Greater Clark County Schools (1010)

PL221 PLAN

Utica Elementary (0805)

Spring 2014

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Table of Contents School Overview

Page 3

Description & Location of Curriculum

Page 7

Titles & Descriptions of Assessments

Page 8

Mission/Vision/Belief

Page 9

Data Summary Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Page 10

Conclusions & Guiding Principles

Page 33

Goals/Objectives

Page 35

Implementation Profile

Page 36

Timeline

Page 42

Statutes to be Waived

Page 47

Bibliography

Page 48

Appendix

Page 49

Math Block and Reading Plan

Page 50

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

2

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Overview of Utica Elementary School School Information Utica Elementary School is a K-5 public education facility. Utica Elementary is one of 12 elementary schools under the jurisdiction of the Greater Clark County School Corporation. The corporation has three middle schools and three high schools strategically located to serve a geographically and ethnically diverse community. The Greater Clark County Schools is situated in the southeastern tip of Indiana; its southern border is the Ohio River and across the river is Louisville, Kentucky. The Utica community is an area of mixed income with 23.4% of the students receiving free or reduced lunch. The Utica community is comprised of mostly single family dwellings. Key Student Demographic The current population of Utica Elementary School is 508 students. This is a rapid increase in the number of students enrolled at Utica over the past few years. Our current population is 7% African American, 2% Hispanic, 86% White/Non Hispanic, 4% Multiracial, and 1% Asian/Pacific. School Learning Climate Our attendance rate for this year stands at 97.3%. Curriculum and Instruction In accordance with the district and state, Utica 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 curriculum, goal clarity windows, and a performance assessment process. The curriculum binders are located in Utica Elementary School library and available on line. As a focus of curriculum and instruction, Utica Elementary School continues to include the 5 components of reading: phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary; reading comprehension; and fluency as the primary means of teaching reading/language arts. We have a rigorous, standards based curriculum which includes the balanced math framework, technology, science and social studies. Other areas of the curriculum include art, music and physical education. Special needs students receive services through the practice of inclusion for all curricular areas. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

3

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Staff Utica Elementary School has 1 administrator, 29 certified teachers, and 6 non-certified staff in grades K-5. This total includes the special education department which has 4 full time certified teachers with a total of 4 special needs assistants including: 1 certified speech therapist and a self-contained classroom with 1 certified teacher and 3 assistants. Utica currently has 4 full day kindergarten classrooms, 4 full time certified teacher and 2 assistants. Reading intervention is provided by various staff members. Utica shares the advanced program teacher with other buildings. Utica has full time music, art, library, and physical education teachers. There is one School Administrative Manager, 1 administrative assistant, 1 office assistant, and 1 registered nurse. The lunchroom staff consists of a manager and 3 assistants. There are 3 full time custodians that complete the staff. Certified Staff Anderson, Amber Ault, Cheryl Brian, Sammie Brown-McFarland, Starla Buechler, Pat Crosier, Jessica Emily, Ashleigh Emily, Joshua Farmer, Amy Foster, Wendy Gray, Chellsey Gilland, Kathleen- Principal Harris, Susan Harvey, Amanda Hennegan, Beverly Hooks, Britt Hoyland, Renee Jackson, Ben Jones, Sandy Karnes, Kim Keith, Allen Kendrick, Hilda Lawson, MaryBeth McDonogh, Jennifer Miller, Lisa Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Receveur, Melissa Runyon, Kelly Sanders, Jackie Sickles, Bethany Thieneman, Julie

Non-Certified Staff Harlan, Pam Juliot, Tabatha Salter, Debbie Strickler, Willa Auxiliary Staff Bailey, Gayle Grider, Mark Kroger, Bridget Lowe, Linda McKenna, Judy Robinson, Donna Stark, Evelyn Thacker, Dennis Thompson, Kelly Zelli, Autumn

4

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

PL221 Committees Kathy Gilland - Principal Pat Buechler - Teacher Sammie Brian - Teacher Hilda Kendrick - Teacher Renee Hoyland – Teacher Lisa Miller – Teacher Jackie Sanders- Teacher Melissa Receveur – Teacher Ashleigh Emily - Teacher Steering Committee Kathy Gilland - Principal Britt Hooks – Teacher (Union Representative) Hilda Kendrick - Teacher Corinne Seebold – Parent (PTO president) Amy Colucci – Parent The steering committee will meet 3 times per school year. Pedagogy Curriculum Chair: Pat Buechler Chair: Lisa Miller Susan Harris Josh Emily Starla Brown – McFarland Mike Franklin Wendy Foster Mary Beth Lawson Ben Jackson Culture Chair: Hilda Kendrick Cheryl Ault Britt Hooks Allen Keith Jackie Sanders

Professional Development Chair: Kim Karnes Melissa Receveur Bev Hennegan Ashleigh Emily

Intervention Chair: Sammie Brian Chellsey Gray Amanda Harvey Jennifer McDonogh Amy Farmer

Planning Chair: Amber Anderson Bethany Sickles Kelly Runyon Jessica Crosier Sandy Jones

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

5

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Assessment Chair: Renee Hoyland All Certified Staff School wide Process for Improvement Our faculty and staff worked in committees to conduct a Comprehensive Needs Assessment to gather and analyze data from key questions from the following systems: Assessment, Culture, Curriculum, Intervention, Pedagogy, Planning, and Prof. Development. A summary was created to outline our strengths and concerns from this data. Faculty members also worked in cross-grade level groups to self-assess where we are as a school on the following topics: Goal – Clarity (standards, vocabulary, assessment, and assessment for learning); Professional Development; Culture; Leadership; and Time. The two sets of data were coupled together to begin the Inquiry Process which included an exploration of action research, articles, book studies, videos, staff development sessions, and outside experts. The knowledge gained from the Inquiry Process led to the development of our guiding principles, goals, and the implementation plan.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

6

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Description & Location of Curriculum GCCS curriculum is aligned with Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards. Curriculum information is located on the Greater Clark County Website. All certified staff has been trained and is participating in developing Goal Clarity Windows. Classroom elementary teachers in grades K-5 are utilizing curriculum maps for: language arts, math, science, and social studies which are aligned to the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards adopted by GCCS in 2014. Curriculum development occurs in the following areas: Language Arts Mathematics Science/Health Social Studies Library Media Skills Music Art Physical Education Technology Education 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 who have skill deficits not meeting benchmarks on grade level assessments participate in intervention during the school day. Supplemental programs are monitored and evaluated with assessments. The report cards reflect student grades from classroom assessments that are aligned with the academic standards. The intervention that will address critical areas will include:  I-READ retention  Tiered Small Group Instruction  Carbo Reading Lab  Small group instruction in Math  Collaborative Teaching  Acuity, Star, McGraw-Hill Assessments  READ 180 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 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 Utica Elementary is changing. Over the past 5 years, the number of free and reduced lunch students has increased from 0 % to 23.4%.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

7

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Titles and Descriptions of Assessment Instruments Used in Addition to ISTEP+ and IREAD3

ELA Reading/Writing: Applied Benchmark Assessments – Acuity provides questions that focus on Indiana Standards and provide students with exposure to open-ended response questions. Teachers score the applied assessments with the Indiana Standards Rubric. Kdg. – Gr. 5 teachers administer, score and analyze Applied writing prompts four times per year. Other ELA Assessments: Gr. K-2 teachers have access to the Developmental Reading Assessment 2 for low performing students. STAR: Grades K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR ELA three times a year. Acuity - Grades 3- 5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity ELA three times per year Goal Clarity Window – Grades K-5 teachers create assessments aligned to common core standards on a weekly/biweekly basis to assess E/LA standards taught.

Math: Applied Benchmark Assessments – Acuity provides questions that focus on Indiana Standards and provide students with exposure to open-ended response questions. Teachers score the applied assessments with the Indiana Standards Rubric. Kdg.- Gr. 5 teachers administer, score and analyze performance based/ applied assessments (problem solving with ISTEP+ format) every other week through the Balanced Math Review tests. Additionally, Acuity has open ended questions that may be used. Other Math Assessments: Acuity - Grades 3- 5 teachers administer and analyze Acuity Math three times a year. STAR: Grades K-5 teachers administer and analyze STAR Math three times a year. Goal Clarity Window – Grades K-5 teachers create assessments aligned to common core standards on a weekly/biweekly bases to assess Math standards taught.

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.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

8

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Mission, Vision, and Beliefs Utica Elementary School Mission Statement To educate and inspire each student to strive for personal excellence through the utilization of effective strategies, application of critical thinking skills, and demonstration of self assessment techniques.

Utica Elementary School Vision Statement United for Excellence in Student Achievement

Utica Elementary School Beliefs We believe that: • Utica Elementary should provide a safe learning environment for all students and staff. • All students have the potential to succeed. • Utica Elementary is a partnership of educators, families, and community members. • Utica Elementary must provide curriculum and assessment that is rigorous and relevant to the students’ needs and is based on the Indiana Academic Standards. • Utica Elementary must maintain high expectations of achievement by both students and educators. • There must be open communication and an atmosphere of respect between the home, school, and community.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

9

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Utica Elementary School Comprehensive Needs Assessment Overview

In September 2010, committees were formed to study assessment, culture curriculum, intervention, pedagogy, planning and professional development. The committees were comprised of faculty, staff, and parents. Weekly meetings were scheduled to answer the questions on our CNA matrix. ISTEP+ and Acuity scores were examined to determine how students were performing. ISTEP+ scores were disaggregated to determine if there were significant differences in performance based on subgroups. Key errors were analyzed for all areas of testing. Comparisons were made of students’ report card grades in language arts and math with corresponding ISTEP+ scores. Student, parent, and staff surveys were used to solicit information concerning culture, professional development, parent involvement, discipline, safety, and instructional practices. The data collected revealed both strengths and weaknesses. Utica, as a whole, met the 2010 AYP goal of 89% on the ELA portion of the ISTEP+ in 7 out of 18 skills and met the 2010 AYP goal of 85% on the Math portion of the ISTEP+ in 15 out of 20 skills. While there was not one consistent skill across the grade levels, the lowest skill in ELA at each grade level was Literary Text at fifth grade (82%), Literary Text at fourth grade (86%), and Non-fiction/ Informational text, Writing Process, and Language Conventions at third grade (93%). The lowest skill in Math at each grade level was Data Analysis & Probability and Problem Solving at fifth grade (85%), Computation at fourth grade (75%), and Algebra & Functions at third grade (82%). Of these nine lowest skills listed, 5 of 9 skills were tested with multiple choice questions (data analysis & probability at fifth grade, literary text at fourth grade, and nonfiction/information text, writing process, and algebra & functions at third grade) and 4 of 9 skills were tested with a combination of open ended responses and multiple choice questions (literary text and problem solving at fifth grade, computation at fourth grade, and language conventions at third grade). Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in third grade Eng/LA were literary text, writing applications, and language conventions. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in third grade Mathematics were number sense, computation, measurement, and problem solving. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fourth grade Eng/LA were nonfiction/informational text, writing applications, and language conventions. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fourth grade Eng/LA were nonfiction/informational text, writing

