lakeland hills elementary school 2014-17 sip plan...lakeland hills elementary school 2014-17 sip...

Lakeland Hills Elementary School2014-17 SIP Plan

Mission: We, the Lakeland Hills Staff, empower our community of learners

for lifelong success.Vision: We will provide a safe,

secure and academically rigorous environment for our diverse learners.

Process for our SIP

Teacher leaders gathered data from OSPI Reviewed All Data SMART goals Plan written Review SIP Year 2 of a 3 year plan Fully revised SIP next year From MSP (Measuring Student Progress) to

SBA (Smarter Balanced Assessment)

Demographic Data

2006-2007 2014-2015

Total Enrollment

587 671

American Indian

.7% 1%

Asian/Pac Is. 18.1% 11%

Black 9.7% 4%

Hispanic 12.3% 20%

White 59.3% 53%

Free/Reduced 26.4% 24.1%

ELL 13% 12.6%

SpEd 7.1% 7.3%

3rd Grade Reading/ELA 3rd Grade Math

4th Grade Reading/ELA 4th Grade Math

5th Grade Reading/ELA 5th Grade Math

AMO/AYP

YEAR Reading Target

Reading Proficiency

MathTarget

Math Proficiency

2011-12 AMO

89.2 89.2 On/Above

82.1 84.7 On/Above

2012-13AMO

90.2 88.8 Below 83.7 87.5 On/Above

2013-14AYP

100% 3rd: 96.24th: 94.95th: 96.2

No 100% 3rd: 94.34th: 90.15th: 95.5

No

2014-15AYP

100% 3rd: 88.54th: 80.65th: 87.0

No 100% 3rd: 87.64th: 88.45th: 85.5

No

SIP Goal Progress Math

SMART Goal 1: Math: The percentage of all Grades 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBA math assessment will increase from 87.5% to 91% for grades 3-5 in 2017.

Subgroup’s performance

2014-15 Progress SBA

SIP Goal Progress ELA

SMART Goal 2: The percentage of all Gr 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBA ELA assessment will increase from 88.8% to 94% in 2017.

Subgroup performance

2014-15 Progress SBA

Needs Assessment

Demographics

LLH/District/State scores

MAPs data and state assessment results

ELL students

CEE Data

Action Plan addressing Reading and Math

• Creation of data sheets to analyze data and make informed decisions about student progress

Action Plans Addressing Reading and Math, cont.

Ability grouping in reading and math

After school intervention groups

Before school program planned for select kindergarten ELLs

Orientations for Spanish-speaking parents implemented in Grades K and 5, more planned for this year.

Intervention and Enrichment

After school intervention in grades 3-5

Walk to Read

Walk to Math

Before school program planned for select kindergarten ELLs

Professional Development

GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design )

SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol)

Balanced Math VEPS Problem Solving Method CLOSE Listening and Reading Writing Performance Tasks in ELA Item Writing Best Practices Common Instructional Language

(Jingles, Hand Gestures) (Demonstrate one)

Technology Training Using Structures to Support Team

Development

Instructional Technology

What’s Next on Our Journey?

DART

Goal meetings

Schedule alignment

Interpreters at Conferences and parent nights

Building Relationships

ELL training

SIP Template

1 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Planning Year 2013-2014

Implementation September 2014-June 2017

LAKELAND HILLS ELEMENTARY

School Improvement Plan

School Improvement Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on insert school board

approval date here.

SIP Template

2 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

September 2013-June 2016

Auburn School District Strategic Plan

Aspiration:

The Auburn School District aspires to be a world-class education system preparing all students to

be globally competitive for career, for college, and for life in the twenty-first century.

District Goal 1: Student Achievement

All staff in the Auburn School District provide support, leadership, and guidance to ensure each

student meets or exceeds state and district standards, graduates on time, and is prepared for

career and college.

District Goal 2: Community Engagements

All staff in the Auburn School District are accountable for engaging its diverse community as

partners to support and sustain a world-class education system.

District Goal 3: Policies and Resource Management

Auburn School District policies and resources are aligned to the strategic plan.

School:

LAKELAND HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Date of SIP Team District Goal Review: 9/18/13

SIP Team Members:

Kim McKeough Ryan Foster

Kimberly Wynn Christie Lee

Jen Swanson

Stephanie Knapp

Dorothy Luke

Kelly Maloney

Lyn Hess

SIP Template

5 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Carol Seng

School Board

Ray Vefik

School Board

Executive Summary

Auburn School District Mission

In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become

ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.

Auburn School District Vision

The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will

maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.

School Mission

We, the Lakeland Hills Staff, empower our community of learners for lifelong success.

School Vision

We will provide a safe and academically rigorous environment for our diverse learners.

