
Total
30/52 58%
35/68 51%
43/74 58%
Science - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4 Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
8/12 67% 39/60 65%
5/15 33% 29/55 53%
4/11 36% 29/52 56%
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
Social Studies - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5 Number of students passing/total assessed (%)
Group Sp Ed Free/Red
Spring 12
Spring 13
Spring 14
3/5 38% 18/20 47%
5/14 36% 29/57 51%
3/9 *** 34/59 58%
19
Northaven Elementary (0801) --- Greater Clark County Schools
LEP Black Hispanic White Multiracial
7/14 50% 1/6 17% 9/14 64% 31/40 78%
*** 6/15 40% 5/10 50% 24/41 59% ***
6/17 3/7 7/16 32/42 6/10
35% *** 44% 76% 60%
LEP Black Hispanic White Multiracial
1/9 11% 2/6 33% 0/7 0% 23/30 72%
*** *** 5/12 42% 21/41 51% 8/10 80%
4/6 7/15 8/12 21/38 4/7
*** 47% 67% 55% ***
IREAD-3: Grade 3 Spring Summer (retake) Summer (new) Total
Attendance 2012-2013 2013-2014
Behavior 2012-2013 2013-2014
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014-15
2012
2013
2014
59/74 79.7% 6/12 50% 0 65/74 87.8%
60/71 84.5% 6/11 54.5% 2/2 100% 68/73 93.1%
59/71 83% 4/11 36% 0 63/71 88.7%
Northaven Average 97% 96%
District Average 95.1% 96%
State Average 96.1% 95.8%
NO Behavioral Referrals 77.2% 86.4%
20
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Conclusions/Guiding Principles/Strategies SIP 1 Northaven Elementary is in year 2 of being a Priority School within the IDOE. We are continuing to focus or improvement by the 8 Guiding Principles and how they relate with the PL 221 document. Northaven Elementary School will focus on improving the math achievement and the reading and writing skills for all K-5 students, including subgroups who are at risk of failing to meet the State Academic Standards, including those students in the Black, Special Education and Free/Reduced Lunch subgroups.
Matrix of Key Strategies, research-based guiding principles, and alignment with Indiana Academic Standards SBRS Strategies Research Guiding Principle-Reason Job-Embedded • Classroom teachers are the most important factor at Professional Payne, R., 1998 school in the influence of success or failure of at-risk Development on Marzanno, students in school. In order to break the cycle of Analyzing 2001 poverty we must, first and foremost, teach children to Student Work Allington, R., & read, write, speak, and listen. Cunningham, P • Children who are going to become literate must be in Weekly team classrooms in which authentic reading and writing are level and/or Fountas, I. & central activities that pervade the school day and the grade level Pinnell, G., 2001 curriculum. collaboration • Without devoted teachers to individualize instruction Routman, R., for students in their classroom, any program---even 2003 scientifically proven one---will be, at best, minimally effective. Art and science must always work together. Schmoker, M., (Routman, 2003) 2006 • When teachers support each other, learning is accelerated. • Students receive a higher-quality education when teachers meet collaboratively. (Schmoker, 2006) Explicit Better Learning • A structured, explicit, and scaffolded approach to Instruction Through instruction has a positive impact on student academic Structured achievement. Teaching; Fisher • Students learn most when they are engaged and Frey-2014 • Students need to understand information at differing levels in order to use the information strategically. Total Literacy Technique; Himmele/Himmel and Potter-2014
90 minutes of Reading in grades K-5 (small flexible groups; guided reading) *Classroom Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Archer, A. & Huges, C., 2010 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching; Fisher and Frey-2014 Total Literacy
• Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read. • Effective phonics instruction provides opportunities for children to apply what they are learning about letters and sounds to the reading of words, sentences and stories • Evidence indicates that trained reading teachers
21
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools lexiled libraries for self-selected reading *All classrooms focus on explicit instruction in: Phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary development and reading comprehension using the core program *Teachers use think aloud to model key strategies matched to reading errors *Teachers focus on explicit instruction when applying the optimal learning model (gradual release model)
Technique; Himmele/Himmel and Potter-2014 Allington, R., (2002)
• • •
Beck, I., (2002) Vaughn, S., & LinanThompson, S., (2004)
•
Snow, C., (2000)
•
Krashen, S., 1993
•
Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A., 2000 Moss and Young, 2010
• •
• •
*Process Writing (Caulkins; Routman; Fletcher)
Allington, R. & Cunningham 1996
•
*45 minute writing block grades 1-5 *6+1 Trait Writing
• • •
Culham, R., 2004
•
• Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
working in small groups to support lessons can foster accelerated reading development. (Allington) Good classroom libraries help increase the amount of reading done. To support both independent and guided reading, it is important to provide students access to leveled text. Students need to practice fluency and accuracy reading books at an independent level. Monitoring fluency and accuracy is useful in evaluating instruction and setting instruction goals. Reading is comprehension. We must have a context for understanding the importance of foundation skills, but the critical importance is focusing on vocabulary and comprehension. Reading information literature can contribute to a student’s content area knowledge and vocabulary development. Although a great deal of vocabulary is learning indirectly, some vocabulary should be taught directly. Good vocabulary instruction provides multiple exposures through rich and varied activities to meaningful information about the word. Text comprehension can be improved by instruction that helps readers use specific comprehension strategies. Fielding and Pearson (1994) contend “that a successful program of comprehension instruction” should include four components; 1. Large amounts of time for actual text reading. 2. Teacher-directed instruction in comprehension strategies related to the topic/ content. 3. Opportunities for peer and collaborative learning, and 4. Occasions for students to talk to a teacher and to one another about their responses to reading. Teacher modeling is the first component in the gradual release of responsibility approach. Teacher modeling makes what is implicit, explicit. For students to use strategies independently, teachers must model their use so that students “see” how the strategy is used to help students understand & comprehend. Strategies must be modeled frequently using think aloud. Strategies are modeled and are applicable to all curriculum areas. Students who write become more fluent in reading. Teacher must model the writing processes Teacher/student conferencing is an integral part of the writing program. Conferring with students is a one-on-one intervention (Calkins) Editors checklists provide necessary guidelines for students Students who have effective writing instruction score better on state writing tests than their counterparts who receive specific instruction in the skills assessed on the test Learning is constructed as students are given a
22
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
•
60 minute math block Balanced Math Program
Zemelman, S. Hyde,& Daniels, H., 2005
•
Burns, M., 1999 •
Balanced Math (problem solving strategies)
Ainsworth, L & Christinson, J 2006
*Teachers use think aloud to model key strategies matched to math errors
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J., 1998
•
•
*Teachers focus on explicit instruction when applying the optimal learning model (gradual release model)
• • • •
• Three Tiers of Intervention in Literacy and math. Reading Counts (gr. K-5)
*Parent/ Home Involvement Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Allington, R., & Cunningham, P., 2002 Allington, R., & Cunningham, P., 2003
• • •
•
Allington and Cunningham,
•
variety of experiences, ideas, and relationship with peers and teachers, and that this learning allows students to become better writers, which results in better scores on formalized writing tests. Writing can be supported by technology. Use of technology to support the writing process is “differentiating the instruction” for individual students & opportunities for small group work. An equitable mathematics curriculum maintains high expectations and support for all students across all grades. Teachers help all- students understand that mathematics is a dynamic, coherent, interconnected set of ideas. Teaching (challenging and supporting students in building new knowledge). The goal of teaching mathematics is to help all students understand concepts and use them powerfully. Learning (helping students build an understanding of mathematics by actively creating meaning by connection new knowledge with their prior knowledge). All students should understand and be able to use number concepts, operations, and computational procedures. Memorization plays an important role in computation. Calculating mentally or with paper and pencil requires having basic number facts committed to memory. However, memorization should follow, not lead, instruction that builds children’s understanding. The emphasis of learning in mathematics must always be on thinking, reasoning, and making sense (Burns, 1999). All students must have opportunities to do algebra and reason algebraically, throughout their K-12 school years. Geometry and measurement concepts are best learned through real-world experiences and problems. Concepts from statistics, data, chance, and probability thrive on real-world applications. Assessment (supporting the learning of important mathematics through formative and summative assessment of what students actually understand.) Assessment should help teachers better understand what students know and make meaningful decisions about teaching and learning activities. Technology (expanding the mathematics that can be taught and enhancing student learning). Tier 1 IMPACT is within Core Instruction IMPACT for remediation and enrichment “Students who experience difficulty w/ reading need some educational intervention that gives them access to sufficient instruction to accelerate their literacy learning.” (Allington, 2001) Effective interventions include effective classroom reading instruction, small group support, and 1 to 1 tutoring. (Allington, 2002) Schools that have unusually high success rates with struggling readers are usually schools with high levels
23
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools 2003 •
•
• Epstein, J., 1995 •
School Climate and Culture
Jones, F., 2000
•
•
• Lynch, M., 2006
• •
• • •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
of family and community involvement (Allington and Cunningham, 2003) Patricia Edwards (1991), of Michigan State University, notes that she found that many less well educated parents simply did not know how to read to their children …..(Allington and Cunningham, 2003) Researchers at the Center for Disadvantaged Students at John Hopkins University (Slavin, Karwiet, and Wasik, 1993) found that “low income parents were very willing to work with their children, but they often needed more guidance than schools made available” (Allington and Cunningham, 2003) Partnerships tend to decline across the grades, unless schools and teachers work to develop and implement appropriate practices of partnership at each grade level (Epstein, 1995). Schools in more economically depressed communities make more contacts with families about the problems and difficulties their children are having, unless they work at developing balanced partnership programs that include contacts about positive accomplishments of students. Classroom management must be in place before instruction can occur. Without classroom management and schoolwide discipline, instruction cannot take place. Classroom structure is the foundation for effective classroom management. The process for learning in the classroom and student engagement impacts “management” & “instruction”. Everything in the classroom is interconnected. Discipline & instruction are managed simultaneously. When self-esteem is high and children receive proper motivation, they achieve academically. Teachers must enter the instructional area with a belief that all students can and will learn. Early assumptions we make about children become selffulfilling prophecies. Group work and talking out (discussion) should be used with African American students and most likely other subgroups as well. Most students will do anything to live up to your faith in them, but they have to believe that your faith is genuine. Apply strategies to reduce and eliminate the performance gap: o Stress prior knowledge o Automaticity of basic knowledge to free working memory for other tasks o Transfer learning from one context to the next
24
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
PL221 Goals from Inquiry SWP 2.g SIP 4 ELA GOAL 1 By Spring 2015 > 81.9 % of students at Grades 3-5 will meet State Standards in ELA as measured by ISTEP/ISTAR. By Spring 2015 > 90.0% of students at Grade 3 will meet State Standards in Reading as measured by IREAD-3. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 74.3% of the students in the Free and Reduced 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+, 59.2% of the students in the English Language Learner subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67% of the students in the Black subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 73% of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 86.1% of the students in the White subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 80.7% of the students in the Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5.
Math GOAL 2 By Spring 2015 > 83% of students at Grades 3-5 will meet State Standards in Mathematics as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75.8% of the students in the Free and Reduced subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 63.2% of the students in the Special Ed. Subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67.6% of the students in the English Language Learner subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
25
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 70.0% of the students in the Black subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75.8% of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 87.2% of the students in the White subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 79.7% of the students in the Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5.
Attendance/Behavior GOAL 3 By Spring 2015, Northaven Elementary School attendance rate will be 98% or higher. By Spring 2015, 88.4% of students at Northaven Elementary School will have received no behavioral referrals for the 2014-15 school year.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
26
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN English/Language Arts SWP 2.g SIP 4 Goal: By Spring 2015 > 81.9% of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 will meet State Standard in ELA as measured by ISTEP+/ISTAR. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Goal: By Spring 2015 > 90.0% of students in grade 3 will meet State Standard in Reading as measured by IREAD-3. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 74.3% of the students in the Free and Reduced subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : 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. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 59.2% of the students in the English Lang. Learner subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67% of the students in the Black subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 73% of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 86.1% of the students in the White subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. SWP 2.g SIP 4 Benchmark : On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 80.7% of the students in the Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5.
System
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation SWP 10 SIP 1 •
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? Guiding Principle 1: Developing good GCW assessments will help guide instruction and allow students to self assess for improving skills. Guiding Principle 2: A successful program of comprehension instruction should include four components; 1. Large amounts of time for actual text reading. Read every day. 2. Teacher-directed instruction in comprehension strategies related to the topic/content. 3. Opportunities for peer and collaborative learning 4. Occasions for students to talk to a teacher and to one another about their responses to reading.
Assessment SWP 2.g SIP 4; 6
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Guiding Principle 3: Effective writing instruction involves a long-term development of the writing process through choice of topic, differentiated teacher-student writing conferences, and opportunities to share student writing. Writing must take place weekly at a minimum, and publish every quarter. Strategy 1 - Develop and administer common Learning Checks using problem solving and complex, multiple step problems to track student progress and plan instruction. These assessments will include extended response assessment items. Strategy 2 - Formative-assessment Process; measurable behavior and characteristics
Evaluation: Results/Revisions SWP 1; 2.c.h; 4; 8; 10 SIP 1; 4; 6 • •
• •
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?