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

10

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

applications, and language conventions. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fourth grade Mathematics were number sense, computation, measurement, and problem solving. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fifth grade Eng/LA were literary text, writing applications, and language conventions. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fifth grade Mathematics were measurement and problem solving. Data revealed our attendance is 96.9%, however, a significant number of tardies interfere with instructional time and learning. Based on our school data for the years 2007-2011, the rate of suspension is decreasing in year 2010-2011. Data collected revealed that student discipline infractions were not significant. Based on records for the 2009-2010 school year, there were only three suspensions. During the 2010- 2011 year, we have only suspended one child. Students are provided a safe learning environment by having school and classroom procedures, individual behavior management plans, classroom discipline plans, parent involvement, and a Positive Behavior System. During the 2010-2011 school year, Utica Elementary implemented a Positive Behavior System which is used by all classes. The majority of parents are actively involved in their children’s school activities and learning. A high level of attendance occurs at parent teacher conferences, Literacy Nights, and the Fall Festival. Parents play an active role in book adoptions, annual fund-raising, and an active PTO has been established. Data collected from parent/student surveys showed that the students feel safe in the building and in the classroom. Greater Clark has established a daily 40 minute Period Zero professional development time for K-5 teachers. Three of the days are utilized by the principal for staff development and two of the days are to be used as teacher collaboration/planning. Utica Elementary is on Exemplary status. The Corporation is in District Improvement. An updated comprehensive needs assessment of all students in the school, including subgroups was used to review and revise the school-wide comprehensive plan to improve teaching and learning. The needs assessment includes data collection and analysis as well as integration with key teaching strategies. The plan was developed in consultation with Director for Curriculum and Instruction, Supervisor for Assessment, Director of Special Education and Bi-lingual Education. Parents, community members, teachers, and administrators will participate in reviewing and updating the plan through PL221 school-wide planning committee meetings. During the re-planning year for PL221 (2010-2011), workshops, collaboration at team, grade level and cross- grade level meetings, all staff provided input to the development of the plan. Parents were contacted to participate in the planning and annual updating process. The process and plan was shared with parents during Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

11

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Steering Committee Meetings. The Utica 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 school-wide planning meetings. The plan will be evaluated annually to determine whether the key strategies of the school-wide 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. The District provides support to the school in revising the plan and responding to the feedback from the outside review process. Both the District and outside review process/ revisions ensure the NCLB statutory components are included and all components are identified. Assessment Assessment Q1. How many/what % of students meet state standards? Have mastered which skills? Answer: Overall, most standards were mastered. Utica, as a whole, met the 2010 AYP goal of 89% on the ELA portion of the ISTEP+ in 7 out of 18 skills and met the 2010 AYP goal of 85% on the Math portion of the ISTEP+ in 15 out of 20 skills. While there was not one consistent skill across the grade levels, the lowest skill in ELA at each grade level was Literary Text at fifth grade (82%), Literary Text at fourth grade (86%), and Non-fiction/ Informational text, Writing Process, and Language Conventions at third grade (93%). The lowest skill in Math at each grade level was Data Analysis & Probability and Problem Solving at fifth grade (85%), Computation at fourth grade (75%), and Algebra & Functions at third grade (82%). Of these nine lowest skills listed, 5 of 9 skills were tested with multiple choice questions (data analysis & probability at fifth grade, literary text at fourth grade, and nonfiction/information text, writing process, and algebra & functions at third grade) and 4 of 9 skills were tested with a combination of open ended responses and multiple choice questions (literary text and problem solving at fifth grade, computation at fourth grade, and language conventions at third grade).

Data Statements: 202/246 (82%) students passed the ELA portion of the ISTEP+ in 2009. 214/240 (89%) students passed the ELA portion of the ISTEP+ in 2010. 197/246 (80%) students passed the Math portion of the ISTEP+ in 2009. 201/240 (85%) students passed the Math portion of the ISTEP+ in 2010. There was an increase of 13% from 2009 to 2010 on the ELA portion of the ISTEP+. There was an increase of 5% from 2009 to 2010 on the Math portion of the ISTEP+.

Assessment Q2. Are some groups not performing as well as others? Answer:

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

12

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

On the Spring 2009 ISTEP+, white students performed higher in ELA and Math compared to special education and free/reduced students. On the Spring 2010 ISTEP+, white students scored higher in ELA than special education and free/reduced while free/reduced students scored higher in Math than white students and special education.

Data Statements: 9/17 (53%) special education students passed the ELA portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 39/53 (74%) free/reduced students passed the ELA portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 180/212 (85%) white students passed the ELA portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 8/17 (47%) special education students passed the Math portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 32/53 (60%) free/reduced students passed the Math portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 172/212 (81%) white students passed the Math portion of the 2009 ISTEP+. 9/13 (69%) special education students passed the ELA portion of the 2010 ISTEP+. 39/47 (83%) free/reduced students passed the ELA portion of the 2010 ISTEP+. 189/211 (90%) white students passed the ELA portion of the 2010 ISTEP+. 10/13 (77%) special education students passed the Math portion of the 2010 ISTEP+. 33/47 (70%) free/reduced students passed the Math portion of the 2010 ISTEP+. 134/211 (64%) white students passed the Math portion of the 2010 ISTEP+.

Assessment Q3. What are the critical errors made by students below mastery? Answer: Statements regarding general critical errors made by students are based on the 47 students out of a total of 239 students that took the ISTEP in grades three through five that Did Not Pass either or both of the Eng/LA., Mathematics portions of the Spring 2010 ISTEP. Statements regarding specific patterns of critical errors are based on a random sample of 14 out of 47 students in grades three through five that Did Not Pass either or both of the Eng/LA., Mathematics portion of the Spring 2010 ISTEP. The criteria for determining specific patterns of critical errors was 3/5 (60%) of students made the error. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in third grade Eng/LA were literary text, writing applications, and language conventions. Within the literary text component, a random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Two errors were made consistently; students failed to answer all of the questions and students didn’t support their answers with text. Within the writing applications, lack of organization was a recurring pattern. Within language conventions, spelling, run-on sentences, noun-verb agreement, sentence fragments, and capitalization were recurring patterns. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in third grade Mathematics were number sense, computation, measurement, and problem solving. A random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Students not answering the question asked, not showing their work, not converting to like measures, and adding and

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

13

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

subtraction computational errors were recurring patterns. Students also had recurring errors in understanding math terms such as difference and place value. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fourth grade Eng/LA were nonfiction/informational text, writing applications, and language conventions. Within the nonfiction/informational text component, a random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Recurring errors included: students not answering the question asked, students not answering all of the questions, and students not supporting their answers with text. Within the writing applications, lack of supporting details, not answering the question asked, and not answering all of the questions were recurring patterns. Within language conventions, spelling, run-on sentences, and sentence fragments were recurring patterns. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fourth grade Mathematics were number sense, computation, measurement, and problem solving. A random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Students not answering the question asked and not answering all of the questions were recurring patterns. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fifth grade Eng/LA were literary text, writing applications, and language conventions. Within the literary text component, a random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Regarding literary text, a specific recurring critical error was that students didn’t answer the question asked. Within the writing applications, lack of supporting details was a recurring pattern. Specific critical errors in organization included having a weak beginning and no/poor transitions. Within language conventions, punctuation, capitalization, sentence fragments, and spelling were recurring patterns. Based on Spring 2010 ISTEP scores, the general critical errors made by students below mastery in fifth grade Mathematics were measurement and problem solving. A random sample of student tests was analyzed for specific critical errors to determine possible patterns of errors. Students not answering the question asked, not following directions, and not using the formula given were recurring patterns. Students also had recurring errors in understanding math terms such as area and acute angle.

Data Statements: 47/239 (20%) of total students in grades Three through Five scored below mastery in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 6/88 (7%) of students in Third Grade scored below mastery in Eng/LA in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 15/88 (17%) of students in Third Grade scored below mastery in Mathematics in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 9/84 (11%) of students in Fourth Grade scored below mastery in Eng/LA in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 11/84 (13%) of students in Fourth Grade scored below mastery in Mathematics in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 10/67 (15%) of students in Fifth Grade scored below mastery in Eng/LA in Spring, 2010 ISTEP. 8/67 (12%) of students in Fifth Grade scored below mastery in Mathematics in Spring, 2010 ISTEP.

Assessment Q4. Are students showing adequate yearly progress; are #s of students not-passing decreasing/fewer?

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

14

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Answer: Students in grades 3-5 are showing adequate progress. An increasing number of students are showing mastery in the majority of skills. Data Statements: 264 of 297 (89%) of students in grades 3-6 passed the ELA portion of the 2008 ISTEP+ Free and Reduced: 32 of 38 (84.2%) passed Special Ed: 35 of 46 (76.1%) passed 257 of 297 (86.8%) of students in grades 3-6 passed the MATH portion of the 2008 ISTEP+ Based on ISTEP+ 2009-2010 the students going from 3rd to 4th grade showed significant progress in every area of Language Arts and Math, with the percentage of students mastering each area increasing from 5-11%. Based on ISTEP+ 2009-2010 the students going from 4th to 5th grade showed slight improvement in the Writing Process and Nonfiction Text while the other areas stayed the same or decreased. Percentage of students mastering Math increased in every area. Assessment Q5. How well are students meeting standards in non-ISTEP+ grades? Errors? Answer: In 2010, most of the students at Utica Elementary School were reading at or above grade level with comprehension. Data Statements: 64/90 (71%) of students in Kindergarten were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores. 76/85 (89%) of students in First Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores. 64/85 (84%) of students in Second Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores.

Assessment Q6. How many students read at/above gr. level? W/ comprehension? Answer: In 2010, most of the students at Utica Elementary School were reading at or above grade level with comprehension. Data Statements: 64/90 (71%) of students in Kindergarten were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores. 76/85 (89%) of students in First Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores. 64/85 (84%) of students in Second Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Fall, 2010 MClass, Reading 3D scores. 38/85 (45%) of students in Third Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Scholastic Reading Inventory scores. 63/85 (74%) of students in Fourth Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on Scholastic Reading Inventory scores. 58/85 (68%) of students in Fifth Grade were reading at or above grade level with comprehension based on

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

15

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Scholastic Reading Inventory scores. 363/530 (69%) of total number of students at Utica Elementary School were reading at or above grade level with comprehension in the Fall of 2010. Assessment Q7. Do elementary students with As, Bs, & Cs on report cards pass ISTEP+? Answer: We do have students at Utica who failed ISTEP+ and received Bs and Cs on their report cards. Some of these students are special education students and have adaptations made for their report cards. Some others were in leveled math classes and modifications were made to their daily work. Data Statements: 82/88 (93%) 4th Grade students who passed the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the reading and language sections of their report cards 4/88 (5%) 4th Grade students who did not pass the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the reading and language sections of their report cards 2/88 (2%) 4th Grade students who did not pass the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made a D or lower on the reading and language sections of their report cards 74/88 (84%) 4th Grade students who passed the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the math sections of their report cards 13/88 (15%) 4th Grade students who did not pass the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the math sections of their report cards 1/88 (1%) 4th Grade students who did not pass the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made a D or lower on the math sections of their report cards 75/84 (89%) 5th Grade students who passed the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the reading and language sections of their report cards 8/84 (10%) 5th Grade students who did not pass the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the reading and language sections of their report cards 1/84 (1%) 5th Grade students who did not pass the English/Language section of the 2010 ISTEP made a D or lower on the reading and language sections of their report cards 3/4 (75%) 5th Grade students who passed the English/Language section of the 2010 IMAST made A, B, and/or Cs on the reading and language sections of their report cards 1/4 (25%) 5th Grade students who passed the English/Language section of the 2010 IMAST made a D or lower on the reading and language sections of their report cards 71/83 (86%) 5th Grade students who passed the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the math sections of their report cards 11/83 (13%) 5th Grade students who did not pass the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made A, B, and/or Cs on the math sections of their report cards 1/83 (1%) 5th Grade students who did not pass the Math section of the 2010 ISTEP made a D or lower on the math sections of their report cards 1/4 (25%) 5th Grade students who passed the Math section of the 2010 IMAST made A, B, and/or Cs on the math

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

16

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

sections of their report cards 2/4 (50%) 5th Grade students who did not passed the Math section of the 2010 IMAST made A, B, and/or Cs on the math sections of their report cards 1/4 (25%) 5th Grade students who did not pass the Math section of the 2010 IMAST made a D or lower on the math sections of their report cards

Assessment Q9. How well prepared do Kindergarten students come to school? Answer: Many kindergarten students were well prepared when entering kindergarten. Data Statements: 79/93 (84.9%) scored above 75% on the Brigance Test when they entered Kindergarten. Some students passed the test by only a few points. 14/93 (15.1%) scored below75% on the Brigance Test. This demonstrates the need for additional early intervention programs to assist the kindergarten student to be better prepared for kindergarten.