Background Information

WAC 180-16-220

Requirements for School Improvement Plan Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined

by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a

school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a

continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and

update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data

to establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WELPA, Credit

Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or

HSPE.

Stakeholder Input

The Lakeland Hills SIP team first formed in the 2006-7 school year when the building opened

and began our first SIP plan. The SIP team has met each year to provide leadership in the

building to accomplish the plans set in place by each of the two previous plans and is currently

providing leadership to finish the third and final year of our 2011-14 plan.

SIP Template

6 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

In the fall of 2013 the Lakeland Hills SIP team added a new member due to a retirement and

began meeting to begin the next full revision of our SIP plan for the next three years. The team

has fully participated in the process that the Auburn School District has provided. This includes

attendance at all of the district fully revised SIP sessions as follows:

September 2013 Full Day Training Session #1

October 2013 Full Day Training Session #2

December 2013 Full Day Training Session #3

January 2014 Full Day Training Session #4

February 2014 Full Day Training Session #5

March 2014 Full Day Training Session #6

April 2014 Full Day Training Session #7

May 2014 Full Day School Session #8

In addition to meeting with the SIP Team on the above dates, the team has met with the whole

staff during staff meetings and other in-services as well as 7 hours dedicated solely to the fully

revised SIP process in the 2013-14 school year. All of these meetings supported the work to

overview the fully revised SIP process for this cycle, review data, adjust mission and vision

statements, write narrative statements on the data, prioritize challenge narrative statements,

identify strategies and implementation timelines for the fully revised SIP process.

The work in this document reflects the leadership and the innovation of the SIP team to guide the

larger staff in the creation of our next three year SIP plan to address our areas of

underperformance and continue the areas where great success has been found. The staff has

been given updates, opportunities for feedback and suggestions throughout the process. As a

result, the plan laid forth has staff buy-in and will allow this to be a living document that will

guide our work over the next three years.

Highly Qualified Staff

All of the staff at Lakeland Hills meets the highly qualified requirements set out in

the NCLB mandates.

Demographic data

The demographics at Lakeland Hills have adjusted slightly since the last revision

three years ago. Here is a summary of the data:

Demographics

Enrollment 2012-13 2010-11

October 2012 Student Count 671

620

May 2013 Student Count 685 602

Gender

Male 312 46.50% 307 49.50%

Female 359 53.50% 313 50.50%

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 0.30% 2 0.30%

SIP Template

7 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Asian 94 14.00% 103 16.60% Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander 2 0.30% 1 0.20%

Asian/Pacific Islander 96 14.30% 104 16.80%

Black / African American 38 5.70% 46 7.40%

Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 107 15.90% 91 14.70%

White 373 55.60% 349 56.30%

Two or More Races 55 8.20% 28 4.50%

Special Programs Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2013) 184 26.90% 149 24.80%

Special Education (May 2013) 50 7.30% 34 5.60%

Transitional Bilingual (May 2013) 90 13.10% 74 12.30%

Migrant (May 2013) 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Section 504 (May 2013) 3 0.40% 6 1.00%

Foster Care (May 2013) 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Other Information

Unexcused Absence Rate (2012-13) 83 0.10% 87 0.10%

Teacher Information

Classroom Teachers 35 36

Average Years of Teacher Experience

10.3

9.1 Teachers with at least a Master's Degree 91.40% 77.80%

Total number of teachers who teach core academic classes 37 30

Discipline and Attendance Analysis

After reflecting on our building’s discipline and attendance history, as well as staff

perceptions around discipline and attendance, it was decided by the staff, including

the SIP team that there was not a need to do an in -depth analysis of our attendance

or discipline data as this is a real area of strength for Lakeland Hills.

The process we have in place for managing students through positive means as wel l

as clear behavioral expectations and consequences for students choosing not to

follow rules are more than adequate.

Attendance is monitored every two weeks by an administrator and counselor.

Families are contacted as soon as their absence or tardies exceed 10% by the

counselor and then have a conference scheduled when their absences or tardies

exceed 15% by an administrator or when they have 2 or more unexcused absences.

These measures have been successful in both behavioral and attendance areas and

the staff decided that spending more time looking in -depth at this data was not

necessary and that a more focused look at the reading and math data was the

priority for the Lakeland Hills School Improvement Plan revision process.