District Checkpoints: Four times per year will be conducted through the Superintendent and the Principal to analyze for a value added system of instruction and data analysis. Building Checkpoints: Meeting Record and KWL used to document progress & update needs assessment; refine
27
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools 1. Focus on key aspects of the Focus Lesson and the read-aloud; interactive discussions; reading practice for fluency, students’ self-selecting in their zone; and understanding the critical role of conferencing. 2. Progress monitoring 3. ISTEP+ like assessment(s) focused on learning targets at grade level; Goal Clarity assessment at grade level 4. Organization of the classroom library needs to support SSR 5. Teacher spot checks well-anchored strategy use during independent reading 6. Students receive regular feedback from the teacher --- Conferencing about the skill or strategy with supporting evidence during independent reading 7. Teacher uses key question(s) across the lesson (whole group; small group; now oneon-one/ individual support) 8. Scaffold strategy questions used during conferences to support depth 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). Process for formally analyzing data guides small group instruction, collaboration discussions and identification of Goal Clarity Window for improvement
strategies; target interventions focus PD; & plan for grade level alignment. These will be facilitated by the Principal and/or Academic Improvement Coordinator.
Strategy 3 - Grade 3-5 teachers will administer the ISTEP+ Statewide Assessment for English/ language arts annually. Strategy 4 – Benchmark Assessments • Gr. K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR Benchmark Assessment (reading) 3 times a year. • Kdg. – 2 teachers administer, score and analyze Running Records to determine Reading Levels. (Kdg: 3rd & 4th quarters, Gr.1 quarterly, Gr. 2 below grade level students quarterly) • Gr. 2 – 5 teachers administer, score and analyze Acuity 3 times a year. • Gr. K-5 will administer and analyze a common benchmark writing assessment Four times per year using the Indiana Writing Development and Language Conventions rubrics. • Gr. K-2 will administer the IRead K-2 to each child in May 2015. Strategy 5 – Assessment for Learning: Grade level teams will work to create student feedback systems within daily lessons to assess student understanding and allow teachers to make “on the spot” adjustments to the curriculum and pedagogy in order to increase effectiveness. • K-5 teachers use “status of the class” checklist to review where students Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
28
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools need support in the writing process.
Curriculum SWP 2. a-h *Include Technology
Culture SWP 6.a-b; 7 SIP 7 *Include cultural competency
•
K-5 teachers hold individual student writing conferences assess for
•
learning and differentiate instruction.
Strategy 1 - Use the Literacy Framework that aligns to the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards implementation guidelines. Lessons, activities, and reading resources will be pulled from our adopted, scientifically researched reading series from McGraw-Hill. Strategy 2- K-5 teachers have a reading block that includes: word work (phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary & concept development); guided reading (vocabulary & comprehension); & self-selected/ independent reading (fluency & comprehension). Strategy 3 –K-5 teachers will have a 45 minute English and Writing Block that includes a 15 minute Daily Language Review and a 30 minute Writer’s Workshop. Strategy 4- Technology resources will be utilized to increase student motivation and teacher resources. • Gradual Release Framwork based on Fisher and Frey model. • Use IDOE Curriculum Frameworks & performance assessment guidance. • Gr. K-5 teachers will implement Reading Counts to support students reading practice and improve/build comprehension, vocabulary and fluency as well as motivation. • Students will use Microsoft Office or Google Doc applications to publish writing pieces in various forms. • Teachers will use graphic organizers and visual presenters to model daily key strategies using a variety of expository text that will help students interpret & understand grade level material and improve vocabulary. • Teachers will use Frayer Model to improve vocabulary across the curriculum. • Teachers will use interactive board technology during classroom activities. • Gr. 3-5 teachers will use 1-1 technology instruction using Google Chromebooks. • Teachers will model and teach Cornell Note-Taking across the curriculum. • Writing will be used across the curriculum. Write every week. Publish every quarter.
District Checkpoints: Twice during the year will be conducted and involve the Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Principal to ensure implementation of the School Improvement Plan, updates to needs assessment, monitoring student progress and alignment of intervention to students’ progress.
Strategy 1 - Develop differentiated classroom activities to support subgroup needs to master open ended questions.
Building Checkpoints: • K-5 teachers will analyze the performance of student in ISTEP+ grades plus their transition grade annually; the performance of the subgroups of poverty, ethnicity, & special education to determine if students
Strategy 2 - K-5 teachers will use “cultural modeling”, that is modeling as a vehicle for identifying ways of connecting everyday language practice to academic skills and for building on the resources of students from critical subgroups, such as Hispanic and Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Building Checkpoints:
•
Monitored weekly by the Principal through lesson plans and walk-throughs. Concerns will be addressed during grade level meetings.
•
Continually monitored per year by grade level teams to assess current pacing and performance on benchmark assessments.
29
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Limited English students, in order to expand students’ ability to work with the various tools and practices that they will use in both home and school contexts. Strategy 3 - Teachers will be aware of cultural differences; pairing LEP students with: 1) good peer models during Think/ Pair/ Share.; 2) provide visual clues; 3) use repetition and consistent use of vocabulary; 4) focus on vocabulary, word banks and word walls; 5) pre-teach/ teach/ reteach content-vocabulary and concepts; 6) use graphic organizers; 7) use daily journals, dialogue journals and language experience approach for writing and other appropriate teacher strategies to guide and support the learning and language development of students with diverse backgrounds.
in those groups are making different errors than other students and/or require different interventions. •
Positive Behavior Intervention System Committee will track: 1) Student attendance (i.e., regular school day; extended day/ calendar activities); 2) # of days without a violent incident or safety violation; 3) #/% of students with zero disciplinary infractions; 4) Monthly reports of types of incidents with student demographics included to track trends.
Strategy 4 – Continue Implement Phase II of a school-wide Positive Behavior Intervention System that includes common and consistent expectations, common character traits, and a rewards system for motivation and attendance. SY2014-15 PRIDE (Persistance, Respectfulness, Initiative, Dependability, and Efficiency) merges with school based SOAR. Strategy 5- Parent involvement initiatives will be implemented: • Monthly school newsletter with academic and behavior parent tips. • Monthly-weekly classroom newsletters with academic focus information • PTO meetings each month • Fall Parent-Teacher Conferences • ELL Family Night/World Fest • Winter Open House • Spring Parent-Teacher Conferences • Family Literacy Night • Parent survey with an opportunity for feedback on classroom and school initiatives and programs. Strategies for transitions for preschoolers and 5th graders are as follows: • GCCS postcard mailing • GCCS …Week • Camp Kindergarten: Student activities and informational meeting for parents of incoming kindergartners • Student planners for grades 1-5 • 5th graders attend orientation at Parkview Middle School or River Valley Middle School • 5th grade teachers complete a “Middle School Scheduling Form” for each 5th grader and send it to PVMS or RVMS Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
30
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Intervention SWP 9 SIP 8 *Include Tier I, II and III
Strategy 1 – IMPACT framework is used to provide additional time scheduled to focus on student needs. • Tier 1: Leveled reading instruction taught by the classroom teacher during the 90 minute core reading block. •
•
Tier 2 Interventions/ Extended Time: Subgroups identified for improvement will be included in these interventions (i.e., students in these subgroups will include, Black, Hispanic, sp. ed. and poverty. 45 Minutes Intervention beyond core block: 45 minutes of instruction will be provided for non-proficient students by classroom teacher, Title I interventionists, ELL staff, or Special Ed. staff. Tier 3 Interventions/ Intensive: (additional time beyond reading block) Subgroups identified for improvement will be included in these interventions (i.e., students in these subgroups will include, Black, Hispanic, sp. ed. and poverty.
Building Checkpoints: • Classroom teachers or interventionists will progress monitor Tier 2 and 3 students every three weeks using STAR. • Gr. 1 and 2 classroom teachers or interventionists will progress monitor Tier 3 students using running records. • Grade level intervention teams will meet every six weeks to assess student placement, troubleshoot issues with intervention groups, and effectiveness. • All interventionists will meet every six weeks to troubleshoot building intervention issues and effectiveness.
Strategy 2: Identification of students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be skill and strategy based with a focus on growth data. Available data analysis will be utilized to make placement decisions using the results from STAR/TRL/GCW assessments in grades K-2, and ISTEP/STAR/Acuity/GCW assessments in grades 2-5. Strategy 3: Enrichment groups will be formed during the Tier 2 time. The focus is to build upon mastered skills to elevate students to ensure growth regardless of grade level.
Planning/Leadership SWP 8 SIP 9 *Include Reading Plan
Strategy 1: Define components of literacy block (Gradual Release Model) • K-2 Reading Block o 60 minutes of balanced literacy incorporating all five components of reading with focus GCW reading skill or strategy. Gradual release model used in instruction. o 30 minutes of leveled reading instruction •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
3-5 Reading Block o 30 minutes of balanced literacy focusing on fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Gradual Release model used in instruction. o 30 minutes of leveled reading literature instruction incorporating GCW skill or strategy. o 30 minutes of non-fiction reading instruction incorporation GCW
Building Checkpoints: • The principal will complete regular walkthroughs in the building to monitor and give feedback to teachers. •
Teachers will complete self-assessments three times per year to self-monitor their progress.
•
Meeting Record Forms will be completed for all Building Leadership Team Meetings.
31
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
skill or strategy. Strategy 2: 30 Minute Writing Block: K-5 teachers have 30 minutes daily writing using the curriculum for process writing and writer’s workshop that includes: 1) Mini lesson (10 minutes): teachers may introduce, model, demonstrate, reinforce and/or record teacher’s or student’s thinking in relation to a strategy; 2) Writing time (15 minutes): students write; teacher and student together determine which area of the process to focus on (prewriting; drafting; revising; editing; publishing); 3) Sharing time (5 minutes): students share insights and questions as well as sections of their writing for comment or author’s chair. Strategy 3: 15 Minute Daily Language Review Block: K-5 teachers have 15 minutes daily language review using the standards for language usage skills. Strategy 4: Building Leadership Team will be trained to lead the staff in instructional initiatives. • Weekly and/or Bi-monthly meetings will be held for the leadership team to plan PD, discuss data issues, and give feedback of current PL221 initiatives. •
Each BLT member will take the lead on one of the focus systems and participate in district level training. Each BLT member will develop and lead PD sessions on these topics.
Strategy 5: Collaborative planning will take place during: • Period 0
Pedagogy SWP 2.a-h
•
Articulation
•
Common grade level planning times
Strategy 1 - K-5 teachers will use the Gradual Release Model for literacy instruction: 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
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Building Checkpoints: • The principal will complete regular walkthroughs in the building to monitor and give feedback to teachers. •
Teachers will complete self-assessments three times per year to self-monitor their progress.
32
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools (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 largegroup discussions; teacher checks understanding based on students’ oral response Link/ reinforce demonstration to skill or strategy chart (if appropriate) 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 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 Independent Use and Application Application of the Strategy in Real Reading Situations 1. At this point, students can successfully use the procedure, strategy, skill or standard. The teacher’s role is to observe and assess. 2. Encourage independent use of the procedure, strategy, skill or standard 3. Self-selected reading 4. Independent and (approaching) challenging levels of text Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
33
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools 5. Provide individual skill or strategy chart for support during independent reading; use I-charts for Read to Self/ Independent Sustained Reading 6. Variety of genre 7. After working with the teacher in small guided instruction groups, the students try to apply the strategy on their own; independent use of the strategy. 8. Independent tasks should require individual application of information previously taught and practiced Provide opportunities to use their knowledge to produce new products (i.e., apply strategies reading new text; applying strategies using new prompt; apply strategies using new problem/ task; apply strategies then ask students to self-assess/ reflect based on rubric --- am I getting closer to the expected level of knowledge and skill) Wrap-up --- Whole group Essential Question(s) --- Revisit the strategy chart. 1. What have we learned about … 2. Let’s reread the chart. What can we add to the chart to capture what we learned today? Strategy 2 - Teachers will conference with students about • Strategies to improve fluency and comprehension • Strategies to improve writing development using language from the Indiana Writing Rubrics posted in the classroom Strategy 3- K-5 teachers will use strategies and content that will increase Rigor, Relevance, and Engagement on a daily basis by • Students self-assessing their depth of knowledge on the standard/strategy being taught. •
TPT activities.