Culture Culture Q1. Are culturally appropriate strategies utilized in classrooms (racial, ethnic, language-minority, cultural, exceptional learning, and socioeconomic groups)? Answer: Our corporation Director of Multi-Cultural Affairs continues to introduce multicultural activities in the classroom and the Corporation newsletter. Each grade level tiers students into exceptional learning groups. All grade levels are reviewing and examining data to examine lower socioeconomics in our classrooms. Teachers will examine data and redirect instruction. All grade levels support multi-cultural activities during January to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr’s memory. Our Librarian is providing our students with multi-cultural books for reading and multi-cultural students including the following holidays: Kwanza, Ramadon, Chinese New Year. Teachers are differentiating in the classroom to support the diverse cultures in our school. Data Statements: 3/26 (12%) of the classrooms at UES have worked with The Director of Multi-Cultural Affairs has. 8/26 (30%) of the teachers received training in Differentiation in the classroom. 100% (526/526) of UES students participated in activities to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. The second and fourth grade students participated in a musical program. 100% of UES students created a variety of multi-cultural art work which was displayed in the cafeteria and throughout the school. The Utica Librarian purchased $5,100 of multi-cultural materials for students to read and for teachers to utilize in instructional units.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

17

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Culture Q2. Is the number of student disruptions kept to a minimum so that learning time for students is maximized? Answer: Yes, based on our school records for the years 2007-2010, the rate of suspension is decreasing in year 2009-2010 using the data provided in the years 2006-2010.

Data Statements: 1.68% (9/536) of UES students were suspended in 2006-2007. 1.96% (10/509) of UES students were suspended in 2007-2008. 1.67% (9/540) of UES students were suspended in 2008-2009. .57% (3/526) of UES students were suspended in 2009-2010. Culture Q3. Do we have a safe learning environment? Answer: Yes, Parents and teachers surveyed reported a safe learning environment. Data Statements: Keys to rooms are readily accessible and consistently placed in the same spot in each room. Training for emergency procedures is provided to all staff. An evacuation drill is performed and a lockdown is performed in accordance with the district and state regulations. Positive media relations are ongoing through our contact with the corporation media personnel via the newspaper; school marquee and television (student council dances, four star celebration activities, fall festival, state education superintendent, student council public service, athletic events). According to a parent/teacher survey given in April 2010: 96.21% (228/237) parents believe their child feels safe in the classroom(s). 90.82% (20/22) teachers believe students obey the rules established by the faculty and staff. 100 (22/22) teachers stated the school has a good public image and are proud of the school. Culture Q4. How well are our rules or procedures for behavior followed? Answer: Teachers have posted their classroom behavior rules since the last update of PL221. Positive Behavior Strategies (STAR) has been implemented to encourage positive behavior in the school. Uniform classroom rules are provided as school wide procedure. Data collected revealed that student discipline infractions were not significant. Based on records for the 2009-2010 school year, there were only three suspensions. Students are provided a safe learning environment by having school and classroom procedures, individual behavior management plans, classroom discipline plans, parent involvement, and a Positive Behavior System. During the 2009-2010 school year, Utica Elementary implemented “Be A Star” a Positive Behavior System which is used by all classes. Data Statements: 96% (22/23) of the classroom teachers have their classroom rules posted which shows an increase from the last PL221 plan of 72%.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

18

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Culture Q5. How do we inform families about state standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies & procedures? Answer: ISTEP scores are sent to the parents of students in grades 3-5. Fall, Winter, and Spring Acuity results are available for parents of students in grades 3-5. DIBELS data in K-2 are available to parents. Report Cards are provided each nine weeks and Progress Reports are sent home at mid-term. Grade level expectations and classroom policies and procedures are available through parent orientation.

Data Statements: State standards are available on the IDOE website. Utica Elementary sends home a school handbook each year to 100% of the parents. A principal generated newsletter is sent home bi-monthly to 100% of the parents. Most teachers send home a weekly or monthly newsletter. Culture Q6. What level of attendance do we have at parent conf. Open house, other? Answer: A high level of attendance occurs at parent teacher conferences, Literacy Night, and Fall Festival.

Data Statements: 223 people attended Family Literacy Night in October 2010. 303/526 (58%) of students attended the Fall Festival along with their families. 479/526 (91%) of students had parents attend parent teacher conferences in October 2010. 390/526 (74%) of students had parents attend classroom orientation in August 2010. Culture Q7. What business partnerships do we have? With what outcomes? Role in decision-making? Answer: Box Tops for Education, Dominos Pizza, Bearnos, McDonald’s, Zaxby’s and Campbell’s Soups are business that have taken an active role by offering incentives to schools in monetary reward for purchases at their places of business. Businesses allow our school to disperse funds as needed.

Data Statements: • Specific data cannot be determined. Parent/family involvement in the school is measured by parent/family participation in school conferences, meetings, and activities. During Orientation and at parent conferences, families are informed about Indiana State Standards, student performance, grade level expectations, class policies and procedures. School and classroom newsletters and websites keep families updated on current events and activities as well as providing resources. Parents will be included in reviewing and updating the PL221 School-wide Plan; providing feedback to inform the development of new programs and to evaluate the school’s current program. Utica has formed partnerships with area agencies and businesses including Bales Motors, Box Tops for Education, Dominos Pizza, Campbell’s Soup, McDonald’s, Bearno’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, Texas Roadhouse, Zaxby’s, Sunny D, Jeffersonville Fire and Police Departments, Wilson Education Center, Evening News and The Courier Journal, Operation Outreach

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

19

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Curriculum Curriculum Q1. Is curriculum aligned with state standards? Instruction? Are curriculum maps completed, reviewed and updated regularly? Answer: UES follows Curriculum Guides that align to Indiana State Standards. Goal Clarity Window follows state guidelines. Teacher lesson plans demonstrate that the curriculum is aligned to Indiana State Standards. Teachers cite Indiana state standards in their lesson plans. Data Statements: Based on principal hall walks and teacher survey: 29/29 (100%) of teachers (including Special Area teachers) are trained in Goal Clarity Window and use it in classrooms. 29/29 (100%) of teachers (including Special Area) submit Goal Clarity Window used in instruction. 29/29 (100%) of teachers submit lesson plans to the principal to be reviewed. 22/22 (100%) of teachers are conveying to students the Indiana Standards taught.

Curriculum Q2. Is staff fully implementing key programs trained in? Answer: All staff members are implementing Balanced Math and Mental Math in classrooms. All staff members have implemented a Reading/Language Arts block with 120 minutes (Primary) and 80 minutes (Intermediate). Staff is partially trained in the Foss Program and uses it in the classroom. All staff members are implementing PBS to maximize learning in classrooms to be proactive in preventing Discipline issues that may impede the learning environment.

Data Statements: 22/22(100%) are partially or fully implementing Balanced Math and Mental Math. 22/22(100%) are fully implementing a Reading/Language Arts block. 434/436 (99.5%) of students are reading daily in the classroom. 19/22 (86%) of teachers use Rubicon Atlas for developing Goal Clarity Window. 7/22 (32%) of teachers use Foss Science in classrooms. 18/22 teachers (82%) of teachers use Writers’ Workshop to teach writing. 22/22 (100%) implement a PBS.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

20

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Curriculum Q3. How are Goal Clarity Windows being used? Answer: All staff members are creating and implementing Goal Clarity Window to guide instruction and assessments. Data Statements: 29/29 (100%) of teachers (including Special Area) submit Goal Clarity Window to be used in instruction. Based on teacher surveys, on line observations, and principal observation: 22/22 (100%) create and use Goal Clarity assessments to enhance instruction.

Curriculum Q4. Are rubrics and exemplars being developed and used by teachers AND students? Are state rubrics posted and used by students? Answer: Rubrics and exemplars are being used partially by teachers and students. Exemplars are being used fully to assist instruction. State rubrics are partially posted in classrooms. Data Statements: Based on teacher and student surveys: 20/22 (91%) of teachers are partially using rubrics to assist in instruction. 2/22 (9%) of teachers are fully using rubrics to assist in instruction. 306/436 (70%) students surveyed partially or fully use rubrics in classrooms. 147/436 (34%) students surveyed use Exemplars as examples in classrooms. 5/22 (23%) of teachers have partially posted state rubrics in classrooms. 4/22 (18%) of teachers do not have state rubrics posted in classrooms. 13/22 (59%) of teachers have state rubrics posted in classrooms.

Curriculum Q5. Are students provided technology classes? How often? How assessed? Answer: Most students receive 45 minutes of technology instruction each week. Data Statement: 91% of students receive 45 minutes of technology instruction each week. Grade 3 students participated in a standardized technology assessment in the fall and spring. 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: Susan Stewart is working with our Highly Able Students.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

21

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Students are attending Enrichment Programs at IUS. Data Statements: 11/530 (2%) of students at Utica Elementary are identified as Highly Able and receiving services. 19/530 (3%) of students are regularly receiving services from Greater Clark Highly Able Program. 30/530 (5%) are receiving Enrichment activities from our Highly Able Program. 21/436 (5%) of students surveyed are attending enrichment classes at IUS.

Intervention Intervention Q1. Are extended time interventions (i.e., tutoring, summer school, supplemental classes) increasing student learning? Answer: Students participating in extended time interventions in 2010 improved their reading scores according to grades K-2 DIBELS progress monitoring results and grades 3-5 Oral Reading Fluency results. The average gain in DIBELS scores after intervention for K-2 students was 16.5 points. Data statements: 71/89 (80%) of students in extended time intervention in 2010 improved their reading scores based on DIBELS and Oral Reading Fluency results. 16/18 (89%) of the Kindergarten students participating in extended time intervention increased their DIBELS scores in the Fall of 2010. 12/22 (55%) of the First Grade students participating in extended time intervention increased their DIBELS scores in the Fall of 2010. 16/17 (94%) of the Second Grade students participating in extended time intervention increased their DIBELS scores in the Fall of 2010. 14/22 (64%) of the Third Grade students participating in extended time intervention increased their Oral Reading Fluency scores in the Fall of 2010. 11/11 (100 %) of the Fourth Grade students participating in extended time intervention increased their Oral Reading Fluency scores in the Fall of 2010. 11/14 (79%) of the Fifth Grade students participating in extended time intervention increased their Oral Reading Fluency scores in the Fall of 2010 Intervention Q2. What data is used to identify students, programs and personnel for our intervention program? Answer: The data used to identify students in our intervention programs originate from DIBELS scores in K-2 grades and from DIBELS, Acuity, SRI, ISTEP, and teacher input for grades 3-5 Data Statements: 104/530 (18%) of students were in intervention programs in the Fall of 2010.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

22

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

The data used to identify appropriate intervention programs include the diagnostic assessments Comprehensive Tests of Phonological Processes, DIBELS, and Rigby Fluency Tests. 32/104 (31%) of students were placed in specific intervention programs using the Comprehensive Tests of Phonological Processes. 71/104 (68%) of students were placed in specific intervention programs using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The personnel assigned to teach intervention groups was determined by the principal and based on needs of students and scheduling availability. 8/46 (17%) of total certified and para-professional staff members teach intervention groups. Intervention Q3. How often is student data reviewed for intervention groups? Answer: In 2010, the principal and intervention lead met weekly to review Tier III student data. Tier II student data was reviewed every other week. In 2010, all interventionists reported data weekly on how often the group met, the focus of the group, the program or plan the group was using, and the progress of the group. Changes in intervention groups were based on at least two consistent increases in progress monitoring scores and input from classroom teacher and interventionist’s weekly monitoring checklist observations. These changes occurred approximately every 7-9 weeks or once per quarter.

Intervention Q4. How is intervention data communicated with the regular classroom teacher? Answer: In 2010, intervention data was communicated to regular classroom teachers during grade level meetings one time per month. In addition to this, regular classroom teachers could review intervention data weekly (Tier III progress monitoring schedule), or bi-weekly( 2x per month) for Tier II progress monitoring schedule by request from Intervention lead. Data Statements: 52/104 (50%) of students participating in intervention programs in 2010 were in Tier II interventions. 35/104 (34%) of students participating in intervention programs in 2010 were in Tier III interventions. 17/104 (16%) of students participating in intervention programs in 2010 were in “Bubble” groups (students with lowest performing benchmark scores). Intervention Q5. What methods are used to evaluate and track the effectiveness of intervention initiatives? Answer: The methods that were used to evaluate and track the effectiveness of intervention initiatives in 2010 were weekly progress monitoring for Tier III interventions and biweekly progress monitoring for Tier II interventions using DIBELS recommended progress monitoring tools or Oral Reading Fluency measures. Changes in intervention groups were based on at least two consistent increases in progress monitoring scores, or conversely, two consecutive decreases in progress monitoring scores and input from classroom teacher and

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

23

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

interventionist’s weekly monitoring checklist observations. These changes occurred approximately every 7-9 weeks or once per quarter.