SIP Template

8 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Assessment Decisions

Assessments at Lakeland Hills Elementary School drive the instructional decisions that are made daily, weekly monthly a nd yearly. The staff has spent considerable time the past five years creating a variety of formative and summative assessments, combined with utilizing district and state benchmark assessments and summative to provide information to reach all students and accelerate their learning. Formative and summative assessment results are shared with families and translated into Spanish and Ukrainian in addition to English. The following is an overview of those assessments:

1. Formative: a. Math PE/CCSS Standards formative assessments – 7-10 question

assessments to provide information to students and teachers about the students’ currently level of understanding. This occurs after every standard is done being taught and practiced (typically 3-7 days). Results are recorded on an Excel spreadsheet and are the topic of conversation at weekly PLC discussions for further instructional or acceleration decisions.

b. Reading Comprehension Targets formative assessments - 7-10 question assessments to provide information to students and teachers about the students’ currently level of proficiency at using the identified 11 comprehension targets assigned for that grade level (K has 4 targets, GR1 has 5 targets, GR2 has 6 targets, GR3-5 have all 11 targets). This occurs after every target is done being taught and practiced (depending on grade level every 2 weeks to 2 months). Results are recorded on an Excel spreadsheet and are the topic of conversation at the PLC discussions following the assessment for further instructional or acceleration decisions. A complete review cycle going over a second time each of the grade level’s assigned targets before state testing (GR3-5)or the end of the year (GR K-2).

c. DIBELS Progress monitoring for reading fluency is done monthly, recorded on an Excel spreadsheet and discussed at PLC meetings following each cycle.

2. Summative: a. End of Unit assessments in mathematics are used with students in each grade

level to provide more summative results regarding students’ proficiency with the mathematics skills.

b. DIBELS benchmark testing is completed in September, January and June for all students in GRK-5.

c. MAPs Testing in Reading and Mathematics is completed in September, January and June for all students in GR 2-5.

SIP Template

9 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Data Analysis- DIBELS

SIP Template

10 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

SIP Template

11 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Strengths: Kindergarten

o ELL population went from 55-92.9% from 2011-2013

o Asian population went from 95-100%

o ELL went from 55% in 2011 to 92.9% in 2013

o Percentage of Kindergarten ELL students meeting standards in DIBELS improved

37.9% from 2011 -2013.

SIP Template

12 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o In 2013, 87% of Kindergarten ELL students met Benchmark on the DIBELS LNF test.

GR2 - Overall 2012-2013 2nd grade all increased

o In 2013, 90% of Asian second graders met Benchmark on the DIBELS ORF test.

GR3 - Grade 3 2011 Hispanic increased from 54.6% to 64.3%

GR4 From 2011 to 2012, the percentage of Hispanic fourth grade students who met

Benchmark on the DIBELS ORF test increased by 19.2 percentage points.

GR5 - From 2011-2013 SPED increased by 10% each year

o Percentage of 5th grade SPED students meeting DIBELS benchmark doubled in 2 years.

o In 2012, 100% of Asian fifth graders met Benchmark on the DIBELS ORF test. School Overall

o Purple and green lines are always above White and Asian

o Asians are consistently above 80% across the board every year

Challenges: Kindergarten - SPED went from 0 in kindergarten to 16.7%

GR1

o 1st grade from 2011 to 2013 decreased from 85.7% to 81.1% in NWF

o In 2011 K All is at 75%, 1st grade in 2012 was 83.5%, and 2nd grade in 2013 is 81.8%

across 3 different tests.

o First grade SPED students meeting benchmark in DIBELS went from 85.7% to

16.7% in 2 years

GR2 From 2011 to 2012, the percentage of ELL second grade students who met

Benchmark on the DIBELS ORF test decreased by 38 percentage points.

GR3 - Between 2nd and 3rd grade in years 2011-2013 all lines decreased.

o Third grade students meeting DIBELS benchmark decreased in all sub groups in 2012 and 2013.

o In 2012, 64% of Hispanic third grade students met Benchmark on the DIBELS ORF test.

GR4 - 2011 ELL went from 58.3% to 0% in 2012 and 2013.

School Overall

o Grades K,1,3,4,5 Overall 2012-2013 all students decreased

o Data is based on 3 different tests

o SPED and ELL/HISP they fluctuate more where All and Asian tends to flat line.

o The Hispanic population tends to score 30% lower on average in every grade level

o In 2011 2nd grade all was at 87.6%, 2012 in 3rd grade all was 80% and in 2013 4th

grade all was 75.2% DIBELS ORF.

o In 2012, 50% of special education students in second grade met Benchmark on the

DIBELS ORF test.

Questions:

SIP Template

13 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Kindergarten

o What happened in 2012 with the 0 in special ed?

o Missing info: did some kids come in the middle of the year and skew our data at the

end of the year?

GR4 - It would be interesting to know how many ELL Students were in 2012 versus the

2 in 2013.

Data Analysis- MAPs

MAPs data was reviewed by the SIP team and the data was very similar in profile to the

MSP data with the exception of having GR2 data whereas there is no GR2 data for MSP.