•
Project-based Learning
Strategy 4: K-5 teachers will teach the craft of writing during the writing block and utilize previously taught skills to use writing across the curriculum such as, math, reading, science, and social studies
Professional Development SWP 3; 4; 5 SIP 2; 3
Strategy 1 - PD focus on student data from open ended assessments and collaboration. • Beginning of the year review focus meeting to review whole school data and plan & focusing classroom instruction & grade level progress monitoring •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Weekly grade level collaboration meetings will support & monitor the consistency & level of use of key strategies & student progress in reading,
Building Checkpoints: • Grade Level Meeting Record and KWLs used to document progress & update needs assessment; refine strategies; target interventions focus PD; & plan for grade level alignment. These will be
34
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools writing & math; analysis of student work samples (GCW assessments; benchmark assessments; ISTEP+) focus on key errors. •
K-5 teachers and special resource teachers will participate in grade level collaboration weekly. This collaboration will focus on examining formative assessments (student work samples) that will monitor errors in reading and students level of use of the key strategies that teachers focus on. Teachers will review how students are using the strategies and discuss how to revise and refine their modeling of those key strategies in order to impact student performance on the next formative assessment. During collaboration time, teachers will use the data to reflect on current practices; expand, refine and build new skills that focus on meeting school improvement goals and help to address barriers to implementing key reform strategies in the school improvement plan
facilitated by the Principal and/or Academic Improvement Coordinator. •
Checkpoints will be conducted & involve all staff to ensure grade level (horizontal) and cross grade level (vertical) articulation of strategies, standards, & grade level assessment. Risk groups (levels of performance based on benchmark) will be identified at each class then aggregated at the grade level, targeted goals will be determined for the grade level, specific interventions will be identified that will include parent contacts; strategies will be reviewed & refined to address needs/ concerns & grade level Reflections and whole school summative will be monitored & updated during this school wide process of progress monitoring impact & implementation.
•
Meeting Record Forms will be completed for all Period Zero meetings and book studies.
•
Exit slips will be completed for all walkthroughs.
Strategy 2-PD Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards •
The principal will conduct regular walk throughs in classrooms to monitor for FREWS. Teachers will be given a checklist to be used as feedback from the walk through by the principal.
•
The principal and Title I coordinator(AIC) will take regularly scheduled walkthroughs with teachers to observe, dialogue, and reflect using the FREWS prompts.
•
Book Study implementation of The Ten-Minute In-Service by Todd Whitaker and Annette Breaux
•
Semester 2: Poverty Book Study on MBC
Strategy 3- PD focus on the Gradual Release Model for Literacy. • Focus strategies for each component of the writing block will be delivered during staff professional development meetings. • •
Focus strategies for each 6+1 Trait of writing will be delivered during staff professional development meetings. Focus strategies for each reading component will be delivered during staff professional development meetings.
•
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
35
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MATH SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4 SWP 2.g SIP 4
Goal: 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 Reduced subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 63.2% of the students in the Special Ed. Subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 67.6% of the students in the English Lang. Learner subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 70.0% of the students in the Black subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 75.8% of the students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 87.2% of the students in the White subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5. Benchmarks: On the Spring 2015 ISTEP+, 79.7% of the students in the Multiracial subgroup will meet State Standards in ELA in grades 3-5.
System
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation SWP 10 SIP 1
•
Based on our guiding principles and/or best practice research, what strategies will help us reach our goal?
•
Assessment SWP 2.g SIP 4; 6
What actions will we take to implement the strategies? Guiding Principle 1: Developing good GCW assessments will help guide instruction and allow students to self assess for improving skills. Guiding Principle 2: All students should understand and be able to use number concepts, operations, and computational procedures. Guiding Principle 3: The goal of teaching mathematics is to help all students understand concepts and use them powerfully. Strategy 1 - Develop and administer common GCW assessments using problems solving and complex, multiple step problems to track student progress and plan instruction. These assessments will include extended response assessment items. Strategy 2 - Grade 3-5 teachers will administer the ISTEP+ Statewide Assessment for Math annually. Strategy 3 – Benchmark Assessments • Gr. K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR Benchmark Math 3 times a year. • Gr. 3 – 5 teachers administer, score and analyze Acuity 3 times a year.
Evaluation: Results/Revisions SWP 1; 2.c.h; 4; 8; 10 SIP 1; 4; 6
• •
• •
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?
District Checkpoints: Four times per year will be conducted through the Superintendent and the Principal to analyze for a value added system of instruction and data analysis. Building Checkpoints: Meeting Record and KWL used to document progress & update needs assessment; refine strategies; target interventions focus PD; & plan for grade level alignment. These will be facilitated by the Principal and/or Academic Improvement Coordinator.
• Strategy 4 – Assessment for Learning: Grade level teams will work to create student feedback systems within daily lessons to assess student understanding and allow teachers to make “on the spot” adjustments to the curriculum and pedagogy in order to increase effectiveness. Grade 3-5 teachers will administer the ISTEP+ Statewide Assessment for Mathematics annually.
Curriculum SWP 2.a-h *Include Technology
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Strategy 1 - Develop Goal Clarity Windows that align to the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards implementation guidelines. Lessons, activities, and reading resources will be pulled from our adopted, scientifically researched math series from
District Checkpoints: Twice during the year will be conducted and involve the Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Principal to ensure implementation of the
36
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Houghton Mifflin. Strategy 2- K-5 teachers have a daily 60 minute Balanced Math block.
Culture SWP 6.a-b; 7 SIP7 *Include cultural competency
Strategy 3- Technology resources will be utilized to increase student motivation and teacher resources. • Use IDOE Curriculum Frameworks & performance assessment disks. • Students will use Microsoft Excel and/or Google Docs to explore and represent mathematical concepts. • Teachers will use graphic organizers and visual presenters to model daily key strategies using a variety of expository text that will help students interpret & understand grade level material and improve vocabulary. • Teachers will use the Frayer Model to improve mathematical vocabulary. • Teachers will model and teach Cornell Norte-Taking across the curriculum. • Writing will be used across the curriculum. • Gr. 3-5 Teachers will use 1-1 technology instruction using Google Chromebooks. • Teachers will use interactive board technology during classroom activities.
Building Checkpoints:
Strategy 1 - Develop differentiated classroom activities to support subgroup needs to master open ended questions.
Building Checkpoints: • K-5 teachers will analyze the performance of student in ISTEP+ grades plus their transition grade annually; the performance of the subgroups of poverty, ethnicity, & special education to determine if students in those groups are making different errors than other students and/or require different interventions.
Strategy 2 - K-5 teachers will use “cultural modeling”, that is modeling as a vehicle for identifying ways of connecting everyday language practice to academic skills and for building on the resources of students from critical subgroups, such as Hispanic and Limited English students, in order to expand students’ ability to work with the various tools and practices that they will use in both home and school contexts. Strategy 3 - Teachers will be aware of cultural differences; pairing LEP students with: 1) good peer models during Think/ Pair/ Share.; 2) provide visual clues; 3) use repetition and consistent use of vocabulary; 4) focus on vocabulary, word banks and word walls; 5) pre-teach/ teach/ reteach content-vocabulary and concepts; 6) use graphic organizers; 7) use daily journals, dialogue journals and language experience approach for writing and other appropriate teacher strategies to guide and support the learning and language development of students with diverse backgrounds. Strategy 4 – Implement a school-wide Positive Behavior Intervention System that includes common and consistent expectations, common character traits, and a rewards system for motivation and attendance. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
School Improvement Plan, updates to needs assessment, monitoring student progress and alignment of intervention to students’ progress.
•
Monitored weekly by the Principal through lesson plans and walk-throughs. Concerns will be addressed during grade level meetings.
•
Constantly monitored by grade level teams to assess current pacing and performance on benchmark assessments.
•
Positive Behavior Intervention System Committee will track: 1) Student attendance (i.e., regular school day; extended day/ calendar activities); 2) # of days without a violent incident or safety violation; 3) #/% of students with zero disciplinary infractions; 4) Monthly reports of types of incidents with student demographics included to track trends.
•
Tracking will occur through SWIS.
37
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Strategy 5- Parent involvement initiatives will be implemented: • Monthly school newsletter with academic and behavior parent tips. •
Monthly-weekly classroom newsletters with academic focus information
•
Fall Parent-Teacher Conferences
•
ELL Family Night
•
Winter Open House
•
Spring Parent-Teacher Conferences
•
Family Literacy Night
•
World Fest
Parent survey with an opportunity for feedback on classroom and school initiatives and programs. Strategies for transitions for preschoolers and 5th graders are as follows: • Parent In-services: Videos that provide information for parents accompanied by handouts and discussion. Locations: Charlestown and Jeffersonville. • Parents Make the Difference newsletters distributed monthly to all public/private preschools. • Kindergarten Roundup: Spring Registration for incoming kindergarten students • Camp Kindergarten: Student activities and informational meeting for parents of incoming kindergartners • Student planners for grades 1-5 • 5th graders attend orientation at Parkview Middle School or River Valley Middle School • 5th grade teachers complete a “Middle School Scheduling Form” for each 5th grader and send it to PVMS or RVMS
Intervention SWP 9 SIP 8 *Include Tier I, II and III
Strategy 1 – IMPACT framework is used to provide additional time scheduled to focus on student needs. • Tier 1: Leveled reading instruction taught by the classroom teacher during the 60 minute math block. •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Tier 2 Interventions/ Extended Time: Subgroups identified for improvement (not meeting Safe Harbor AYP) will be included in these interventions (i.e., students in these subgroups will include, Black, Hispanic, sp. ed. and poverty.
Building Checkpoints: • Classroom teachers or interventionists will progress monitor Tier 2 and 3 students every three weeks. • Grade level intervention teams will meet every six weeks to assess student placement, troubleshoot issues with intervention groups, and effectiveness. • All interventionists will meet every weekly with grade
38
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools 30 Minutes Intervention beyond core block: 30 minutes of instruction will be provided for non-proficient students by classroom teacher, Title I interventionists, ELL staff, or Special Ed. staff. •
levels to troubleshoot building intervention issues and effectiveness.
Tier 3 Interventions/ Intensive: (additional time beyond reading block) Subgroups identified for improvement (not meeting Safe Harbor AYP) will be included in these interventions (i.e., students in these subgroups will include, Black, Hispanic, sp. ed. and poverty.
Stragey 2: Identification of students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be skill and strategy based with a focus on growth data. Available data analysis will be utilized to make placement decisions using the results from STAR/GCW assessments in grades K-2, and ISTEP/STAR/Acuity/GCW assessments in grades 3-5.
Planning/Leadership SWP 8 SIP 9
Strategy 1. MATH model/ framework: 60 minutes of daily instruction that includes concept vocabulary development, teach, guided practice, and independent practice application of the strategies in real math situations. Problem solving processes are taught through the use of Exemplars problems and/or problem solving strategies in the Balanced Math Framework. Instruction is augmented by the use of: • Daily Math Review that provides opportunity for students to continue to practice a skill or concept •
Interactive reading during which teacher reads aloud and expects students to talk about the problem during the reading
•
Explicit instruction focusing on grade level standards: Teachers model and demonstrate precisely how to solve a problem by explaining, thinking aloud, showing work, working through confusions, rereading, monitoring and correcting.
•
Student samples to distinguish between responses which ask students to show, explain or describe
•
Consistent appropriate use of manipulatives during practice and application
•
Poster Math and Alternative Methods of problem solving
•
Math scoring rubric in problem solving that assesses correct response, work shown, response to question asked and addressing all parts of a question
Building Checkpoints: • The principal will complete regular walkthroughs in the building to monitor and give feedback to teachers.
•
Teachers will complete self-assessments three times per year to self-monitor their progress.
•
Meeting Record Forms will be completed for all Building Leadership Team Meetings.
Strategy 2: Building Leadership Team will be trained to lead the staff in instructional initiatives. • Bi-monthly meetings will be held for the leadership team to plan PD, discuss data issues, and give feedback of current PL221 initiatives. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
39
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
•
Pedagogy SWP 2.a-h
Each BLT member will take the lead on one of the focus systems and participate in district level training. Each BLT member will develop and lead PD sessions on these topics.
Strategy 1 - K-5 teachers will model daily using think aloud how to • Identify important information in problems & questions; teachers will model marking or highlighting text & problems to show students how to answer the question asked; answer all parts of the question or problem; & check their answer. •
Monitor/ self-check; how to check, go back & reread if all parts of the question are included; have all the questions or all parts of the question been included or answered when asked to “explain” or “show work”.
•
Organize & plan to solve the problem using graphic organizers to show students explicitly how to answer the question asked; answer all parts of the question; & anchor or support the response/ answer in text (include all important details & stay focused on the information that is critical to answer/ respond) when asked to “explain”.
Building Checkpoints: • The principal will complete regular walkthroughs in the building to monitor and give feedback to teachers.
•
Teachers will complete self-assessments three times per year to self-monitor their progress.
Strategy 2 - K-5 teachers will instruct using problems in ISTEP+ format; modeling explicitly the steps to solve word problems, providing guided practice, feedback & independent practice. Strategy 3- K-5 teachers will use strategies content that will increase Rigor, Relevance, and Engagement on a daily basis by • Students self-assessing their depth of knowledge on the standard/strategy being taught.
Professional Development SWP 3; 4; 5 SIP 2; 3
•
TPT activities.