Data Statement: 82/104 (79%) of students in extended time intervention in 2010 showed improvement in progress monitoring scores Pedagogy

Pedagogy Q1. Is consistent language & strategies used across grades & classes within grades? Answer: Classroom teachers at Utica use consistent Power Verbs and post ELA rubrics. It is unclear if writing language is consistent because not all classrooms have the writing process steps posted. Data Statements: 23/23 (100%) classroom teachers post Utica’s Power Verbs. 23/23 (100%) classroom teachers post ELA Rubrics. 8/23 (35%) classrooms have writing process steps posted. Pedagogy Q2. How much time is spent in teach, guided practice, independent practice? Answer: According to teacher responses there is no consistency among grade levels as to the amount of time spent in teach, guided practice, or independent practice. Data Statements: For Reading, Kindergarten teachers spend 20-30 minutes in teach, 30-60 minutes in guided practice, 15-30 minutes in independent practice. For LA, Kindergarten teachers spend 10-40 minutes in teach, 10-40 minutes in guided practice, 15-30 minutes in independent practice. For Math, Kindergarten teachers spend 10-20 minutes in teach, 10-25 minutes in guided practice, 10-20 minutes in independent practice. For Reading, 1st grade teachers spend 15-30 minutes in teach, 40-60 minutes in guided practice, 10-20 minutes in independent practice. For LA, 1st grade teachers spend 0-15 minutes in teach, 0-35 minutes in guided practice, 0-10 minutes in independent practice. For Math, 1st grade teachers spend 20-25 minutes in teach, 30-35 minutes in guided practice, 20 minutes in independent practice. For Reading, 2nd grade teachers spend 40-50 minutes in teach, 30-40 minutes in guided practice, 10-45 minutes in independent practice. For LA, 2nd grade teachers spend 0-40 minutes in teach, 0-40 minutes in guided practice, 10-45 minutes in independent practice.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

24

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

For Math, 2nd grade teachers spend 20-50 minutes in teach, 15-40 minutes in guided practice, 10-40 minutes in independent practice. For Reading, 3rd grade teachers spend 30-40 minutes in teach, 25-45 minutes in guided practice, 5-15 minutes in independent practice. For LA, 3rd grade teachers spend 10-30 minutes in teach, 10-40 minutes in guided practice, 5-15 minutes in independent practice. For Math, 3rd grade teachers spend 20-50 minutes in teach, 15-40 minutes in guided practice, 10-40 minutes in independent practice. For Reading, 4th grade teachers spend 25-60 minutes in teach, 20-35 minutes in guided practice, 10-30 minutes in independent practice. For LA, 4th grade teachers spend 15-20 minutes in teach, 10-20 minutes in guided practice, 0-15 minutes in independent practice. For Math, 4th grade teachers spend 20-40 minutes in teach, 10-40 minutes in guided practice, 5-10 minutes in independent practice. For Reading, 5th grade teachers spend 15-30 minutes in teach, 15-30 minutes in guided practice, 10-50 minutes in independent practice. For LA, 5th grade teachers spend 10-30 minutes in teach, 10-50 minutes in guided practice, 5-30 minutes in independent practice. For Math, 5th grade teachers spend 15-20 minutes in teach, 20-30 minutes in guided practice, 10-15 minutes in independent practice.

Pedagogy Q3. What methodologies are used consistently in our building? Answer: Several teaching strategies are used consistently by teachers at Utica. All teachers use visuals and discussion, and the majority of teachers use the Promethean Active Board to integrate technology and to provide a visual representation to model reading strategies and other content areas. Response to literature is used by all grade levels except Kindergarten. The 4-square writing framework is used by most of the primary teachers but seldom used by the intermediate teachers. Data Statements: 23/23 (100%) UES teachers use visuals as a strategy. 23/23 (100%) UES teachers use discussion as a strategy. 21/23 (91%) UES teachers use the Promethean Active Board as a teaching strategy. 21/23 (91%) UES teachers model reading strategies. 18/23 (78%) UES teachers use graphic organizers. 19/19 (100%) UES teachers of grades 1-5 use highlighting.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

25

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

17/19 (89%) UES teachers of grades 1-5 use response to literature. 0/4 (0%) UES Kindergarten teachers use response to literature. 16-19 (84%) UES teachers of grades 1-5 use pair/share. 1/4 (25%) UES Kindergarten teachers use pair/share. 8/11 (73%) UES teachers of K-2 use 4-square writing strategies. 5/12 (42%) UES teachers of grades 3-5 use 4-square writing strategies. Pedagogy Q4. Do we have guidelines for homework that are consistent in each classroom? How do we ensure guidelines are adhered to? Answer: UES does not have consistent time guidelines for homework. UES Staff Handbook states that the primary purpose of homework is to provide a review of the lesson taught in class. Not all teachers utilize a homework folder. Data Statements: 23/23 (100%) UES teachers assign math and reading homework. Kindergarten teachers assign between 10-15 minutes of homework 2-4 times per week. 1st grade teachers assign between 10-45 minutes of homework 4 times per week. 2nd grade teachers assign between 20-30 minutes of homework 4 times per week. 3rd grade teachers assign between 30-45 minutes of homework 4 times per week. 4th grade teachers assign between 30-50 minutes of homework 4 times per week. 5th grade teachers assign between 15-60 minutes of homework 3-4 times per week.

Pedagogy Q5. What strategies are used to ensure student engagement? Answer: Responses from UES teachers indicated that we use a variety of strategies for student engagement. Less than one half of the teachers surveyed responded to this question. Data Statement: 13/23 (57%) UES teachers did not respond to the question. Pedagogy Q6. What strategies are used consistently for classroom management? Answer: Most UES teachers use student planners, weekly newsletters, class website, and the STAR program for classroom management.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

26

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Data Statements: 23/23 (100%) UES teachers participate in the STAR positive behavior program. 19/23 (83%) UES teachers use a weekly newsletter. 17/23 (74%) UES teachers use student planners. 14/23 (61%) UES teachers maintain a website.

Planning Planning Q1. Do students have enough time to learn? Answer: Our attendance has improved since previous years, and our tardies have decreased. Our teacher attendance shows that students are receiving instruction by highly qualified teachers on a consistent basis. Our students receive more time in E/LA and math instruction than recommended by the state. Data Statements: According to attendance reports for years 04/05 to 06/07 our attendance was 96.1-96.5%, according to attendance reports for year 09/10 our attendance has increased to 96.96%. Tardies in 05/06 increased 48% since 04/05 to 2053 tardies that year. Tardies in 06/07 increased 80% since 05/06 to 3695 tardies that year. Tardies in 09/10 decreased 33% since 06/07 to 2473 tardies that year According to teacher attendance reports for year 09/10 our attendance was 91.81% According to the guidelines given to GCCS principals’ for balanced academics, students should receive 300 minutes of math instruction a week. According to the master schedule for school year 10/11: Grade K students receive 300 minutes per week. Grade 1 students receive 375 minutes per week. Grade 2 students receive 400 minutes per week . Grade 3 students receive 350 minutes per week. Grade 4 students receive 450 minutes per week. Grade 5 students receive 250 minutes per week. According to the guidelines given to GCCS principals for balanced academics, students should receive 600 minutes of instruction in English/Language Arts a week. Grade K students receive 600 minutes per week.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

27

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Grade 1 students receive 775 minutes per week. Grade 2 students receive 700 minutes per week. Grade 3 students receive 600 minutes per week. Grade 4 students receive 650 minutes per week. Grade 5 students receive 650 minutes per week. Students at Utica receive between 225 and 275 minutes of social studies and science instruction a week. Planning Q2. Does the school schedule enhance or hinder learning? Time on task? Answer: Utica has a master schedule created by the principal to enhance students learning and increase the amount of time on task. Disruptions to learning are inevitably and can affect the schedule but efforts have been made to limit the number of outside disruptions. Data Statements: According to a teacher survey classroom disruptions are limited to 1-2 times per day According weekly memos of events programs and other school activities are limited 1-3 per month Planning Q 3. How are paraprofessionals & special program staff used to support student learning? Answer: The special needs paraprofessionals are to collaborate with the special needs teacher and classroom teacher to make adaptations and work on the IEP goals of the special needs students to whom they are assigned. A solution has not been reached on when this collaboration should happen, as paraprofessionals are schedule to before and after school duties. A consistent time for training with the special needs/classroom teachers is not available. All paraprofessionals at Utica have passed the ParaPro test that certifies them as “highly qualified” or have 60 college credits. Special area staff is willing to meet with classroom teachers to coordinate lessons to extend and reinforce what the classroom teacher is focusing on. Currently, what students do in their special area classes stands alone from classroom content. Utica currently has support staff that includes one full time literacy interventionist, a part-time highly abled teacher, a part-time certified teacher, and a part-time home school advisor who are used to support student learning. Data Statements: 4/4 (100%) of special education paraprofessionals work directly with students 100% of the student day. 3/3 (100%) of general education paraprofessionals work directly with students 100% of the student day. 2/4 (50%) of special area staff assist with progress monitoring and/or small group reading intervention. 4/4 (100%) of support staff work directly with students and support through planning and collaboration throughout the student day.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

28

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Professional Development Professional Development Q1. What is the relationship of student achievement, state standards, & professional dev? Answer: Since our greatest increase was in English/Language Arts, it appears that the National Writing Project was the professional development that had the most impact on the learning of the students. Our professional development focused on strategies that could be used to teach multiple standards; therefore, there is not a one-to-one correlation between professional development, standards, and achievement. Data Statements : Of the 7 topics for professional development in the most recent school years, 2 were specific to math (Balanced Math and Exemplar Problem Solving) and 1 was specific to language arts strategies (National Writing Project), while the other 4 were more general (Rubicon, Goal Clarity Windows, Curry and Samara, and Professional Learning Communities. 7/12 (58%) intermediate teachers have participated in the National Writing Project. 3/11 (27%) primary teachers have participated in the National Writing Project. Based on ISTEP scores from spring 2009 to spring 2010, the percentage of students mastering math school wide increased 4% (81% to 85%). The largest gain was in fourth grade, with 6% (80% to 86%) more students demonstrating mastery. Based on ISTEP scores from spring 2009 to spring 2010, the percentage of students mastering English Language Arts school wide increased 8% (81% to 89%). The largest gain was in third grade, with 13% (79% to 92%) more students demonstrating mastery. Professional Development Q2. What impact has PD had on classroom practice? How do we know? How do we evaluate impact? Answer: Based on teacher survey results the Balanced Math program has had the most impact on classroom practice. Data Statements: 20% (4/20) of returning teachers did not return their survey. 81% (13/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they frequently used Balanced Math review in their classrooms. 13% (2/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they infrequently used Balanced Math review in their classrooms. 6% (1/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they never used Balanced Math review in their classrooms. 38% (6/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they frequently used Exemplars Problem Solving in their classrooms. 44% (7/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they infrequently used Exemplars Problem Solving in their classrooms. 13% (2/16) of teachers reported on their survey that they never used Exemplars Problem Solving in their

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

29

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

classrooms. 25% (4/16) of teachers reported that they frequently used Curry and Samara and Rubicon-generated tests and lessons in their classrooms. 63% (10/16) of teachers reported that they infrequently used Curry and Samara and Rubicon-generated tests and lessons in their classrooms. 13% (2/16) of teachers reported that they never used Curry and Samara and Rubicon-generated tests and lessons in their classrooms. 13% (2/16) of teachers reported that the Professional Learning Communities professional development had quite a bit of impact in their collaboration with staff. 44% (7/16) of teachers reported that the Professional Learning Communities professional development had some impact in their collaboration with staff. 38% (6/16) of teachers reported that the Professional Learning Communities professional development had very little impact in their collaboration with staff.