•
Project-based Learning
Strategy 1 - PD focus on student data from open ended assessments and collaboration. • Beginning of the year review focus meeting to review whole school data and plan & focusing classroom instruction & grade level progress monitoring •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Weekly grade level collaboration meetings will support & monitor the consistency & level of use of key strategies & student progress in reading, writing & math; analysis of student work samples (GCW assessments;
Building Checkpoints: • Grade Level Meeting Record and KWLs used to document progress & update needs assessment; refine strategies; target interventions focus PD; & plan for grade level alignment. These will be
40
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools benchmark assessments; ISTEP+) focus on key errors. •
K-5 teachers and special resource teachers will participate in grade level collaboration weekly. This collaboration will focus on examining formative assessments (student work samples) that will monitor errors in reading and students level of use of the key strategies that teachers focus on. Teachers will review how students are using the strategies and discuss how to revise and refine their modeling of those key strategies in order to impact student performance on the next formative assessment. During collaboration time, teachers will use the data to reflect on current practices; expand, refine and build new skills that focus on meeting school improvement goals and help to address barriers to implementing key reform strategies in the school improvement plan
facilitated by the Principal and/or Academic Improvement Coordinator. •
Checkpoints will be conducted & involve all staff to ensure grade level (horizontal) and cross grade level (vertical) articulation of strategies, standards, & grade level assessment. Risk groups (levels of performance based on benchmark) will be identified at each class then aggregated at the grade level, targeted goals will be determined for the grade level, specific interventions will be identified that will include parent contacts; strategies will be reviewed & refined to address needs/ concerns & grade level Reflections and whole school summative will be monitored & updated during this school wide process of progress monitoring impact & implementation.
•
Meeting Record Forms will be completed for all Period Zero meetings and book studies.
•
Exit slips will be completed for all walkthroughs.
Strategy 2- PD focus on the problem solving and daily math review components of the Balanced Math program will be presented during staff professional development meetings to introduce to new staff and review and update for others.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
41
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
BEHAVIOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Goals: By Spring 2015, Northaven Elementary School attendance rate will be 98% or higher. By Spring 2015, 88.4% of students at Northaven Elementary School will have received no behavioral referrals for the 2014-15 school year.
System
Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation Guiding Principle 1: Constant routines and procedures are imperative to students knowing the behavior expectations. Guiding Principle 2: Teachable behaviors will be modeled for students by staff in all areas of the building. Guiding Principle 3: Behavior expectations will continue to be posted in each classroom and throughout the building. Guiding Principle 4: A consistent school wide behavior plan allows all teachers in the building to be accountable for student behaviors. Phase 2 of the school wide SOAR/PRIDE program will be implemented. Guiding Principle 5: 90% of students should be able to meet grade level behavior expectations. Students not meeting expectations will be provided additional support.
Evaluation Results/Revisions ● ●
● ●
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?
Assessment
Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 - In general education, special education, related arts, cafeteria settings, playground and assemblies will provide use of constant procedures and routines for positive behavior management experiences. Strategy 3 – Full size posters and paper size will continue to be seen in ALL building areas. Strategy 4- Use of new referral, earning eagles, and Phase 2 plans will be monitored Strategy 5- Document student behaviors to monitor PBIS goals.
1-5. Student behavior documentation will be monitored monthly at PBIS meetings, in the SWIS system, and school systems are necessary. Walkthrough by administration and staff. Attendance reports will be used to monitor student trends. SAM will provide CCARP paperwork as needed.
Curriculum
Strategy 1- Strategy 5 Students will be modeled proper behavior expectations by all NES staff. SOAR/PRIDE policies will be reinforced by earning of eagles, plus use of the new individual plans currently being implemented to staff. PBIS team will offer PD from SWIS professional development meetings.
1-5. Student behavior documentation will be monitored monthly at PBIS meetings, in the SWIS system, and school systems are necessary. Walkthrough by administration and staff.
*Include Technology
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
42
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Strategy1 – Strategy 5- Establish the use of daily positive motivational reading during morning announcements by staff and students. Groups’ incentives continue to be used for all school areas to earn eagles. Individual ticket incentive system will be implemented in October. School-wide use of academic and behavior assemblies will occur on a varied time schedule.
1-5 Students that show improvement in academics and behavior, as well as members of school groups will lead morning announcements. Parent/Student/Teacher compacts will be signed by parents at conferences to document the meeting. Copies of the school newsletters will be kept on file in the office. The Northaven SAM will keep documentation of students referred to CIS and the number of students who are receiving counseling services. Data will be entered into SWIS by SAM and principal. Attendance data will be used to monitor student trends.
Strategy 1- Strategy 5- Instruct ALL students in our PBIS system in school wide areas. Tier II and Tier III students will be assigned Intervention groups for both academics and behavior aide. Tier III behavior students will be matched with a staff mentor beginning Quarter 2, as part of Phase 2 SOAR/PRIDE.
1-5 Walk through checklists and evaluations will be used to determine that the PBIS expectations are established and being implemented on a regular basis.
Planning/Leaders hip
Strategy 1- Strategy 5-Establish a Building Leadership Team (BLT) with representatives from each grade level. The BLT will meet bi-weekly to discuss implementation of strategies and to analyze data at a school level. Additional PBIS team will be utilized to aide in all goals. PBIS team will meet weekly. Monitor the implementation of strategies through walk-through checklists and evaluations. Utilize walk-throughs to monitor implementation of school-wide strategies. Plan Period Zero sessions to provide targeted professional development. Attend district articulation meetings to share ideas and to receive guidance in the implementation of district wide initiatives.
1-5 Walk-through checklists will be used. Checklists will document walkthroughs and evidence of strategy implementation. Agendas and sign-in sheets will document attendance at district articulation meetings. SWIS data will be used and evaluated
Pedagogy
Strategy 1-Strategy 5- PBIS team, BLT, and administration will instruct all staff in SOAR/PRIDE specifics and Phase 2 initiatives. ALL staff incorporated PBIS initiatives with fidelity.
1-5 1-5 Walk through checklists and evaluations will be used to
Culture *Include cultural competency
Intervention *Include Tier I, II and III
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
determine that the PBIS expectations are established and being implemented on a regular basis. SWIS data will be evaluated.
43
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
.
Professional Development
Strategy1-Strategy 5- Embedded professional develop led by inhouse and corporation experts during Period Zero sessions. Professional development will be based on student data results and teacher input. Professional development will be grade/incident appropriate and differentiated so instruction will be relevant to teachers. Share data on students and resources during data and collaboration meetings to assist in planning for IMPACT groups. PD will be provided as needs arise.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
1-4 Professional development agendas, sign-in sheet, and implementation of PD will be monitored with walk-through checklists, evaluations, lesson plans, and data evaluations of behavior and attendance #s.
44
Northaven Elementary (0801) – 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 Q1 Writing Assessment: Narrative
August 4-8, 2014 STAR Rdg/Math K-5 Aug 4-29
August 11-15, 2014
August 18-22, 2014
August 25-29, 2014
September 1-5, 2014
NO SCHOOL, Sept. 1 Text Levels Aug – Oct. 24 gr. 1-All, gr. 2-IMPACT
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
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 (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
Northaven Elementary (0801) – 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 Acutiy (A) ELA/Math gr. 2-5 Oct 20 – 31 Q2 Writing Assessment: Persuasive/Argumentative
October 27-31, 2014
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development
E-Learning PBIS Team Grade Level
MRF/Walk Through Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
46
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
GCW/Data Analysis November 3-7, 2014
Teacher only Nov. 4
November 10-14, 2014
November 17-21, 2014
November 24-28, 2014
NO SCHOOL, Nov. 26-28
December 1-5, 2014 STAR Rdg/Math K-5 Dec 1-19 Acutiy (B) Sci gr. 4/Soc St gr. 5 Dec 3 – 16 Text Levels Dec – Jan 9 gr. K-All, gr. 1-All, gr. 2-IMPACT
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Data Teams
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: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
47
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
December 8-12, 2014
December 15-19, 2014
January 5-9, 2015 Acutiy (B) ELA/Math gr. 2-5 Jan 5 - 16 Q3 Writing Assessment: Informative/Research
January 12-16, 2015 CoGAT- Screening gr. K Jan 12 - 23
January 19-23, 2015
NO SCHOOL , Jan. 19
January 26-30, 2015
February 2-6, 2015 Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Quarterly Focus: Mastery 48
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Acutiy (C) Sci gr. 4/Soc St gr. 5 Feb 2 - 20
Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
February 9-13, 2015
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
February 16-20, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make up– Feb. 16
February 23-27, 2015 CoGAT- Testing (88%tile) gr. K Feb 23 – Mar 4
March 2-6, 2015 ISTEP+ Applied gr.3-5 March 2-11
March 9-13, 2015
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development
49
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
March 16-20, 2015 IREAD-3 gr. 3 March 16-18
April 6-10, 2015 Technology-21st Century Skills gr.5 April 6-17 NWEA (25%) gr. K High Ability Acutiy (C) ELA/Math gr. 2-5 April 6 – 17 Q4 Writing Assessment: Informative/Research
April 13-17, 2015
April 20-24, 2015
April 27- May 1, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
GCW/Data Analysis
Data Teams
Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
BLT Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy
BLT
Lesson Plans 50
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
up– May 1 ISTEP+ Multiple Choice gr.3-5 April 27 – May 15
May 4-8, 2015 STAR Rdg/Math K-5 May 4-29 Text Levels May – June 3 gr. K-All, gr. 1-All, gr. 2-IMPACT
May 11-15, 2015
May 18-22, 2015
NO SCHOOL or snow make up– May 22
GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Math Trainer Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
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 Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
BLT
Lesson Plans/Walk
Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis
Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices
May 25-29, 2015
NO SCHOOL– May 25
EOY
June 1-5, 2015 Last student day- June 3
EOY
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices 51
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Last Teacher day-June 4 IREAD-3 gr. 3 SUMMER June 1 – July 24
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams
Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders
52
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
No statutes and/or rules will be waived by Northaven Elementary School.
Spring - 2014 Planning Year
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
53
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Bibliography Ainsworth, Larry and Jan Christinson. Five Easy Steps to a Balanced math Program for Primary Grades. Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press, 2006 Ainsworth, Larry and Jan Christinson. Five Easy Steps to a Balanced math Program for Upper Elementary Grades. Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press, 2006 Archer, Anita and Charles Hughes. Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2011 Blachowicz, Camille, and Peter L. Fisher. Teaching Vocabulary in All Classrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002 Cunningham, Patricia M. and Richard L. Allington. Classrooms that Work: They Can All Read and Write. 2nd ed. Ally and Bacon, 2002 Diller, Debbie. Literacy Wiork Stations; Making Centers Work. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse, 2003 Fisher, Douglas, Nancy Frey, and Diane Lapp. Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc., 2012 Harvey, Stephanie and Anne Goudvis. Strategies That Work: Teaching Comprehension for Understanding and Engagement. 2nd ed. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse, 2007 Lane, Barry. After The End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993 Linan-Thampson, Sylvia and Sharon Vaugn. Research-Based Methods of Reading Instruction for English Language Learners, Grades K-4. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2007 Linan-Thampson, Sylvia and Sharon Vaugn. Research-Based Methods of Reading Instruction , Grades K-3. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2007 Lynch, Matthew. Closing the Racial Academic Achievement Gap. Chicago, IL: African American Images, 2006 Marzano, Robert J, et al. Classroom Instruction That Works; Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2001 Marzano, Robert J and Debra Pickering. The Highly Engaged Classroom. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory, 2011 McLaughlin, Maureen. Guided Comprehension in the Primary Grades. 2nd ed. NewArk, DE: International Reading Association, 2010 Miller, Debbie. Reading with Meaning; Teaching Comprehension in the Primary Grades. Portland, MN: Stenhouse, 2002 Olweus, Dan. Bullying at School. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1993 Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
54
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Payne, Ruby K. Ph.D. A Framework for Understanding Poverty. 4th ed. Highland, TX: aha! Process, Inc, 2005 Rasinski, Timothy V. The Fluent Reader. New York, NY: Scholastic, 2003 Spandel, Vicki and Richard J. Stiggins. Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction. 2nd ed. New Yourk, NY: Longman, 1990 Vatterot, Cathy. Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2009 Whitaker, Todd. What Great Teachers Do Differently. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2004 Zemelman, Steven, et al. Best Practices: Today’s Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools. 3rd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2005
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
55
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Appendix
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 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
• 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
• Students use strategies on their own and with partners • Students and the teacher provide feedback • Students apply strategy across genres, settings and contexts
• Teacher gives explanation of the strategy • The teacher demonstrates with a brief modeling of how the strategy is used to understand the text
• I do, you watch.