Professional Development Q3. What kinds of collaboration exist? How effective is each? Answer: One Period Zero each week is dedicated to grade level collaboration to write their goal clarity windows. Teachers at each grade level now teach the same standards each week in language arts and math. When the results of the assessment at the end of the unit are in, teachers compare scores, assess what worked and what didn’t, and share strategies. This collaboration is more effective because it is regular and focused and teachers can learn from each other. Teachers at each grade level have 45 minutes common planning time each day. Collaboration of special needs and reading teachers with classroom teachers is limited. Data Statements: 100% of teachers participate in grade level Period 0 collaboration. Goal clarity windows posted on Rubicon show grade level collaboration for math and language arts for each standard taught over a 2-week period. According to interviews with special needs and reading teachers, they collaborate with classroom teachers to varying degrees. Their schedules allow limited common planning time to collaborate. 1 special needs teacher and 1 classroom teacher collaborate on a daily basis to co-teach lessons. According to their observations, they see great benefit to the students. Professional Development Q4. Does PD increase cultural competency? Answer: According to the teacher survey the professional development did not significantly increase our cultural competency in the 8 aspects of cultural competency as specified by the Indiana Department of Education. Data Statements: 28% of teachers stated that our professional development had “quite a bit” of impact on their cultural competency. 46% stated that the professional development had some impact. 26% stated that it had very little impact.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

30

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Elementary Summary Sheet for Key Data English/Language Arts (ELA)

Mathematics (Math)

ELA - OVERALL

MATH - OVERALL

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report” Spring 11 Spring 12 Spring 13 Spring 14

Gr ade

72/75 = 96% 3

66/71=93%

80/83=96%

4

82/89=92%

68/70=97%

5

69/85=81%

67/76=88%

Tot al

217/245=89%

215/229=94%

82/85 = 98%

62/64 = 93%

216/224 =96%

85/90=94% 20/90=22%P+ 65/90=72%P 72/75=96% 19/75=25%P+ 53/75=71%P 78/84=93% 36/84=43%P+ 42/84=50%P 235/249= 94% 75/249=30%P+ 160/249=94%

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) From each “Disaggregation Summary Report” Grade

Spring 11

Spring 12

3

66/71=93%

75/83=90%

4

80/89=90%

62/70=89%

5

74/85=87%

73/76=96%

Total

220/245=90 %

210/229=92%

73/75 =97%

74/78=95%

68/71 =95%

ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3 Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

10/12=83%

20/20=100%

21/22 = 95%

Sp Ed

Spring 14

215 /224= 96%

Spring 14 80/90 =89% 39/90=43%P+ 41/90=46%P 71/75=95% 27/75=36%P+ 44/75=59%P 80/84=95% 61/84=72%P+ 19/84=23%P 231/249=93% 127/249=51% 104/249=42%

MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 3

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 13

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14

11/12=92%

18/20=90%

21/22 = 95%

14/16=88% 0/1=0%

9/12=75%

Sp Ed

15/16=94% 1/1=100%

Free/Red

8/9=89%

Black

Asian

1/1=100%

Asian

0/1=0%

Hispanic

2/2=100%

Hispanic

2/2=100%

Multi

4/4=100%

Multi

4/4=100%

71/75=95%

White

Free/Red LEP Black

White

*

54/57=95%

71/74=96%

LEP

ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4 Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

8/8=100%

Sp Ed Free/Red

13/16=81%

*

15/15=100%

LEP Black

Spring 14

*

9/10=90%

*

7/9=78%

*

54/57=95%

67/74=91%

68/75=91%

MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

7/12=58%

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

7/8=88%

Sp Ed

17/19=89% 0/0=100%

Free/Red

5/5=100%

Black

Spring 14

13/16=81%

*

14/15 = 93%

16/19=84% 0/0=100%

*

7/10=70%

*

5/5=100%

LEP

Asian

1/1=100%

Asian

1/1=100%

Hispanic

4/4=100%

Hispanic

4/4=100%

Multi

2/2=100%

Multi

2/2=100%

59/62=95%

White

White

71/76=93%

51/52=98%

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

70/76=92%

48/52=92%

58/62=94%

31

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

ELA - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5

MATH - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 11

Sp Ed

4/12=33%

Free/Red

10/19=53%

Spring 12

Group

Spring 11

1/5=20%

Sp Ed

8/12=67% 13/19=68%

9/12=75%

Free/Red

LEP

LEP

Black Asian Hispanic

5/5=100% 0/0 2/2=100%

Black Asian Hispanic

Multi

3/3=100%

Multi

65/71=92%

White

61/75=81%

11/13 = 85%

Number of students passing/total assessed (%)

Spring 14

1/1=100%

White

12/18=67%

Spring 13

57/66=86%

ELA-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 11

Sp Ed

10/22=45%

Free/Red

33/47=70%

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14 18/25=72%

32/38=84%

47/50=94%

41/47=87%

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14 5/5=100%

16/18=89%

12/13 = 92%

10/12=83% 1/1=100% 4/5=80%

*

0/0 2/2=100% 3/3=100% 65/75=87%

63/66=95%

68/71=96%

MATH-TOTAL SUBGROUPS: All Grades Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

Spring 11

Sp Ed

16/22=73%

Free/Red

37/47=79%

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14 19/25=76%

34/38=89%

40/47=87%

47/50=94%

LEP

2/2=100%

LEP

½=50%

Black

18/19=95%

Black

16/19=84%

Asian

2/2=100%

Asian

½=50%

Hispanic

8/8=100%

Hispanic

8/8=100%

Multi

9/9=100%

Multi

9/9=100%

White

186/208= 89%

179/192= 93%

195/208=94%

White

Science

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”

Spring 12

Spring 13

4

80/89=90%

64/70=91%

N/A

Total

80/89=90%

64/70=91%

Spring 14

Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14

60/66=91%

Grade * 5

67/85=79%

64/76=84%

61/71=86%

70/81=86%

60/66=91%

Total

67/85=79%

64/76=84%

Science - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 4 Spring 11

Spring 12

Spring 13

Spring 14

Sp Ed 11/16=69%

N/A

16/19=84%

Spring 11

Sp Ed

6/12=50%

Free/Red

11/19=58%

11/18=61%

61/75=81%

55/66=83%

LEP

Black

Black

Asian

Asian

Hispanic

Hispanic

Multi

Multi 50/52=96%

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

55/62=89%

70/81/86%

Number of students passing/total assessed (%) Group

LEP

69/76=91%

61/71=86%

Social Studies - KEY SUBGROUPS: Grade 5

Number of students passing/total assessed (%)

White

194/208=93%

SCIENCE - OVERALL Spring 11

Free/Red

178/192=93 %

Social Studies

Grade*

Group

189/208=91 %

White

Spring 12

Spring 13

9/13= 69%

9/12=75%

62/71=87%

32

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

ATTENDANCE – School Average

BEHAVIOR REFERRALS

Number of students passing/total assessed (%)

Yearly ADA

20112012

2012-13

97.6%

97.0%

Number of students passing/total assessed (%)

2013-14

97.4% 98%

Q1

97.6%

Q2

97%

97%

Q3

97.6%

97%

# Referrals Cumulative

# Bus

%Students w/no Referrals

Q1

11

2

98%

Q2

28

4

97%

Q3

40

12

96%

12

94%

Total Avg.

57

Conclusions/Guiding Principles/Strategies Conclusions/Guiding Principles

1) Instruction will be aligned to Indiana College and Career Readiness standards.

Implementation Strategies •

Vocabulary will be explicitly taught and consistent across grade level ISTEP power verbs will be posted and utilized in every classroom. Learning targets will be posted daily in every classroom. Chunking & pacing of standards Frayer Model/Cornell Notes

• *Curry & Sumara *Marzano

• • •

2) Assessment data will be collected and interpreted in a timely manner to support student learning. *Carolyn Coil 3) Students will be active participants in the learning process by utilizing rubrics and exemplars to assess their achievement.

• • • •

Post assessments Varied test formats Report, analyze and interpret data Assessments reflect varying DOK levels

• •

Develop rubrics Teach students how to use a rubric to assess their work to understand the purpose of their learning and to grasp what they need to achieve Use exemplars to demonstrate clear expectations for quality work A relationship exists between the assessment and the rubric

• *Marzano *Persida Himmele (TPT) *Carolyn Coil

• •

4) All teachers have collaborative and

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Focused on assessment data and needs assessment

33

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

cooperative opportunities to extend professional knowledge, exchange challenges/successes and improve instructional delivery on a regular basis.

• •

5) The learning environment will foster an atmosphere of mutual respect among all community members as well as high expectations for both academics and behavior.

• •

Students do the work Corporation and School wide positive behavior plan, PRIDE, is implemented and understood by all students and staff



Decisions are focused on students and student achievement issues Data is monitored, discussed, and celebrated Data wall will be maintained Monitor grade level team meetings Events are scheduled to encourage parent involvement Teachers are empowered to serve as leaders Common planning time is provided for teachers to collaborate, analyze, and problem solve Building leadership team will collaborate to provide feedback to the administration and serve as a conduit for information to increase student achievement



• • • • • 6) Teacher leaders share ideas, support their peers, and are empowered to lead.

• •

• 7) All teachers are good stewards of time and fidelity to schedule. • • • •

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Consistent staff training PD calendar developed with meaningful and relevant topics – 3 times per week Monitoring of GCW, lesson plans, and walkthroughs

Provide extended learning time for students who are not making expected growth Uninterrupted core instruction with a balance of teach, guided practice, and independent practice Schedules are flexible and responsive to need PD is regularly scheduled and job imbedded Staff is utilized to best serve students’ needs

34

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

PL221 Goals from Inquiry ELA GOALS: By Spring 2015 > 96% of students at Grades 3, 4, and 5 will meet State Standards in ELA as measured by ISTEP/ ISTAR. By Spring 2015 > 95% of students at Grade 3 will meet State Standards in Reading as measured by IREAD-3. Benchmarks: o o o o o

On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 89 % of students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 74 % of students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 98% of students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 100% of students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 32% of students will exceed the academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 by scoring a Pass+

Math GOALS: By Spring 2015 > 95% of students at Grades 3, 4, and 5 will meet State Standards in Mathematics as measured by ISTEP/IMAST/ISTAR. Benchmarks: o o o o o

On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 89% of students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 78% of students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 91 % of students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 100% of students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 51% of students will exceed the academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 by scoring a Pass+

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

35

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Behavior/Attendance GOALS: Attendance rate for Utica Elementary for the 2014-2015 school year will be > 97.5% The percent of student with NO BEHAVIOR REFERRALS for the 2014-2015 school year will be > 90%

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

36

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Goal: By Spring 2015 ≥ 95% of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in ELA as measured by ISTEP+. Goals:

By Spring 2014 > 96% of students at Grades 3, 4, and 5 will meet State Standards in ELA as measured by ISTEP/IMAST/ISTAR. By Spring 2014 > 95% of students at Grade 3 will meet State Standards in Reading as measured by IREAD-3.

Benchmarks: On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 89 % of students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 74 % of students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 98% of students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 100% of students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 32% of students will exceed the academic standards in ELA in grades 3-5 by scoring a Pass+

System

Assessment

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation

Evaluation Results/Revisions

Guiding Principle 1- Instruction will be aligned to Indiana College and Career Readiness standards. Guiding Principle 2- Assessment data will be collected and interpreted in a timely manner to support student learning. Guiding Principle 3- Students will be active participants in the learning process by utilizing LARS to assess their achievement. Guiding Principle 4- All teachers have collaborative and cooperative opportunities to extend professional knowledge, exchange challenges/successes and improve instructional delivery on a regular basis. Guiding Principle 5- Students will be expected to Read every day, Write every week, and Publish every quarter in all curriculum areas. Guiding Principle 6- Teacher leaders share ideas, support their peers, and are empowered to lead. Guiding Principle 7- All teachers are good stewards of time and fidelity to schedule. Strategy 1 – Design assessments with multiple formats that reflect teacher expectations for the Learning Pathway. Strategy 2- Conduct post assessments and analyze the data to guide instruction. Strategy 3- Use exemplars to demonstrate clear expectations for quality work. Strategy 4- Teach students how to use a rubric to be active participants in the learning process by setting and monitoring individual goals based on clear expectations.

1. GCW assessments will be monitored every two weeks. 2. Classroom walkthroughs 3. Acuity, ISTEP+, STAR, IREAD, McGraw-Hill Assessments, Corporation Writing Prompts

37

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Curriculum

Strategy 1 - Utilize Indiana College and Career Readiness sequentially and develop appropriate pacing guidelines using GCW. Strategy 2- Display learning targets in student friendly language. Strategy 3- Teach explicit and consistent vocabulary across grade levels vertically and horizontally using Frayer Model, Cornell Notes, Graphic Organizers, and ISTEP power verbs. Strategy 4- Utilize GCCS literacy framework that includes the five components of the reading process plus writer’s workshop. Strategy 5- Integrate writing throughout the curriculum and collect 4 writing samples from a prompt to track student growth. Strategy 6- Integrate technology across the curriculum including 1-1technology instruction to support student needs. 8. Create and utilize learning pathways for each GCW.

1. GCW will be monitored for appropriate pacing 2. Classroom observations and walkthroughs 3. Lesson plans 4. Writing samples and scoring data 5. ISTEP+, Acuity, IREAD, McGraw-Hill Assessments, STAR 6. GCW LARS 7. Easy Tech 8.Chromebooks 3-5 9. My Big Campus 10. Promethean Boards

Culture

Strategy 1- Make decisions that are focused on students and student achievement issues. Strategy 2- Implement school wide behavior plans that are understood by all students and staff. Strategy 3- Monitor, discuss, and celebrate data. Strategy4- Maintain a data wall and schedule meetings to interpret the data. Strategy 5- Schedule grade level team meetings for collaboration and accountability. Strategy 6- Schedule school events to encourage parent and community involvement. Strategy 7- Encourage students to do the work and utilize higher order thinking skills.

1. Teacher websites and parent communication 2. Parent attendance at school events and conferences and school calendar 3. PD calendar 4. Number of discipline referrals 5. Intervention calendar 6. My Big Campus

Strategy 1-Provide IMPACT learning time for students who are not making expected growth- Tier 1= 120 minutes; Tier 2 = 120 min. + 30 min.; Tier 3=120 min. + 30 min. Strategy 2- Create schedules that are flexible and responsive to need, including enrichment and intervention opportunities. Strategy 3- Utilize staff to best serve students’ needs. Strategy 4- Create intervention plans on specific skill deficits to be utilized during IMPACT and Intercession.

1. Intervention schedule (IMPACT) 2. Intervention plans/checklists 3. Acuity, ISTEP+, STAR, IREAD, McGraw-Hill Assessments 4. Data wall/shared progress monitoring spreadsheet and through PIVOT 5. Read 180 plan 6. Intersession 7. Specials teachers as additional interventionists 8. Carbo Lab

Strategy 1- Empower teachers to serve as leaders. Strategy 2- Provide period zero planning time, common planning time and articulation time for teachers to collaborate, analyze, and problem solve. Strategy 3- Utilize the BLT to collaborate with their peers to provide feedback to the administration in order to make informed decisions that support and monitor student achievement. Strategy 4- Define GCW/LARS through classroom walkthroughs.

1. Special area schedules for common planning 2. Meeting record forms- Grade level Team, BLT meetings 3. Professional Development Calendar 4. Articulation minutes 5. Walkthroughs

*Include Technology

*Include cultural competency

Intervention

*Include Tier I, II and III

Planning/Leadership *Include Reading Plan

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

38

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Pedagogy

Strategy 1- Recognize that flexibility is the hallmark of a differentiated classroom. Strategy 2- Provide rigorous core instruction in the balance of teach, guided practice, and independent practice of at least 120 minutes daily in ELA. Strategy 3- Differentiate instruction based on specific strengths and challenges. Strategy 4- Adjust content, process, and product in response to student readiness, interests, and learning profile. Strategy 5- Maximize individual growth and success through teacher and student collaboration. Strategy 6- Incorporate meaningful and relevant instruction within the gradual release model.

1. Lesson plans 2. GCW LARS 3. Classroom walkthroughs 4. Classroom schedules 5. ISTEP+, Acuity, STAR, IREAD 6. TPT 7. McGraw-Hill Leveled Materials and Assessments

Professional Development

Strategy 1 - Develop PD calendar with meaningful and relevant topics: 5 components of reading, writing proficiencies, prompt writing, reading/writing in content areas, Gradual Release Model, IMPACT and intervention strategies, and TPT. Strategy 2- Consistent and collaborative staff training during period zero. Strategy 3- Define GCW LAR’s, lesson plans, and instructional implementation through classroom walkthroughs, administration feedback, and self-reflection.

1. Professional Development Calendar 2. GCW LARS 3. MRF 4. PD sign-up sheets and exit slips

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

39

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Goal: By Spring 2015 ≥ 95% of students in grades 3-5 will meet State Standard in Math as measured by ISTEP+. Benchmarks: On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 89% of students in the Free and Reduce subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 78% of students in the Special Ed. subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 91 % of students in the Black and Multiracial subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 100% of students in the Hispanic subgroup will meet academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 On Spring 2015 ISTEP+ > 51% of students will exceed the academic standards in Math in grades 3-5 by scoring a Pass+

System

Assessment

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation

Evaluation Results/Revisions

Guiding Principle 1- Instruction will be aligned to state and common core standards. Guiding Principle 2- Assessment data will be collected and interpreted in a timely manner to support student learning. Guiding Principle 3- Students will be active participants in the learning process by utilizing rubrics and exemplars to assess their achievement. Guiding Principle 4- All teachers have collaborative and cooperative opportunities to extend professional knowledge, exchange challenges/successes and improve instructional delivery on a regular basis. Guiding Principle 5- The learning environment will foster an atmosphere of mutual respect among all community members as well as high expectations for both academics and behavior. Guiding Principle 6- Teacher leaders share ideas, support their peers, and are empowered to lead. Guiding Principle 7- All teachers are good stewards of time and fidelity to schedule. Strategy 1 – Design assessments with multiple formats that reflect teacher expectations for the rubric. Strategy 2- Conduct post assessments and analyze the data to guide instruction. Strategy 3- Use exemplars to demonstrate clear expectations for quality work. Strategy 4- Teach students how to use a rubric to be active participants in the learning process by setting and monitoring individual goals based on clear expectations. Strategy 5- Use Balanced Math spiral review to assess and monitor learning.

1. GCW LAR assessments will be monitored every two to three weeks. 2. Classroom walkthroughs 3. Acuity, ISTEP+, STAR, Houghton-Mifflin Assessments 4. Balanced math review every two weeks 5. Poster Math and PIVOT

40

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Curriculum

Strategy 1 - Align state and common core standards sequentially utilizing appropriate pacing guidelines. Strategy 2- Display learning targets in student friendly language. Strategy 3- Teach explicit and consistent vocabulary and questioning strategies across grade levels vertically and horizontally using the Frayer Model and graphic organizers. Strategy 4- Incorporate ISTEP+ power verbs in daily instruction as appropriate. Strategy 5- Integrate 1-1 technology instruction across the curriculum to support student needs. Strategy 6- Use Balanced Math Framework of Computational Skills (math review & mental math), Problem Solving, Cornell Notes, Conceptual Understanding, Mastery of Math Facts, and Common Formative Assessment for daily instruction.

1. GCW LAR will be monitored for appropriate pacing 2. Classroom observations and walkthroughs 3. Lesson plans 4. Balanced Math Framework lessons, student work samples 5. ISTEP+, STAR, McGraw-Hill Assessments 6. TPT

Culture

Strategy 1- Make decisions that are focused on students and student achievement issues. Strategy 2- Implement school wide behavior plans that are understood by all students and staff. Strategy 3- Monitor, discuss, and celebrate data. Strategy 4- Maintain data wall and schedule meetings to interpret the data. Strategy 5- Schedule grade level team meetings for collaboration and accountability. Strategy 6- Schedule school events to encourage parent and community involvement. Strategy 7- Encourage students to do the work and utilize higher order thinking skills.

1. My Big Campus for parent/teacher communication 2. Parent attendance at school events and conferences and school calendar 3. PD calendar 4. Number of discipline referrals 5. Intervention calendar 6. Classroom walkthroughs 7. Survey 8. Power School 9. District articulation

Intervention

Strategy 1- Provide additional support for students who are not making expected growth, including enrichment and intervention opportunities. Strategy 2- Create schedules that are flexible and responsive to need. Strategy 3- Utilize staff to best serve students’ needs. Strategy 4- Create intervention/IMPACT plans on specific skill deficits.

1. Intervention schedule/IMPACT 2. Intervention plans/checklists 3. Acuity, ISTEP+, STAR 4. Data Wall/PIVOT

Planning/Leadership

Strategy 1- Empower teachers to serve as leaders. Strategy 2- Provide common planning time for teachers to collaborate, analyze, and problem solve. Strategy 3- Utilize the BLT to collaborate with their peers to provide feedback to the administration in order to make informed decisions that support student achievement.

1. Special area schedules for common planning 2. Meeting record forms- Grade level Team, BLT meetings 3. Professional Development Calendar

*Include Technology

*Include cultural competency

*Include Tier I, II and III

*Include Reading Plan

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

41

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Pedagogy

Strategy 1- Recognize that flexibility is the hallmark of a differentiated classroom. Strategy 2- Provide core instruction in the balance of teach, guided practice, and independent practice of at least 60 minutes daily in Math. Strategy 3- Differentiate instruction based on students’ specific strengths and challenges. Strategy 4- Adjust content, process, and product in response to student readiness, interests, and learning profile. Strategy 5- Maximize individual growth and success through teacher and student collaboration.

1. Lesson plans 2. GCW LARS 3. Classroom walkthroughs 4. Classroom schedules 5. ISTEP+, Acuity, STAR, Houghton-Mifflin and Assessments 6. TPT

Professional Development

Strategy 1 - Develop PD calendar with meaningful and relevant topics: 5 components of Balanced Math Framework- Computational Skills (math review & mental math), Problem Solving, Conceptual Understanding, Mastery of Math Facts, and Common Formative Assessment. Strategy 2- Consistent staff training. Strategy 3- Define GCW LPAR’s, lesson plans, and instructional implementation through classroom walkthroughs, administration input, and self-reflection.

1. Professional Development Calendar 2. GCW LARS 3. MRF 4. PD sign-up sheets and exit slips

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

42

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Behavior/Attendance GOALS: Attendance rate for Utica Elementary for the 2014-2015school year will be > 97.5% The percent of student with NO BEHAVIOR REFERRALS for the 2014-2015 school year will be > 90% System

Guiding Principle Strategy/Activity/Implementation

Evaluation Results/Revisions

Guiding Principle 1- The climate and culture of the school shapes the attitude of the students and staff. Guiding Principle 2- Assessment data will be collected and interpreted in a timely manner to support a positive school culture. Guiding Principle 3- The learning environment will foster an atmosphere of mutual respect among all community members as well as high expectations for both academics and behavior. Guiding Principle 4- Relationships with students are important for understanding who they are, how they learn, their challenges and obstacles, and goals. Assessment

Strategy 1 – Office discipline referral data will be measured through Power School referral program and SWIS. Strategy 2- Discipline data will be used to maintain our data dashboard. Strategy 3- Quarterly behavior data meetings will be held to analyze current discipline need.

Quarterly Power School/SWIS reports will be run to monitor attendance and behavior reports.

Curriculum

Strategy 1- Introduce and display Character Words throughout the building in student friendly language. Strategy 2 – Bully prevention lessons will be taught by the Special Area Teachers throughout the year using resources provided through the Indiana Department of Education and OLWEUS program. Strategy 3 – Weekly assemblies will be held to highlight Character Words and positive behavior. Strategy 4 – Teachers will incorporate monthly character words into daily lessons.