• I do, you help
• You do, I watch
Text Selection • Teacher choice
• Managed choice, matched • Student choice to students needs Source: Creating Lifelong Readers Through Independent Reading, Moss and Young, IRA Publications, 2010, pp. 94 (Table 13)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
• Teacher choice
56
Northaven Elementary (0801) – 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” 6. Instruction begins with the teacher. Inductively or explicitly the teacher instructs students on the strategy, skill, or procedure. The responsibility belongs to the teacher. 7. 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) 8. Teacher carries the responsibility for “knowing” 9. 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) 10. Components of the gradual release model can be used during this phase. Teacher does the modeling to emphasize cognition & meta-cognition: f. Teacher names the strategy, skill, procedure or standard. (what the strategy is) g. Teacher states the purpose of the strategy, skill, procedure, or standard. (why is it important) h. Teacher explains when the procedure, strategy, skill or standard is used (explicitly describe the strategy and when/ how it should be used) i. Teacher uses analogies to link prior knowledge to new learning. (provide examples) j. Teacher demonstrates how the procedure, skill, strategy, or standard is completed 4) Teacher thinks aloud to model the mental processes she/ he uses when she/ he reads; model the strategy in action 5) Teacher demonstrates how to apply the strategy successfully; 6) 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 7) Link/ reinforce demonstration to skill or strategy chart (if appropriate)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
57
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Guided Instruction/ Practice --- Collaborative Learning --- Instruction, Practice and Application 6. 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. 7. Students consolidate their thinking and understanding 8. Negotiate with peers 9. Discuss ideas and information 10. Engage in inquiry with other students allowing them to use what they learned during focus lessons and guided instruction 11. 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. Students reading w/ a 1. Good readers are strategic readers and teachers Word work has several 1. Monitoring for students use foci: 1. Fluency partner must explore and provide guided instruction of and application of the 2. Accuracy based on a research-anchored framework for the 2. Students share their 1. building gradestrategies I am teaching in thinking processes with 3. Expression strategies that good readers use; making appropriate sight guided reading lesson as each other during paired 4. Student(s) use Iconnections between those research-based vocabulary well as review/ reinforce chart for Listen to reading. strategies and the expectations in CCSS ELA 2. decoding/ word learned strategies. Reading 3. Partner Reading with Reading Literature and Informational Text. recognition skills 2. Monitoring how students strategy chart 2. Modeling and guided practice during Guided 3. structural analysis are internalizing strategies 4. Check for Instruction is a core instructional practice for skills Poetry/ Readers used by independent understanding teaching strategies 4. vocabulary Theater readers (what good readers “You do it” 3. Teacher carefully takes small groups through the 5. Students use I-chart for connections do when they read partner reading/ reading new learning or reinforces learning of strategy or 1. Fluency independently to someone skill. Initially, the teacher may model as the Develop a framework 2. Accuracy 3. Application of the Strategy for Word Work at each students practice with the teacher observing and in leveled text 3. Expression supporting. There is “guided practice” during grade level (instructional or 4. Word Work (e.g., guided instruction when students may practice 1. discuss day-to-day challenging/ approaching Rimes and making individually, in small groups, or with a partner organizational level) words with onsets; as the teacher observes and aids in the practice. pragmatics of 4. Students apply a clearly sorting the words Guided practice during guided instruction is the conducting Word understood strategy to a into Nonsense and “joint” responsibility of both the teacher and Work instruction supported genre or format Real Words I Can student. Teacher guidance is still needed. 2. make grade level Use When Writing) 5. Students demonstrate the 4. Effective strategy instruction is about developing connections to effective use of a strategy 5. Student(s) use Ireaders who actively and independently monitor CCSS ELA Reading in more difficult text. chart and regulate their own comprehension. Foundational Skills 6. Students use graphic 5. Teacher focuses guided instruction on the and Language (change Poetry/ rotate specific strategy, skill or procedure: organizers and/or advanced 3. Word Work needs to a. Provides guided practice using the strategy. genre and use Joke organizers to summarize match students’
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
58
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
15.
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 Key processes & skills align to standards & learning targets; target and support w/ Independent Reading Inside the Box &/or Making Meaning) Teacher uses a variety of leveled text 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 Small group models a common text; using predicting, questioning, summarizing and clarifying to understand the text Use skill or strategy chart during Guided Instruction/ visual support to understand how to use the strategy Focuses on a specific procedure, strategy or skill (1-2; no more than 2) Small purposeful groups; composed based on students’ performance on formative assessments Groups consist of students who share a common instructional need that the teacher can address 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 A series of guided instructional events, over time, with cues, prompts and questions, teachers can guide students to 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
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Books --- good for inferring and figurative language) Demonstrate how to have students monitor fluency and accuracy rates (take responsibility for learning and improving; setting/ meeting “ambitious” goals)
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
their understanding of the text 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 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. Students work w/ partners; small groups; independently Use I-charts for Comprehension Review 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):
instructional level
59
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools expectations. Independent Use and Application --- “You do it, I watch/ observe/ assess/ check for understanding” Teacher progress Formative-assessment Process; measurable behavior and characteristics 10. Focus on key aspects of the Focus Lesson and the read-aloud; interactive monitoring, discussions; reading practice for fluency, students’ self-selecting in their observation/ zone; and understanding the critical role of conferencing. conference (3+ min. 11. Progress monitoring conferences) 12. ISTEP+ like assessment(s) focused on learning targets at grade level; Goal Clarity assessment at grade level ⇒⇒⇒⇒ 13. Organization of the classroom library needs to support SSR 14. Teacher spot checks well-anchored strategy use during independent reading 15. Students receive regular feedback from the teacher --- Conferencing about the skill or strategy with supporting evidence during independent reading 16. Teacher uses key question(s) across the lesson (whole group; small group; now one-on-one/ individual support) 17. Scaffold strategy questions used during conferences to support depth of knowledge 18. 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). 19. Process for formally analyzing data guides small group instruction, collaboration discussions and identification of Goal Clarity Window for improvement
Application of the Strategy in Real Reading Situations 9. At this point, students can successfully use the procedure, strategy, skill or standard. The teacher’s role is to observe and assess. 10.Encourage independent use of the procedure, strategy, skill or standard 11.Self-selected reading 12.Independent and (approaching) challenging levels of text 13.Provide individual skill or strategy chart for support during independent reading; use I-charts for Read to Self/ Independent Sustained Reading 14.Variety of genre 15.After working with the teacher in small guided instruction groups, the students try to apply the strategy on their own; independent use of the strategy. 16.Independent tasks should require individual application of information previously taught and practiced 17.Provide opportunities to use their knowledge to produce new products (i.e., apply strategies reading new text; applying strategies using new prompt; apply strategies using new problem/ task; apply strategies then ask students to selfassess/ reflect based on rubric --- am I getting closer to the expected level of knowledge and skill)
Wrap-up --- Whole group Essential Question(s) --- Revisit the strategy chart. 3. What have we learned about … 4. Let’s reread the chart. 5. What can we add to the chart to capture what we learned today?
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
60
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Comprehensive Needs Assessment SWP 1 Assessment Assessment Q1. How many/what % of students meet state standards? Have mastered which skills? Answer: • Based on the 2010 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 79% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2009 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 61% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2007 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data 62% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2010 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 75% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2009 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 50% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2007 Mathematics ISTEP+ Data 52% of 3rd – 5th graders met state standards. • Based on the 2010 English Language Arts ISTEP+ Data, 3rd grade students showed mastery of all skilled areas on the English Language Arts portions of the test. Data Statement: • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • •
• •
English/Language Arts 2009/2010 Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 52/62 (84%) of the third grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 55/62 (87%) of the third grade students mastered Nonfiction/Info Text on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 54/62 (87%) of the third grade students mastered Literary Tex on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 53/62 (85%) of the third grade students mastered Writing Applications on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 53/62 (85%) of the third grade students mastered Language Conventions the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 53/62 (84%) of the third grade students mastered Vocabulary on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 53/62 (84%) of the third grade students mastered Writing Process on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 60/72 (84%) of the fourth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fourth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 50/72 (69%) of the fifth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fifth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. 2008/2009 Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 39/66 (59%) of the third grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of third grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 51/82 (62%) of the fourth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fourth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 47/77 (61%) of the fifth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fifth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. 2007/2008 Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 40/64 (63%) of the third grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of third grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
61
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 50/80 (63%) of the fourth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80%of fourth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 46/75 (61%) of the fifth grade students mastered the English Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fifth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the English Language Arts portion of the test. Math 2009/2010 Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 48/62 (77%) of the third grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, third grade students did not perform at mastery (80%) on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 51/62 (82%) of the third grade students mastered Computation on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 51/62 (81%) of the third grade students mastered Geometry on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 52/72 (72%) of the fourth grade students mastered the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 59/81 (81%) of the fourth grade students mastered Computation on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 51/62 (81%) of the fourth grade students mastered Algebra & Functions on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 55/72 (77%) of the fifth grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 59/72 (81%) of the fifth grade students mastered Computation on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary 60/72 (82%) of the fifth grade students mastered Algebra & Functions on the Mathematics portion of the test. 2008/2009 Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 32/66 (48%) of the third grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of third grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 44/82 (54%) of the fourth grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fourth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 36/77 (47%) of the fifth grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fifth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test 2007/2008 Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 28/64 (44%) of the third grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of third grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 49/80 (61%) of the fourth grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fourth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 39/75 (52%) of the fifth grade students mastered the Math portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2008 ISTEP+ Academic Standards Summary, less than 80% of fifth grade students did not perform at mastery on individual skills on the Mathematics portion of the test
Assessment Q2. Are some groups not performing as well as others? Answer: • Based on the ISTEP+ for the last three school years, the groups not performing as well as others are: Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
62
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools •
Special Needs, Free/Reduced Lunch in both areas. Males generally performed lower in English Language Arts and Females in Mathematics.
Data Statements: • • • • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
2009/2010 English Language Arts Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 19/39 (49%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 32/142 (23%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in English Language Arts. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 21/92 (23%) of 3rd -5th grade male students did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Mathematics Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 41/142 (29%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in Mathematics. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 30/114 (26%) of 3rd -5th grade female students did not meet AYP in Mathematics Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 9/39 (23%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in Mathematics.
2008/2009 English Language Arts Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 30/44 (68%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 69/149 (46%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in English Language Arts. Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 46/116 (40%) of 3rd -5th grade male students did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 37/109 (34%) of 3rd -5th grade female students did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Mathematics Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 26/44 (59%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in Mathematics. Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 86/149 (58%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in Mathematics. Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 57/109 (52%) of 3rd -5th grade female students did not meet AYP in Mathematics Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 53/116 (46%) of 3rd -5th grade male students did not meet AYP in Mathematics.
2007/2008 English Language Arts Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 23/45 (51%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 65/129 (50%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in English Language Arts. Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 42/93 (45%) of 3rd -5th grade female students did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 48/127 (38%) of 3rd -5th grade male students did not meet AYP in English/Language Arts. Mathematics Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 27/45 (60%) of the 3rd -5th grade Special Needs population did not meet AYP in Mathematics. Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 72/129 (56%) of the 3rd -5th grade Free/Reduced lunch population did not meet AYP in Mathematics. Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 46/93 (49%) of 3rd -5th grade female students did not meet AYP in Mathematics Based on Fall 2007 ISTEP+ AYP Summary Reports, 52/127 (41%) of 3rd -5th grade male students did not meet AYP in Mathematics
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
63
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Assessment Q3. What are the critical errors made by students below mastery? Answer: • Overall, the critical errors made by students below mastery in English Language Arts were in the areas of Writing Process, Language Conventions, and Reading Vocabulary. • In Mathematics the critical errors were Number Sense, Computation, and Problem Solving Data Statements: • • • •
• • • •
English/Language Arts 2009/2010 Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 11/64 (17%) of the third grade students did not master Vocabulary on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 11/64 (17%) of the third grade students did not master the Writing Process on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 22/74 (30%) of the fourth grade students did not master the Writing Process on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 22/74 (30%) of the fifth grade students did not master the Writing Process on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. 2008/2009 Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 36/66 (45%) of the third grade students did not master Language Conventions on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 29/66 (44%) of the third grade students did not master the Writing Process on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 32/82 (39%) of the fourth grade students did not master Language Conventions on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 34/77 (44%) of the fifth grade students did not master Language Conventions on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. 2007/2008
• • • • •
• • •
Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 21/70 (30%) of the third grade students did not master Reading Vocabulary on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 29/75 (39%) of the fourth grade students did not master Language Conventions on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 29/75 (39%) of the fourth grade students did not master Writing Applications on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 38/72 (53%) of the fifth grade students did not master Writing Applications on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 37/72 (51%) of the fifth grade students did not master Writing Process on the English/Language Arts portion of the test. Math 2009/2010 Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 16/64 (25%) of the third grade students did not master Number Sense on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 21/74 (28%) of the fourth grade students did not master Data Analysis & Probability on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 21/74 (28%) of the fifth grade students did not master Data Analysis & Probability on the Math portion of the test. 2008/2009
• • • •
Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 36/66 (55%) of the third grade students did not master the Computation on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 40 /82 (49%) of the fourth grade students did not master the Number Sense on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 40 /82 (49%) of the fourth grade students did not master the Computation on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 41/77(53%) of the fifth grade students did not master the Computation on the Math portion of the test.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
64
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • • •
2007/2008 Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 32/70 (46%) of the third grade students did not master Problem solving on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 34/75 (45%) of the fourth grade students did not master Problem Solving on the Math portion of the test. Based on the Fall 2007 ISTEP+ Desegregation Summary Report 43/72 (60%) of the fifth grade students did not master Computation on the Math portion of the test.