OLWEUS Material GCCS Bully Documentation Paperwork Quarterly Power School/SWIS reports will be run to monitor attendance and behavior reports. PD Calendar

*Include Technology

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

43

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Culture

*Include cultural competency

Intervention

*Include Tier I, II and III

Planning/Leadership *Include Reading Plan

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Strategy 1- Make decisions that are focused on students and student achievement issues. Strategy 2- Implement school wide behavior plans that are understood by all students and staff. Strategy 3- Monitor, discuss, and celebrate data. Strategy4- Specials Areas teachers will teach classroom lessons periodically throughout the school year that focus on bullying prevention. Strategy 5- Schedule grade level team meetings for collaboration and accountability. Strategy 6- Schedule school events to encourage parent and community involvement. Strategy 7- Teachers will utilize IMPACT enrichment and intervention times to support the individual needs of students.

1. Teacher websites and parent communication 2. Parent attendance at school events and conferences and school calendar 3. PD calendar 4. Number of discipline referrals 5. Intervention calendar 6. My Big Campus reports

Tier I Strategy –Weekly character words will be highlighted during Friday Assembly. Strategy – Teachers and other staff will utilize PRIDE Program to recognize appropriate behavior and students will be provided incentive opportunities in which to celebrate their accomplishments. Tier II Strategy – Check in and check out system will be used with students daily to address social, academic, and behavioral concerns. Strategy – Parent notification will be required for any students moving to Tier II behavior intervention. Tier III Strategy – Students meeting the established behavior criteria for Tier III intervention will utilize an individualized check in and check out program. Strategy - Tier III behavior students will be assigned a buddy teacher/cool down safe place. Strategy – Tier III behavior students will require regular parent/team meetings to discuss plans and progress in addition to the initial placement meeting.

1. Teacher websites and parent communication 2. Parent attendance at school events and conferences and school calendar 3. PD calendar 4. Number of discipline referrals 5. Intervention calendar 6. My Big Campus reports

Strategy 1- Empower teachers to serve as leaders. Strategy 2- Provide period zero planning time, common planning time and articulation time for teachers to collaborate, analyze, and problem solve. Strategy 3- Utilize the BLT to collaborate with their peers to provide feedback to the administration in order to make informed decisions that support and monitor student achievement. Strategy 4- Data will be reviewed quarterly with BLT to determine continued intervention needs and teacher professional development needs.

1. Special area schedules for common planning 2. Meeting record forms- Grade level Team, BLT meetings 3. Professional Development Calendar 4. Articulation minutes 5. Walkthroughs

44

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Pedagogy

Strategy 1- Recognize that flexibility is the hallmark of a differentiated classroom. Strategy 2- Weekly character words will be highlighted during Friday Assembly. Strategy 3 – Teachers and other staff will utilize PRIDE Program to recognize appropriate behavior and students will be provided incentive opportunities in which to celebrate their accomplishments. Strategy 4- Teachers will model common procedures and behavior expectations; students will practice the expectation daily.

1. Teacher websites and parent communication 2. Parent attendance at school events and conferences and school calendar 3. PD calendar 4. Number of discipline referrals 5. Intervention calendar 6. My Big Campus reports

Professional Development

Strategy 1 - Develop PD calendar with meaningful and relevant topics Strategy 2- Monthly staff training during period zero – will focus on PRIDE, Classroom Management strategies, supervision, bully prevention, and Positive Behavior Supports.

1. Professional Development Calendar 2. PBIS Plan 3. PD sign-up sheets and exit slips

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

45

Utica Elementary (0805) – 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 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

BLT Grade Level Data Teams

Lesson Plans Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders

August 11-15, 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

August 18-22, 2014

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

August 25-29, 2014

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams

Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders

September 1-5, 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

July 28-August 1, 2014

August 4-8, 2014

NO SCHOOL, Sept. 1

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

District District Principal

46

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

September 8-12, 2014

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

September 15-19, 2014

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

September 22-26, 2014

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

September 29October 3, 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

October 20-24, 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

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

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Three: College and Career Readiness (PBIS & Digital Citizenship) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis November 3-7, Quarterly Focus: Mastery 2014 Week Four: Pedagogy Teacher only Nov. (Relevance, Gradual Release and 4 Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis October 27-31, 2014

November 10-14, 2014

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

47

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

November 17-21, 2014

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

November 24-28, 2014

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

NO SCHOOL, Nov. 26-28

December 1-5, 2014

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

December 8-12, 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

December 15-19, 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

January 5-9, 2015

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

January 12-16, 2015

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams

Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders

January 19-23, 2015

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

NO SCHOOL , Jan. 19

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

48

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

January 26-30, 2015

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Two: Balanced Math GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

February 2-6, 2015

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

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

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

February 23-27, 2015

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

March 2-6, 2015

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

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

February 9-13, 2015

February 16-20, 2015

NO SCHOOL or snow make up– Feb. 16

March 9-13, 2015

March 16-20, 2015

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week One: Literacy GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

49

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

April 6-10, 2015

April 13-17, 2015

April 20-24, 2015

April 27- May 1, 2015

NO SCHOOL or snow make up– May 1 May 4-8, 2015

May 11-15, 2015

May 18-22, 2015

NO SCHOOL or snow make up– May 22

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

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

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

Quarterly Focus: Mastery Week Four: Pedagogy (Relevance, Gradual Release and Grading) GCW Development GCW/Data Analysis

BLT Principal/AIC Grade Level Data Teams

Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through Lesson Plans/Walk Through MRF/Data Binders

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

50

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

May 25-29, 2015

NO SCHOOL– May 25

June 1-5, 2015 Last student dayJune 3 Last Teacher dayJune 4

Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices EOY

Quarterly Focus: Grading Practices EOY

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

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

51

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Bibliography Abati, G. Creating Positive and Productive Schools. (3rd ed.). Louisville, KY: Yale Publishing House. Ainsworth, L. & Christinson, J. Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program for Upper Elementary Grades. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press. Archer, A.L. & Hughes, C.A. Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York: The Guilford Press. Arter, J., Chappuis, J., Chappuis, S., & Stiggins. Assessment for Learning: An Action Guide for School Leaders. (2nd Ed.). Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute. Coil, Carolyn, Solving the Assessment Puzzle. Marion, IL: Pieces of Learning. Conley, D.T. (2011). Building on the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 68, 16-20. Donohue, L. Independent Reading: Inside the Box. Ontario, Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited. Eaker, R., DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Many, T. Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual Growth for All Students, Catch-Up Growth for Those Who Are Behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundations Press, Inc. Himmele, Persida, Himmele, William, Total Participation Techniques. ASCD. Marzano, R.J. The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive framework for Effective Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R.J. & Pickering, D.J. The Highly Engaged Classroom. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. McGregor, Tammy.(2007) Comprehension Connections..Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. McTighe, J. & Tomlinson, C.A. Integrating Differentiated Instruction: Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reeves, Doug, Christianson,J., Wiggs, Maryann D. Navigating the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards. Lead & Learn Press. Reeves, Doug, Christianson,J., Wiggs, Maryann D. Navigating the Mathematics Common Core State Standards. Lead & Learn Press. Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

52

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Reeves, Doug, Christianson,J., Wiggs, Maryann D. Navigating Assessment & Collaboration With the Common Core State Standards. Lead & Learn Press. Reeves, Doug, Christianson,J., Wiggs, Maryann D.(2012) Navigating Implementaion of the Common Core State Standards. Lead & Learn Press.

Reeves, Doug, Christianson,J., Wiggs, Maryann D. Leading through Quality Questioning; Common Core Standards for ELA/Math. Lead & Learn Press

Stiggins, R. (2005). From Formative Assessment to Assessment for Learning: A Path to Success in Standards-Based Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324-328. Tomlinson, C.A. How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C.A. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

53

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

APPENDIX

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

54

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Kindergarten 60 Minute Math Block Time Frame 10-15 Minutes

10-15 Minutes

15-20 Minutes

5-10 Minutes

Lesson/Activity/Plan Daily Balanced Math Review • Completed whole group with guided practice and discussions about problems solved • Independent assessment-given at minimum biweekly Focus Lesson-(I do and We do) • Based on current goal clarity • Teacher led and guided whole group instruction/practice Practice-(We do and You do) • Small group and partner practice of standards taught • Independent practice of skills taught • If no RTI (response to intervention) time is provided outside the 60 minute math block, pull small groups to support during this time Lesson Wrap-Up • Whole group discussion with questions and answers about lesson

***Problem Solving-Problem solving should be included 1 day per week into your math schedule ***Notes on Calendar- Calendar time is not included in your 60 minute math block. It can be done in a morning meeting time or other times available throughout the morning. Calendar should be a quick focus on days of the week, months, yesterday, today, and tomorrow and upcoming events for students. Math lessons with counting and numbers should not be taught using the actual calendar as it is not set up in a base ten fashion. Included in the calendar time should be, daily counting to by ones and tens to 100 using a hundreds chart. Number recognition can also be practiced during this time using the hundreds chart.

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

55

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

2014-2015 Math Block Framework Components

Total Time: 80 minutes

Math Review & Mental Math

15-20 Minutes

Instructional Unit (GCW)

35-40 Minutes

Lesson Summary/Reflection

5-10 Minutes

Math Intervention

20 Minutes

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

Ideas/Daily Specifics Friday- Assessment Day (every other Friday) • First ½ of the time students are working and teacher is monitoring • Second ½ of the time the class is processing together through various methods (see Bal. Math) • About 3-5 minutes on mental math (can be done at other times of the day, such as transitions) Thursday- Problem Solving Day Friday- Assessment Day (every other Friday) • First 10-15 minutes is a hook/teaching moment • Differentiate instruction to meet individual needs by using guided practice, small groups, peer tutors, workstations, etc. • Math Journal Quick Writes • Discussion • Understanding Check: -thumps up, thumps down, etc. -think, pair, share • Math Chair or “Hot Seat”: -“Student” Teacher -Pass the Pen -Could use sample math journal prompts for students to respond to -Read math journal • Reread standard, ask kids if they met the standard. (WALT) • Small group extended math intervention or enrichment

56

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Appendix

READING PLAN GRR Model for Strategy Instruction ⇔

Teacher Regulated

Student Regulated

Reading Aloud

Shared Reading

Guided Reading

Independent Reading

• Teacher reads aloud, stopping periodically to model the strategy through a think-aloud • Teacher gives explanation of the strategy • The teacher demonstrates with a brief modeling of how the strategy is used to understand the text

• Teacher and students practice the strategy together with the teacher reading and students helping to think through the text • The teacher purposely guides large-group discussion • The teacher scaffolds the students attempts to use the strategy and provides support and feedback

• The teacher provides support as the students read in small groups

• Students apply their knowledge and strategies while reading alone or with partners • Students use strategies on their own and with partners • Students and the teacher provide feedback • Students apply strategy across genres, settings and contexts

• I do, you watch.