Assessment Q4. Are students showing adequate yearly progress; are #s of students not-passing decreasing/fewer? Answer: Yes, the students not passing ISTEP+ decreased 18% in English Language Arts, and 25% in Mathematics. Data Statements: • Based on Spring 2008 & Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Results, students not passing decreased from 39% to 21% with an overall improvement of 18% on the English Language Arts portion of the test • Based on Spring 2008 & Spring 2009 ISTEP+ Results, students not passing decreased from 50% to 25% with an overall improvement of 25% on the Mathematics portion of the test Assessment Q5. How well are students meeting standards in non-ISTEP+ grades? Errors? Answer: • Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS 61% of K – 2nd graders are meeting benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS 68% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS 71% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS 39% of K – 2nd graders are meeting benchmark. • Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS 41% of K – 2nd graders met benchmark. • Based on DIBELS Data from the last three years, the errors shown by K – 2nd graders are: Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Oral Reading Fluency. • Based on MCLASS Data from the last three years, the errors shown by K – 2nd graders are: Missing Number, Number Identification, Computation, and Quantity Discrimination. Data Statements: English/Language Arts 2010/2011 • • • • • • • • • • • •
Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 37/73 (51%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 25/73 (34%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (ISF) Initial Sound Fluency. Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 49/60 (82%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 18/60 (30%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (LNF) Letter naming Fluency. Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 32/64 (50%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 DIBELS scores, 32/64 (50%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (ORF) Oral Reading Fluency.
2009/2010 Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 56/67 (84%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 46/67 (69%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (NWF) Nonsense Word Fluency. Based on the Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 39/70 (56%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 46/70 (66%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (NWF) Nonsense Word Fluency. Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 42/65 (65%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 DIBELS scores, 51/65 (78%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (ORF) Oral Reading Fluency.
2008/2009 •
Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 49/62 (79%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
65
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • • • • •
Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 20/62 (32%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (NWF) Nonsense Word Fluency. Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 46/72 (64%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 35/72 (49%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (NWF) Nonsense Word Fluency. Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 45/65 (69%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2009 DIBELS scores, 19/65 (30%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with (ORF) Oral Reading Fluency.
Math 2010/2011 • • • • • • • •
Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 31/75 (41%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 53/75 (71%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Counting. Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 53/75 (71%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Number Identification.. Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 53/75 (71%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Quantitiy Discrimination. Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 29/61 (48%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 43/61 (70%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Missing Number. Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 19/65 (29%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Fall 2010 MCLASS scores, 54/65 (83%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Computation.
Math 2009/2010 • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 46/67 (69%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 31/67 (46%) of kindergarten students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Number Identification. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 27/70 (39%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 62/70 (89%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Counting. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 57/70 (81%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Number Identification. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 43/70 (61%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Next Number. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 39/70 (56%) of first grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Quantity Discrimination. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 9/65 (14%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 64/65 (98%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Computation. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 52/65 (80%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Number Facts. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 51/65 (78%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Quantity Discrimination. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 49/65 (75%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Missing Number. Based on the Spring 2010 MCLASS scores, 38/65 (58%) of second grade students did not meet benchmark because of errors with Concepts.
Math 2008/2009 •
We were not able to locate data on the 2008-2009 MCLASS Scores.
Assessment Q6. How many students read at/above gr. level? W/ comprehension? Answer: • Based on Fall 2010 TRC scores, 78% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension. • Based on Fall 2010 SRI scores, 46% of 3rd – 5th graders were at/above grade level with comprehension Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
66
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • • •
Based on Spring 2010 TRC scores, 65% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension. Based on Spring 2010 SRI scores, 49% of 3rd – 5th graders were at/above grade level with comprehension Based on Spring 2009 TRC scores, 72% of K – 2nd graders were at/above grade level with comprehension.
Data Statements: 2010/2011
• • • • • •
Based on the Fall 2010 TRC scores, 73/73 (100%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Fall 2010 TRC scores, 54/60 (90%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Fall 2010 TRC scores, 28/64 (44%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Fall 2010 SRI scores, 17/63 (27%) of third grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Fall 2010 SRI scores, 38/63 (60%) of fourth grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Fall 2010 SRI scores, 34/65 (52%) of fifth grade students were performing at Benchmark.
• • • • • •
Based on the Spring 2010 TRC scores, 56/67 (84%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 TRC scores, 32/70 (46%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 TRC scores, 42/65 (65%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 SRI scores, 32/65 (49%) of third grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 SRI scores, 29/68 (43%) of fourth grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2010 SRI scores, 43/80 (54%) of fifth grade students were performing at Benchmark.
• • • •
Based on the Spring 2009 TRC scores, 55/62 (89%) of kindergarten students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2009 TRC scores, 34/69 (49%) of first grade students were performing at Benchmark. Based on the Spring 2009 TRC scores, 50/63 (79%) of second grade students were performing at Benchmark. We were not able to locate data on the 2008/2009 SRI scores.
2009/2010
2008/2009
Assessment Q7. Do students w/ As, Bs, & Cs on report cards pass ISTEP+ (elem)? Answer: • No, on average, 73% of students who did not pass the English Language Arts portion of the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ received As, Bs, and/or Cs on their report card. • No, on average, 52% of students who did not pass the Mathematics portion of the Spring 2010 ISTEP+ received As, Bs, and/or Cs on their report card. Data Statements: • Based on the 2010 end of year grades, 3/8 (38%) of third graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the English Language Arts portion of the test. • Based on the 2010 end of year grades 3/12 (25%) of third graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the Mathematics portion of the test. • Based on the 2010 end of year grades, 9/9 (100%) of fourth graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the English Language Arts portion of the test. • Based on the 2010 end of year grades, 14/18 (78%) of fourth graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the Mathematics portion of the test. • Based on the 2010 end of year grades, 17/21 (81%) of fifth graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the English Language Arts portion of the test. • Based on the 2010 end of year grades, 8/15 (53%) of fifth graders received an A, B, or C as their final grade yet did not pass the Mathematics portion of the test.
Assessment Q9. How well prepared do Kdg. Students come to school? Answer: • Based on Brigance scores from the last three years, on average, 55% of Kindergarten students come to school well prepared. Data Statements: • Based on the 2010-2011 Brigance Pre-Kindergarten Screening, 37/75 (49%) of Kindergarten students perform at Kindergarten level at beginning of year. • Based on the 2009-2010 Brigance Pre-Kindergarten Screening, 34/49 (69%) of Kindergarten students are performing at Kindergarten level at beginning of year. • Based on the 2008-2009 Brigance Pre-Kindergarten Screening, 27/55 (49%) of Kindergarten students did not have a score.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
67
Northaven Elementary (0801) – 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: About half of the teachers feel they use culturally appropriate strategies and take race, ethnicity, cultural differences, and socioeconomic status into consideration when teaching their students. Most teachers feel they use appropriate strategies when teaching students who have English as their second language. Data Statements: • • • • • • •
Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 11/22 (50%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students from different racial backgrounds. Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 13/22 (59%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students from different ethnic backgrounds. Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 18/22 (82%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students who are English language learners. Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 12/22 (55%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students from different cultural backgrounds. Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 10/22 (45%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Based on the 2010-2011 teacher survey 12/22 (55%) of teachers report they use culturally appropriate strategies in their classroom when teaching students who are exceptional learners. There was no data available for previous years.
Culture Q2. Is the number of student disruptions kept to a minimum so that learning time for students is maximized? Answer: The majority of the behavior problems are kept to a minimum, however the majority of teachers felt they loose between 15 and 30 minutes of instruction daily due to behavior problems. Data Statements: •
Based on the 2010-2011 survey, 3/20 (15%) of teachers reported 0-15 minutes of instruction lost due to student behavior problems. • Based on the 2010-2011 survey, 10/20 (50%) of teachers reported 16-30 minutes of instruction lost due to student behavior problems. • Based on the 2010-2011 survey, 2/20 (10%) of teachers reported 31-45 minutes of instruction lost due to student behavior problems. • Based on the 2010-2011 survey, 1/20 (5%) of teachers reported 46-60 minutes of instruction lost due to student behavior problems. • Based on the 2010-2011 survey, 4/20 (20%) of teachers reported 60+ minutes of instruction lost due to student behavior problems. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 16/419 (4%) of students had an office referral for severe disruptive behavior. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 6/16 (38%) office referrals were for intermediate students. • Based on 2009-2010 school year 10/16 (63%) office referrals were for primary students. • Based on 2009-2010 school year 6/16 (38%) of office referrals occurred in the morning hours. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 10/16 (63%) of office referrals occurred in the afternoon. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 9/419 (2%) had office referrals. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 5/9 (56%) of the office referrals resulted in out of school suspension. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 4/9 (44%) of the office referrals resulted in in-school suspension. • Based on the 2009-2010 school year 4/9 (44%) of the suspensions were for battery. There was no data available for previous years.
Culture Q3. Do we have a safe learning environment? Answer: All but one teacher felt safe in school. The majority of students feel safe in most areas of the school. Students were most fearful in the bathroom and on the playground.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
68
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Data Statements: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Based on a 2010-2011 teacher survey 21/22 (95 %) of teachers felt safe at school. Based on a 2010-2011 teacher survey 20/22 (95 %) of teachers reported that their students said they felt safe at school. Based on the 2010-2011 school year first quarter office referral data 31/393 students (8%) have had an office referral for severe disruptive behavior. Based on the 2010-2011 school year first quarter office referral data 2/54 (4%) office referrals resulted in out of school suspension. Based on the 2010-2011 school year first quarter office referral data 9/54 (17%) office referrals resulted in in-school suspension. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 328/368 (89 %) of students felt safe at school. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 330/368 (90%) of students felt safe in their own classrooms. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 329/368 (89%) of students felt safe in the cafeteria. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 325/368 (88 %) of students felt safe in the gym. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 327/368 (89%) of students felt safe in the library. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 339/368 (92%) of students felt safe in the art room. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 337/368 (92%) of students felt safe in the computer lab. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 296/368 (80%) of students felt safe on the playground. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 279/368 (76%) of students felt safe in the bathrooms. Based on a 2009-2010 student survey 314/368 (85%) of students felt safe in the hall. Based on the 2009-2010 student survey, students stated they were fearful in the bathrooms because of bullying and the playground because of strangers on school property. Based on the 2009-2010 office referrals 16/419 students (4%) have had an office referral for severe disruptive behavior. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 5/419 (1%) of student’s behavior resulted in out of school suspension. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 4/419 (1%) of student’s behavior resulted in in-school suspension. There was no data available for previous years.
Culture Q4. How well are our rules or procedures for behavior followed?
Answer: The majority of teachers felt out students follow rules and procedures for behavior. A little over half of the behavior that resulted in referrals has happened outside the regular classroom. Less than 10 percent of our students have had an office referral. Data Statements: • • • • • • • • • •
Based on a 2010-2011 teacher survey 22/23 (95%) of teachers reported that schools rules and procedures are being followed by the students. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 31/393 (8%) of students have had an office referral for severe behavior. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 31/54 (57%) of office referrals for severe behavior occurred outside of the regular education classroom. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 23/54 (43%) of office referrals for severe behavior occurred in the regular education classroom. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 362/393 (92%) of students have not had a formal written office referral. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 16/419 (4%) of students have had an office referral for severe behavior. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 8/16 (50%) of office referrals the severe behavior occurred outside of the regular education classroom. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 8/16 (50%) of office referrals the severe behavior occurred in the regular education classroom. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 403/419 (96%) of students have not had a formal written office referral. There was no data available for previous years.
Culture Q5. How do we inform families about state standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies & procedures?
Answer: The majority of teachers felt out students follow rules and procedures for behavior. A little over half of the behavior that resulted in referrals has happened outside the regular classroom. Less than 10 percent of our students have had an office referral. Data Statements:
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
69
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • • • • • • • • • •
Based on a 2010-2011 teacher survey 22/23 (95%) of teachers reported that schools rules and procedures are being followed by the students. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 31/393 (8%) of students have had an office referral for severe behavior. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 31/54 (57%) of office referrals for severe behavior occurred outside of the regular education classroom. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 23/54 (43%) of office referrals for severe behavior occurred in the regular education classroom. Based on the 2010-2011 first quarter data 362/393 (92%) of students have not had a formal written office referral. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 16/419 (4%) of students have had an office referral for severe behavior. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 8/16 (50%) of office referrals the severe behavior occurred outside of the regular education classroom. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 8/16 (50%) of office referrals the severe behavior occurred in the regular education classroom. Based on the 2009-2010 school year 403/419 (96%) of students have not had a formal written office referral. There was no data available for previous years.
Culture Q6. What level of attendance do we have at parent conf. Open house, other? Answer: a.) Information gathered from Open House sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, shows that we have improved our participation 11% from the 2008 to the 2009 school year. b.) Information gathered from Fall 2009 Parent Teacher sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, shows that we have improved our participation 7%. c.) Information gathered from Spring 2010 Parent sign in sheets of the teachers who turned them in, did not show adequate information to show improvement. d.) Information was not available yet for the Fall 2010 Parent Teacher Conference attendance. Data Statements: • • • • •
Based on the 2006/2007 Open House sign in sheets, 10/20 (50%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2007/2008 Open House sign in sheets, 4/18 (22%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 Open House sign in sheets, 18/18 (100%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2009/20010 Open House sign in sheets, 18/18 (100%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 & 2009/2010 Open House sign in sheets, the following shows the percentage of attendance:
2008 2009 • • • • •
• •
1 47% 73%
2 52% 61%
3 43% 59%
4 55% 52%
5 45% 68%
School 53% 64%
Based on the 2006/2007 Fall Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 0/20 (0%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2007/2008 Fall Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 6/18 (33%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 Fall Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 15/18 (83%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2009/20010 Fall Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 18/18 (100%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 & 2009/2010 Fall Parent Teacher sign in sheets, the following shows the percentage of attendance:
2008 2009 • •
K 72% 71%
Requested 183/362 240/405
% 51% 54%
Attended 131/362 215/405
% 47% 54%
Alternate N/A 179/405
% N/A 43%
Based on the 2006/2007 Spring Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 0/20 (0%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2007/2008 Spring Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 8/18 (44%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 Spring Parent Teacher sign in sheets, 15/18 (51%) turned in their information for data collection. Based on the 2008/2009 Spring Parent Teacher sign in sheets, the following shows the percentage of attendance:
2008
Requested 111/275
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
% 47%
Attended 80/275
% 39%
70
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A 2009 There is no data available for Open House during the 2010 – 2011 school year. We have not had an open house yet. • Data is not in yet from the 2010 Fall Parent Teacher Conferences. •
Culture Q7. What business partnerships do we have? With what outcomes? Role in decision-making? Answer: a.) Northaven has partnerships with 15 local businesses and organizations. These partnerships have assisted with both fundraising and student interaction. Data Statements: •
Based on teacher surveys, we have had 15 community partnerships over the past three school years. These partners include: o Kroger o Communities in Schools - before and after school care - after school tutoring - one-time counseling sessions if a life-changing event occurs in the life of a student o Community Foundations of Southern Indiana o Junior Achievement o Gordon Food Services o Lay Ministries o Reeder’s Cleaners o Walgreens - Photoshop takes pictures with Santa in December - talked with students about medicines, household chemicals, and safety with these items o Jeffersonville Fire Department o Jeffersonville Police Department o Floyd Memorial Hospital - James Broady came in and discussed heart issues with Kindergarten o Junior Achievement o 3-2-1 Read- Cathy Graninger, Ex. Director o DARE o Sonic - provides free coupons for our Reading Counts program
Curriculum Curriculum Q1. Is curriculum aligned with state standards? Instruction? Are curriculum maps completed, reviewed and updated regularly? Answer: e) All teachers are using course overview maps for their grade levels developed by the Indiana Department of Education to align lesson plans to state standards. f) All teachers are using the course overview maps to develop goal clarity windows. g) Curriculum maps are reviewed weekly by the building principal. h) All teachers and interventionists are completing and updating curriculum maps based on the length of the goal clarity windows. Data Statements: 2010-2011 Based on the guidelines set forth by Greater Clark Administration, 18/18 (100%) of K-5 classroom teachers had aligned their curriculum with state standards on course overview maps developed by the IDOE. • Based on the guidelines set forth by Greater Clark Administration, 18/18 (100%) of K-5 classroom teachers have used course overview maps developed by the IDOE to develop goal clarity windows. • Based on building principals checklist; she has monitored 12/13 weeks of the 2010-2011 school year as of November 7, 2010. (The first week was not monitored.) • In the first 13 weeks of school, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. • In the first 13 weeks of school, 2/3 (67%) special area teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. • In the first 13 weeks of school, 6/6 (100%) of intervention teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. 2009-2010 *No data is available for 2009-2010. 2008-2009 •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
71
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • •
Based on 2008-2009 lesson plan books, 5/16 (31%) had aligned Indiana State Academic Standards with their daily lesson plans. Based on 2008-2009 lesson plan books,11/16 (69%) had aligned Indiana State Academic Standards with their daily lesson plans.
Curriculum Q2. Is staff fully implementing key programs trained in? Answer: e) All classroom teachers are implementing the Daily Math Review and Problem Solving Poster Method steps of the Balanced Math Program. f) All certified staff is in the process of receiving professional development of the Balanced Math Program. g) Most classroom and special needs teachers are partially to fully trained in the Reading First Program. h) All classroom teachers are implementing the 90 minute uninterrupted reading block and 30 minute intervention of the Reading First Program. Data Statements: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2010-2011 Based on data from Title 1 Coordinator, 19/19 (100%) of classroom teachers are consistently turning in data for biweekly Math Review quizzes. Based on teacher survey given November 2010, 13/15 (87%) of classroom teachers that responded stated they were implementing the Problem Solving Poster Method biweekly. Based on Rubicon Atlas Meeting Record Forms, 27/27 (100%) of certified staff has been receiving professional development of the Balanced Math Program. Based on information from the Reading First Coach, 10/21 (48%) of classroom and special needs teachers are fully trained in Reading First Program. Based on information from the Reading First Coach, 10/21 (48%) of classroom and special needs teachers are partially trained in Reading First Program. Based on information from the Reading First Coach, 1/21 (5%) of classroom and special needs teachers are not trained in Reading First Program. Based on requirements set by administration, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers are implementing the 90 minute uninterrupted reading block and 30 minute intervention of the Reading First Program. Based on teacher survey given November 2010, 9/15 (60%) of classroom teachers who responded stated they are addressing the five Reading components during their 90 minute uninterrupted Reading Block. 2009-2010 Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers had implemented a daily Balanced Math Review. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers had implemented biweekly Balanced Math quizzes. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 17/18 (94%) of classroom teachers had a daily 90 minute uninterrupted Reading Block. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers provided a 30 minute Reading intervention. 2008-2009 Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 14/16 (88%) of classroom teachers had a daily 90 minute uninterrupted Reading Block. Based on teacher survey given in December 2009, 13/16 (81%) of classroom teachers provided a 30 minute Reading intervention.
Curriculum Q3. How are Goal Clarity Windows being used? Answer: a) The building principal is monitoring Goal Clarity Windows on a weekly basis. Data Statements: 2010-2011 Based on building principals checklist; she has monitored 12/13 weeks of the 2010-2011 school year as of November 7, 2010. (The first week was not monitored.) • In the first 13 weeks of school, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. • In the first 13 weeks of school, 2/3 (67%) special area teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. • In the first 13 weeks of school, 6/6 (100%) of intervention teachers have posted goal clarity windows with fidelity. 2009-2010 *No data is available for 2009-2010. 2008-2009 *No data is available for 2008-2009. •
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
72
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Curriculum Q4. Are rubrics and exemplars being developed and used by teachers AND Students: Are state rubrics posted and used by students? Answer: d) Teachers are expected to develop and use rubrics and exemplars on Goal Clarity Window formative assessments starting January 2011. e) Few teachers have begun to develop and use rubrics and exemplars on Goal Clarity Window formative assessments. f) As of this time, few students at Northaven Elementary School are developing and using rubrics and exemplars. Data Statements: 2010-2011 Based on teacher survey given in November 2010, 1/15 (6%) of classroom teachers who responded stated they have students develop rubrics. • Based on teacher survey given in November 2010, 1/1 (100%) of classroom teachers who responded they were having students develop rubrics, stated they also have students use the rubrics to self assess. 2009-2010 *No data is available for 2009-2010. 2008-2009 *No data is available for 2008-2009. •
Curriculum Q5. Are students provided technology classes? How often? How assessed? Answer: e) As of the 2010 – 2011 school year, all students at Northaven Elementary School are being provided technology classes weekly. f) Students are being assessed by checklists and rubrics based on NETS standards. g) During the 2010 – 2011 school year, third graders at NES will be given a district wide technology assessment. h) Prior to the 2010 – 2011 school year, no technology classes or programs were implemented at Northaven Elementary School. Data Statements: *Data can be provided after 2010-2011 school year.
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: Northaven has no students in the highly able program.
Intervention Intervention Q1. Are extended time interventions (i.e., tutoring, summer school, supplemental classes) increasing student learning? Answer: The only supplementary tutoring we have had in the past year is Supplemental Educational Services due to our status as a Year 1 and Year 2 School in Improvement in the state of Indiana. This service was provided by various outside providers deemed qualified by the Indiana Dept. of Education and chosen by the parent. Data Statements:
Intervention Q2. What data is used to identify students, programs and personnel for our intervention program? Answer: Math intervention groups are based on Daily Math Review (K-5), mClass math benchmarks (K-2), and Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (4-5).
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
73
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Reading intervention groups are based on Dibels/TRC (K-2), Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (4-5). Data Statements: •
Based on meeting record forms for Aug-Nov 2010, intervention groups were formed using the following criteria: Math intervention groups are based on Daily Math Review (K-5), mClass math benchmarks (K-2), and Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (4-5). Reading intervention groups are based on Dibels/TRC (K-2), Acuity scores (3-5), and ISTEP+ (45).
Intervention Q3. How often is student data reviewed for intervention groups? Answer: Student data is reviewed every six weeks in a formal intervention meeting to reform intervention groups. Data Statements: •
Based on meeting record forms dating Sept-Nov 2010, meetings to review data on students in intervention occurred every six weeks in grades K-5.
•
Based on meeting record forms dating Sept 2009-May 2010, meetings to review data on students in intervention occurred every 9 weeks in grades K-5.
•
Based on meeting record forms for Reading First dated Sept 2008-May 2009, meetings to review data on students in intervention occurred three times a year during benchmark assessments for grades K-3.
Intervention Q4. How is intervention data communicated with the regular classroom teacher? Answer: Intervention data is communicated with the regular classroom teacher during goal clarity meetings held at least twice per week and during an intervention meeting held every six weeks. Data Statements: •
Based on meeting record forms dating Aug-Nov 2010, collaborative meetings are held twice a week to create and/or analyze goal clarity windows for grades K-5.
•
Based on meeting record forms dating Sept-Nov 2010, meetings to review data on students in intervention occurred every six weeks in grades K-5.
Intervention Q5. What methods are used to evaluate and track the effectiveness of intervention initiatives? Answer: Teachers keep fidelity records which include the daily attendance of their intervention groups. Summaries of these daily attendance sheets are combined with data from benchmarks on a remediation report submitted at the end of each semester. Teachers review progress of students through benchmark testing and progress monitoring of several assessments.
Data Statements:
Pedagogy
Pedagogy Q1. Is consistent language & strategies used across grades & classes within grades? Answer: Yes consistent language and strategies are being used across grades and classes within grades. Data Statements:
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
74
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools • •
24/24 (100%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year are goal clarity mapping as a grade level. 21/24 (88%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year are consistently using the goal clarity vocabulary listed on their maps. 23/24 (96%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year are consistently using the goal clarity strategies listed on their maps.
Pedagogy Q2. How much time is spent in teach, guided practice, independent practice? Answer: The average time teachers at Northaven are engaged in teaching is 82 minutes per day. The average time teachers at Northaven are engaged in guided practice is 88 minutes per day. The average time allowed for independent practice is 41 minutes per day. Data Statements: • 24/24 (100%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year are engaged in an average of 82 minutes per day teaching. • 24/24 (100%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year are engaged in guided practice 88 minutes per day. • 24/24 (100%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year allow an average of 41 minutes per day for independent practice. • 2/39 (5%) of lessons observed during the principal’s walk-through for the first quarter of the 2010-2011 school year were marked as “teach.” • 22/39 (56%) of lessons observed during the principal’s walk-through for the first quarter of the 2010-2011 school year were marked as “guided practice.” 15/39 (38%) of lessons observed during the principal’s walk-through for the first quarter of the 2010-2011 school year were marked as “independent practice.”
Pedagogy Q3. What methodologies are used consistently in our building? Answer: The methodologies that are used consistently at Northaven are: SOAR, student planners, Balanced Math, 90 minute reading block, 60 minute math block, 30 minute math intervention, 30 minute reading intervention, and Writer’s workshop. Data Statements: • 18/24 (75%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using SOAR. • 19/24 (79%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using student planners. • 19/24 (79%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using Balanced math. • 17/24 (71%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using 90 minute reading block. • 17/24 (71%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using 60 minute math block. • 22/24 (92%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using 30 minute math intervention. • 24/24 (100%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using 30 minute reading intervention. • 11/24 (46%) of the teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they are using Writer’s workshop.