• I do, you help

• The teacher guides students use of the strategy providing support as needed • Students share how the strategy helped them while reading • The teacher assesses and responds to students needs (see Characteristics of Text Levels for observable behaviors) • You do, I help

• Teacher choice

• Teacher choice

• You do, I watch

Text Selection • Managed choice, matched to • Student choice students needs Source: Creating Lifelong Readers Through Independent Reading, Moss and Young, IRA Publications, 2010, pp. 94 (Table 13)

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

57

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Literacy Framework --- How We Teach Strategies and Skills Using a Gradual Release Model Reading is comprehension. We must have a context for understanding the importance of foundations skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, but the critical importance of focusing on vocabulary and comprehension. Guiding Principles: 1. Independent Reading/ Read to Yourself: The best way to become a better reader is to practice each day, with books you choose, on your independent level. It soon becomes a habit. 2. Partner Read/ Read to Someone: Reading to someone allows for more time to practice strategies, helping you work on fluency and expression, check for understanding, hear your own voice, and share in the learning community. 3. Work on writing/ Response to Reading: Just like reading, the best way to become a better writer is to practice writing each day. 4. Listen to Reading: We hear examples of good literature and fluent reading. We learn more words, thus expanding our vocabulary and becoming better readers. Focus Lesson --- Establishing Purpose and Modeling/ Demonstration Phase --- Teacher has 100% responsibility -- “I do it” 1. Instruction begins with the teacher. Inductively or explicitly the teacher instructs students on the strategy, skill, or procedure. The responsibility belongs to the teacher. 2. Establish a purpose and model teacher’s own thinking (i.e., think-aloud to solve problems, understand directions or in the case of literacy, comprehend text using a strategy or skill) 3. Teacher carries the responsibility for “knowing” 4. Teacher models the procedure, skill, strategy or standard using a read aloud (modeling the procedure, strategy, skill or standard in grade-level or above level text) 5. Components of the gradual release model can be used during this phase. Teacher does the modeling to emphasize cognition & meta-cognition: a. Teacher names the strategy, skill, procedure or standard. (what the strategy is) b. Teacher states the purpose of the strategy, skill, procedure, or standard. (why is it important) c. Teacher explains when the procedure, strategy, skill or standard is used (explicitly describe the strategy and when/ how it should be used) d. Teacher uses analogies to link prior knowledge to new learning. (provide examples) e. Teacher demonstrates how the procedure, skill, strategy, or standard is completed 1) Teacher thinks aloud to model the mental processes she/ he uses when she/ he reads; model the strategy in action 2) Teacher demonstrates how to apply the strategy successfully; 3) Then involves students collaboratively using the strategy; students share their thinking processes with each other (Think-Pair-Share; EEKK) during large-group discussions; teacher checks understanding based on students’ oral response 4) Link/ reinforce demonstration to skill or strategy chart (if appropriate)

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

58

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Guided Instruction/ Practice --- Collaborative Learning --- Instruction, Practice and Application 1. At this point, students “practice” the strategy or skill. Depending on where students ability to successfully complete the task, students may practice individually, in small groups, or with a partner. Guided practice reinforces the learning from Guided Instruction. 2. Students consolidate their thinking and understanding 3. Negotiate with peers 4. Discuss ideas and information 5. Engage in inquiry with other students allowing them to use what they learned during focus lessons and guided instruction 6. It is not the time to introduce new information to students, but rather a time for students to apply information in novel situations or to engage in a spiral review of previous knowledge Opportunities for Guided Practice and Collaborative Learning Guided Instruction/ Practice --Partner Reading – Read Listen to Reading/ Comprehension Review Word Work “You do it, I help” --- Teacher/ student “You do it” to Someone Repeated Reading Practice and Application “You do it” “You do it” “You do it” Cues, Questions, and Scaffolding 1. Students reading w/ a 1. Good readers are strategic readers and Word work has several foci: 1. Monitoring for students use 1. building grade-appropriate sight partner 1. Fluency teachers must explore and provide guided of and application of the 2. Students share their 2. Accuracy instruction based on a research-anchored vocabulary strategies I am teaching in thinking processes with 3. Expression framework for the strategies that good 2. decoding/ word recognition skills guided reading lesson as each other during paired 4. Student(s) use Ireaders use; making connections between 3. structural analysis skills well as review/ reinforce reading. chart for Listen to those research-based strategies and the 4. vocabulary connections learned strategies. 3. Partner Reading with Reading expectations in CCSS ELA Reading 2. Monitoring how students strategy chart Literature and Informational Text. Develop a framework for Word Work are internalizing strategies 4. Check for 2. Modeling and guided practice during at each grade level Poetry/ Readers used by independent understanding Guided Instruction is a core instructional 1. discuss day-to-day organizational Theater “You do it” readers (what good readers 5. Students use I-chart for practice for teaching strategies pragmatics of conducting Word do when they read partner reading/ reading 3. Teacher carefully takes small groups Work instruction 1. Fluency independently to someone through the new learning or reinforces 2. make grade level connections to 2. Accuracy 3. Application of the Strategy learning of strategy or skill. Initially, the CCSS ELA Reading Foundational in leveled text 3. Expression teacher may model as the students practice Skills and Language (instructional or 4. Word Work (e.g., with the teacher observing and supporting. 3. Word Work needs to match challenging/ approaching Rimes and making There is “guided practice” during guided students’ instructional level level) words with onsets; instruction when students may practice 4. Students apply a clearly sorting the words individually, in small groups, or with a understood strategy to a into Nonsense and partner as the teacher observes and aids in supported genre or format Real Words I Can the practice. Guided practice during Use When Writing) 5. Students demonstrate the guided instruction is the “joint” effective use of a strategy 5. Student(s) use Iresponsibility of both the teacher and in more difficult text. chart student. Teacher guidance is still needed. 6. Students use graphic 4. Effective strategy instruction is about (change Poetry/ rotate organizers and/or advanced developing readers who actively and genre and use Joke organizers to summarize independently monitor and regulate their Books - good for their understanding of the own comprehension. 5. Teacher focuses guided instruction on the inferring and text Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

59

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

specific strategy, skill or procedure: a. Provides guided practice using the strategy. Gradually release responsibility for task completion b. Teacher and students practice the strategy together in small groups c. The teacher scaffolds the students’ attempts and supports student thinking, giving feedback during small group discussions 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

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

figurative language) Demonstrate how to have students monitor fluency and accuracy rates (take responsibility for learning and improving; setting/ meeting “ambitious” goals)

7. Embedded classroom assessment --- Assessment on the fly --- a check to see how well students are able to apply the skill or strategy from the lesson; guides re-teaching/ instruction for small group 8. Model the role of using checklists and rubrics; providing students with guidelines and expectations followed by interactive discussions and feedback. Examine how rubrics and checklists look K-5. Relate to the IN ISTEP+ rubric for constructed and extended response as well as strategy rubrics, such as those found in Independent Reader. 9. Students work w/ partners; small groups; independently 10. Use I-charts for Comprehension Review 11. Use a variety of response options based on GI questions/ cues (HoTs) to monitor their use of strategy and engagement with text (these same questions could be used during conferencing):

60

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

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 expectations. Independent Use and Application --- “You do it, I watch/ observe/ assess/ check for understanding” Teacher progress Formative-assessment Process; measurable behavior and Application of the Strategy in Real Reading Situations monitoring, 1. At this point, students can successfully use the procedure, strategy, skill or characteristics 1. Focus on key aspects of the Focus Lesson and the read-aloud; observation/ standard. The teacher’s role is to observe and assess. interactive discussions; reading practice for fluency, students’ selfconference (3+ min. 2. Encourage independent use of the procedure, strategy, skill or standard selecting in their zone; and understanding the critical role of 3. Self-selected reading conferences) conferencing. 4. Independent and (approaching) challenging levels of text 2. Progress monitoring 5. Provide individual skill or strategy chart for support during independent ⇒⇒⇒⇒ 3. ISTEP+ like assessment(s) focused on learning targets at grade level; reading; use I-charts for Read to Self/ Independent Sustained Reading Goal Clarity assessment at grade level 6. Variety of genre 4. Organization of the classroom library needs to support SSR 7. After working with the teacher in small guided instruction groups, the 5. Teacher spot checks well-anchored strategy use during independent students try to apply the strategy on their own; independent use of the reading strategy. 6. Students receive regular feedback from the teacher --- Conferencing 8. Independent tasks should require individual application of information about the skill or strategy with supporting evidence during previously taught and practiced independent reading 9. Provide opportunities to use their knowledge to produce new products (i.e., 7. Teacher uses key question(s) across the lesson (whole group; small apply strategies reading new text; applying strategies using new prompt; group; now one-on-one/ individual support) apply strategies using new problem/ task; apply strategies then ask students 8. Scaffold strategy questions used during conferences to support depth to self-assess/ reflect based on rubric --- am I getting closer to the expected of knowledge level of knowledge and skill) 9. Quick checks (records) that use rosters and key criteria (based on strategy and key indicators, such as, answered question asked; used information from text; responded using complete thoughts, ideas and higher order thinking). 10. Process for formally analyzing data guides small group instruction, collaboration discussions and identification of Goal Clarity Window for improvement Wrap-up --- Whole group Essential Question(s) --- Revisit the strategy chart. 1. What have we learned about … 2. Let’s reread the chart. 3. What can we add to the chart to capture what we learned today?

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

61

Utica Elementary (0805) – Greater Clark County Schools

Optimal Learning Model –Teach, Guided practice, Independent Practice

Dependence- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Independence - - - - - - - - - > Demonstration Teacher

• • • • •

Initiates Models Explains Thinks aloud Shows ho to “do it”

With Learners

Shared Demonstration • • • • • • • •

Student • • •

Listens Observes May participate on a limited basis

Student

• • • • • •

Instructional context • • •

Reading aloud / writing aloud Shared read aloud Direct explanation

Demonstration Leads Negotiates Suggests Supports Explains Responds Acknowledges Listens Interacts Collaborates Responds Approximates Participates as best he can

Shared reading/writing Interactive reading Shared read aloud

Independent Practice

Student

• • • • • •

Applies learning Takes charge Practices Problem solves Approximates Self-corrects

Student

• • • • • •

Teacher • • • • • • •

Instructional context • • •

By Learners

Guided Practice

Teacher

Handover of Responsibility

To Learners

Teacher

Scaffolds Validates Teaches as necessary Evaluates Observes Encourages Clarifies

• • • • • •

Guided (silent) reading Reciprocal teaching Literature conversations Partner reading Guided writing experiences



Instructional context • • • • •

Initiates Self-monitors Applies learning Problem solves Confirms Self-evaluates

Affirms Assists as needed Responds Acknowledges Evaluates Sets goals

Instructional context • • •

Independent reading/writing Informal conferences Partner reading Homework & assignments

Key Definitions: • •

Demonstration – teacher or “expert” shows precisely ‘how to do it’ by initiating, modeling, explaining, thinking aloud; includes use of strategies, working through confusions, rereading, monitoring, and correcting Reciprocal teaching – interactive, teacher leads students through a text to understand it; includes four strategies (generating a question, clarifying, predicting, and summarizing)

Title I/ PL221/ SWP 2012

62

Utica PL221 2014-15.pdf

Page 3 of 62. Utica PL221 2014-15.pdf. Utica PL221 2014-15.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying Utica PL221 2014-15.pdf. Page 1 of ...

642KB Sizes 1 Downloads 17 Views

Recommend Documents

Lancaster PL221 2014-2015.pdf
Free/Reduced Lunch Program Participation. ... 1-3, 1-4, Appendix E. Ensuring Cultural Competency*. .... Displaying Lancaster PL221 2014-2015.pdf. Page 1 of 88.

Spring Hill PL221 Summary A.pdf
There was a problem loading more pages. Spring Hill PL221 Summary A.pdf. Spring Hill PL221 Summary A.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu.

Ohio Utica Shale Region Monitor - Maxine Goodman Levin College of ...
Mar 1, 2013 - Ohio Utica Shale Region Monitor: March 2013 .... Ohio Department of Taxation, http://www.tax.ohio.gov/government/distributions_sales_.aspx.

Jonathan Jennings PL221 2014-2015 final.pdf
Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Jonathan Jennings PL221 2014-2015 final.pdf. Jonathan Jennings PL221 2014-2015 final.pdf. Open. Extract.

Thomas Jefferson PL221 Plan 2014-15.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Thomas Jefferson PL221 Plan 2014-15.pdf. Thomas Jefferson PL221 Plan 2014-15.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with.

Utica NY Observer 1977 - 1644.pdf
mechanic, yearly pav. $7769. gross pay. $231 36; Raymond F. Coyne, senior. auto mechanic, 9,805, 772 36T Anthony S. Gentile, police chauffeur, 8750.

Northaven PL221 2014-15 FINAL-2.pdf
... review, and adapt a. standards based sequence using power standards, develop pacing guides (Heidi Hayes-Jacobs) and. performance assessment process.

Maple PL221 2014-15 updated 8-24-14.pdf
Timeline Page 43 ... its southern border is the Ohio River and across the river is Louisville, Kentucky. The .... Maple PL221 2014-15 updated 8-24-14.pdf.