Pedagogy Q4. Do we have guidelines for homework that are consistent in each classroom? How do we ensure guidelines are adhered to? Answer: No we do not have guidelines that are consistent in each classroom. Data Statements: • 19/24 (79%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework four to five days a week. • *4/24 (17%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework one to three days per week. • *12/24 (50%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in spelling. • *20/24 (83%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in math. • *18/24 (75%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in reading. • *3/24 (13%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in science. • *3/24 (13%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in social studies. • *2/24 (8%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they assign homework in writing. • *3/24 (13%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they accept late homework for full
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
75
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools credit. *4/24 (17%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that they accept late homework for partial credit. *1/24 (4%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year stated that he/she accepts late homework for no credit. •
Pedagogy Q5. What strategies are used to ensure student engagement? Answer: Strategies that are being used at Northaven to ensure student engagement are: student/teacher communications; proximity; and student responses. Data Statements: • 22/24 (92%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year use engagement strategies in their classroom. 2/24 (8%) of teachers surveyed during the 2010-2011 school year did not answer the question
Planning Planning Q1. Do students have enough time to learn? Answer: We feel that students have enough time to learn, however the intermediate grades feel that students do not have enough time to learn based on the amount of standards that they are required to master. Data Statements: •
Based on the November 2010 survey, 11/17, or 65% of staff that responded believed that students do have enough time to learn.
•
Based on the November 2010 survey, 6/17, or 35% of staff that responded believed that students do not have enough time to learn.
Planning Q2. Does the school schedule enhance or hinder learning? Time on task? Answer: The school schedule enhances learning, however, staff would like to have more freedom of flexibility. Data Statement: •
Based on the November 2010 survey, 12/17, or 71% of the staff that responded believed that the school schedule enhances learning.
•
Based on the November 2010 survey, 10/17, or 59% of the staff that responded believed that the school schedule enhances time on task.
Planning Q 3. How are paraprofessionals & special program staff used to support student learning? Answer: Para-professional are used to support student learning in our school by working with small groups of students that need extra support, modify assignments to fit the needs of students, provide support in meeting IEP goals, and help to minimize distractions for other students. Data Statement: •
Based on the November 2010 survey, 12/17, or 71% of our classrooms have the support of para-educators.
Planning Q4. Are school improvement strategies monitored on a regular basis? Answer: School improvement strategies within the Implementation Plan are monitored, reviewed, and analyzed on a yearly basis for PL 221. Northaven monitors the strategies on a weekly, bi-weekly, or quarterly through procedures built into our goal clarity and/or professional development time.
Data Statements:
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
76
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools •
Based on teacher procedures, 100% of our staff keeps data binders with Goal Clarity, math review, Acuity, Dibels, and SRI results.
•
Based on teacher procedures, 100% of our staff analyze and discuss data through grade levels meetings and report that data Meeting Record Forms.
•
Based on school procedures, 100% of our school population is displayed on a data wall and regularly monitored for growth.
Planning Q5. How is shared leadership demonstrated in the building? What opportunities are available for teacher leaders? Answer: Shared leadership is demonstrated in the building by the creation and utilization of our leadership team. •
Based on the 2010 school year, each grade level plus someone from the intervention team is represented on the leadership council.
•
*Based on school procedures, the leadership council meets at least once a month and more if needed.
Professional Development Professional Development Q1. What is the relationship of student achievement, state standards, & professional dev? Answer: Using Balanced Math professional development during 2009-2010, there was a positive correlation with a greater student passing rate on standardized state testing in 2009-2010 as compared to 2008-2009 with no professional development in math. Supporting Data Statements: • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 49/64 (77%) of third grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 49/68 (72%) of fourth grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 57/74 (77%) of fifth grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+, 32/66 (48%) of third grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+, 44/82 (54%) of fourth grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2009 ISTEP+, 36/77 (47%) of fifth grade students passed overall Math. Answer: Using Reading First professional development in 2007-2008 & 2008-2009, the proficiency scores on DIBELS benchmark tests were inconsistent. Proficiency scores for Terra Nova did improve from Spring of 2008 to Spring of 2009. Supporting Data Statements: • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring PSF, 87% of kindergarten students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 64% of first grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 70% of second grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 56% of third grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring PSF, 84% of kindergarten students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 73% of first grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 59% of second grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 66% of third grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 70% of first grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 59% of second grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 75% of third grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 60% of first grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 47% of second grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 54% of third grade students were proficient in Reading.
Professional Development Q2. What impact has PD had on classroom practice? How do we know? How do we evaluate impact? Answer: Using Balanced Math professional development during 2009-2010, all classroom teachers were implementing a Daily Math Review and a bi-monthly Math Review Quiz with fidelity. Certified staff received bi-monthly training/professional
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
77
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools development from the Balanced Math Team. Impact was evaluated through analysis of proficiencies by skill on Math Review Quizzes and student passing rate on Spring 2010 ISTEP+ and Acuity Math scores. All classroom teachers were observed implementing Daily Math Review by the Balanced Math Team. Supporting Data Statements: • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 49/64 (77%) of third grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 49/68 (72%) of fourth grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP+, 57/74 (77%) of fifth grade students passed overall Math. • Based on Spring 2010 Acuity, 55/65 (86%) of third grade students were proficient in Math. • Based on Spring 2010 Acuity, 54/67 (81%) of fourth grade students were proficient in Math. • Based on Spring 2010 Acuity, 60/75 (80%) of fifth grade students were proficient in Math. • Based on three classroom observation days by the Balanced Math Team in 2009-2010, 18/18 (100%) of classroom teachers were implementing Daily Math Review with fidelity.
Answer: Using Reading First professional development in 2007-2008 & 2008-2009, all kindergarten through third grade classroom teachers were implementing a 90 minute reading block and a 30 minute reading intervention. The Reading First coach periodically performed classroom observations. Bi-monthly data meetings were held with the Reading First coach, principal, and K-3 grade level teams. Julie McFadden visited/observed periodically during these years as well. Impact was evaluated through proficiency scores on DIBELS benchmark testing and Terra Nova Reading scores.
Supporting Data Statements: • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring PSF, 87% of kindergarten students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 64% of first grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 70% of second grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2009 Spring ORF, 56% of third grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring PSF, 84% of kindergarten students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 73% of first grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 59% of second grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on DIBELS 2008 Spring ORF, 66% of third grade students were performing at benchmark. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 70% of first grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 59% of second grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2009 Spring scores, 75% of third grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 60% of first grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 47% of second grade students were proficient in Reading. • Based on Terra Nova 2008 Spring scores, 54% of third grade students were proficient in Reading.
Professional Development Q3. What kinds of collaboration exist? How effective is each? Answer: During 2009-2010, classroom teachers collaborated to create Daily Math Reviews and to analyze grade level results on Math Review quizzes. Interventionists, including ESL and special education teachers, received copies of upcoming Math Review quizzes to reinforce skills and then to remediate based upon proficiency results. Supporting Data Statements: • Based on a December 2009 survey, 27/27 (100%) of certified staff were collaborating with the principal and Title I coordinator, within a grade level and with other support staff on a regular basis. • Based on a December 2009 survey, 27/27 (100%) of certified staff stated that grade level collaboration with the principal was effective. • Based on a December 2009 survey, 27/27 (100%) of certified staff stated that collaboration within a grade level was effective to very effective. • Based on 2009-2010 MRFs, classroom teachers met with Title I coordinator and principal every third week to analyze Math Review quiz results. Answer: During 2007-2008 & 2008-2009, kindergarten through third grade classroom teachers collaborated with the Reading First coach and principal on a bi-monthly basis. • •
Based on 2008-2009 MRFs, all kindergarten through third grade teachers met with the Reading First coach and principal twice a month. Based on 2007-2008 MRFs, all kindergarten through third grade teachers met with the Reading First coach and principal twice a month.
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
78
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools Professional Development Q4. Does PD increase cultural competency? Answer: No. Balanced Math professional development and Reading First professional development do not address strategies specific to cultural groups. Both programs do teach to differentiate, instruct on student’s level and address multiple learning styles, but neither is geared toward specific cultural groups.
Data Statements:
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
79
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
80
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
Title I Schoolwide Plan Checklist Directions: Review the Title I Schoolwide Plans prior to mailing to the IDOE to ensure that all requirements listed below have been met. Insert the page number where each component can be found in the column to the right. If a plan does not include all ten components, it is out of compliance with NCLB requirements and will need to be adjusted. Schoolwide Plan: [Section 1114 (b) (2)] Any school that operates a schoolwide program shall first develop (or amend a plan for such a program that was in existence on the day before the date of enactment of the NCLB Act of 2001), in consultation with the LEA and its school support team or other technical assistance provider under section 1117, a comprehensive plan for reforming the total instructional program in the school that: i. Describes how the school will implement the components described below ii. Describes how the school will use resources under this part and other sources to implement the components iii. Includes a list of SEA programs and other federal programs that will be consolidated in the schoolwide program iv. Describes how the school will provide individual student academic assessment results in a language the parents can understand, including an interpretation of those results, to the parents of a child who participates in the academic assessments required by the SEA plan. Components of a Schoolwide Plan*:
Page Number(s)
10-23, 25-33, 5876 3-4, 8-9, 10, 24, 25-33, 34-40, 55
1.
A comprehensive needs assessment of the whole school
2.
Implementation of schoolwide reform strategies that: Provide opportunities for all children to meet proficient and advanced levels of student academic achievement Use effective methods and instructional strategies that are based on scientifically based research that: Strengthens the core academic program Increases the amount of learning time Includes strategies for serving underserved populations Includes 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 Address how the school will determine if those needs of the children have been met Are consistent with and are designed to implement state and local improvement plans, if any
3.
Highly qualified teachers in all core content area classes
7, 32-33
4.
High quality and on-going professional development for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals
5.
Strategies to attract high-quality, highly qualified teachers to this school
7, 25-33, 34-40, 41-46, 48 32-33, 39, 40
6. Strategies to increase parental involvement, such as literary services 6 a. Description how the school will provide individual academic assessment results to parents 6 b. Strategies to involve parents in the planning, review, and improvement of the schoolwide plan 7. Plans for assisting preschool children in the transition from early childhood programs such as Head Start, Even Start, Early Reading First, or a state-run preschool program
27, 28, 35-36 27, 28, 35-36 11, 27, 28, 35-36 27, 28, 35, 36
8.
7, 11, 25-33, 3440, 41-46
Opportunities and expectations for teachers to be included in the decision making related to the use of academic assessment results leading to the improvement of student achievement
9.
Activities and programs at the school level to ensure that students having difficulty mastering proficient and advanced levels of the academic achievement are provided with effective, timely additional assistance 10. Coordination and integration of federal, state and local funds; and resources such as in-kind services and program components 10 a. A list of programs that will be consolidated under the schoolwide plan (if applicable)
28, 36-37 25-33, 34-40, 4146 N/A
*Consolidated plans are encouraged and accepted
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
81
Northaven Elementary (0801) – Greater Clark County Schools
School Improvement Plan Checklist Directions: Use the checklist below in reviewing School Improvement Plan: [Sec. 1116 (b) (3) (A)] After identification as a school in improvement, each school identified as in improvement shall, not later than 3 months after being so identified, develop or revise a school plan in consultation with parents, school staff, the LEA, and outside experts, for approval by such LEA. The school plan shall cover a 2-year period and include:
Ten Components of School Improvement Plan*: 1. Strategies based on scientifically based research strategies to strengthen core academic subjects that addresses the specific academic issues that caused the school to be identified for school improvement
1. Policies and practices concerning core academic subjects that have the greatest likelihood that all groups of students will meet the proficient level on the ISTEP+ 2. Assurance that the school will spend not less than 10% each year to provide high quality professional development that: Directly address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified Meets NCLB’s professional development requirements Provides increased opportunity for participating in professional development
3. Specifies how professional development funds will be used to remove the school from improvement status 4. Annual measurable objectives for continuous and substantial progress by each group of students to meet proficient levels of achievement on the ISTEP+ (by 2013-2014) 5. Documentation that written notice about the identification of a school in improvement was provided to the parents of each student enrolled in the school in a language parents can understand. 6. Specifies the responsibilities of the school, the LEA, and the SEA including technical assistance to be provided 7. Strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the school
8. Activities before and after school, during summer, and during any extension of the school year 9. Incorporates a teacher-mentoring program (in addition to any the LEA might offer for new teachers)
Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2014
Found on Page #:
20-23, 25-33, 34-40, 50-57 20-23, 25-33, 34-40, 50-57
32-34, 38-40, 41-46 32-33, 38-40, 41-46 24, 25-33, 34-40 7 25-33, 34-40 27-28, 35-36 28-29, 36-37 29-30, 37-38
82