However, since 2013-14 was the first year using MAPs at GR2 there was no trend data to

analyze for consideration. Overall the trends in the MAPs data showed students that were

ELL, LAP and SPED achieved significantly lower than their peers. The trend also showed

similar discrepancies in achievement in ethnic categories that mirrored the MSP trends.

SIP Template

14 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Data Analysis- WELPA

The data from the WLPTII was reviewed with the ELL teacher and showed the same trends

that the SIP team observed about the performance of the ELL students on the other

measures closely reviewed by the SIP team and the staff in the data carousel activities. ELL

is a group that is underperforming and is a target for strategies and action in this new plan.

SIP Template

15 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey

Staff:

SIP Template

16 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Parents:

The CEE data from 2008, 2010 and 2012 was reviewed by the SIP team. It was observed that the staff, parents and students continue to think highly of the school. The trends across all 9 areas are either at or exceeding the results from the previous years and still outperform the comparison with the top performing schools profile provided by CEE. It was observed that a connection with families of ethnic diversity is an area that is needed and is targeted in this plan in the action plan/strategies to increase our effectiveness in this area.

SIP Template

17 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

MSP AYP/AMO Dashboard

SIP Template

18 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

MSP Reading Results

SIP Template

19 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

MSP Math Results

SIP Template

20 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

MSP Writing & Science Results

MSP by Ethnicity

SIP Template

21 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Strengths: GR3-

o MATH: The 2011 class of 3rd graders scored 57.1 % in 2011, 66.7% in 2012, and

81% in 2013.

SIP Template

22 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o The 2008 3rd grade Asian population scored 100% in math and 2011 were 100% in

reading and math.

o READING: The Asian population increased from 2008 80% in reading to 94.1 % in

2009 to 100% in 2010.

o In 2013, 78% of Low Income third grade students met Benchmark on the MSP

Reading test.

GR4-

o READING: From 2009-2010 there was a drop in reading scores from 94.1 to 76.5%.

o 4th grade reading 2012 and 2013 all subgroups, except Hispanic, are above the AMO

line.

o 4th grade Hispanic reading scores are 73.3% in 2011-12 which is above state

average which is 56.3 % -in 4th grade

o MATH: 4th grade MSP math Hispanic improved from 2010-2013 from 44.4 to 70.6%.

o WRITING: The 4th grade writing and science scores 2010 – 2013 are trending

upwards

o WRITING-4th grade 2012-2013 scores went from 60 % to 76.5 % passing in the

Hispanic population.

GR5 –

o MATH: Hispanic math increased from 42.9 in 2012 to 81% in 2013.

o 2009-2013 5th grade math improved 35.5%

o READING: The Hispanic reading increased from 2009-2013 from 36.4 to 66.7

o From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of Hispanic fifth grade students who met

Benchmark on the MSP Reading test increased by 21.9 points.

Challenges: GR3

o No ethnic subgroup met AMO in reading in 2013 3rd grade. o READING: The Hispanic population scores in reading decreased from 92.9 spring

2011 to 2012 73.3 and 2013 66.7 o MATH-2010 3rd grade class decreased scores from 78.6 in 2010 to 63.6 in 2011 to

42.9 in 2012

o The 2012 Hispanic population performed 9.2% below AMO in reading, while all

other subgroups met or exceeded AMO

GR4 - From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of white fourth grade students who met

Benchmark on the MSP Reading test decreased by 1.2 percentage points.

GR5 -From 2012-2013 there was a decrease in the MSP reading score 85.7-66.7

Hispanic population

o The same group of 5th gr Hispanic students performed at 42.9 % in math but

performed 85.7 in the year of 2012; In 2013 the Hispanic population performed at

81% in math but only 66.7% in reading.

SIP Template

23 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Overall:

o The Hispanic population is consistently lower in every grade level in every subject

in all areas, with the exception of 2013 Hispanic writing scores exceeded the all

group…(with few exceptions)

o Low income students MSP reading scores declined in grades 3, 4, and 5 from 2012

to 2013.

Questions: GR3

o It is interesting to note that our Hispanic math scores follow the state trend for all

years of 2010-11-12-13. Would it be helpful to look at the state scores for Hispanics

when making comparisons to put Hispanic students into better perspective?

GR5 - How many Asian and Hispanic students are we talking about? Do the number of

students at each grade level skew the data (meaning a larger population would provide

more accurate data)

Did the exit info for ELL change at some point and impact the scores?

We would like to see the same class lined up on the same graph, example: 3rd grade

math 2011 then those same kids as 4th graders and 5th graders to show the class trends

with the same students.

MSP by Program

SIP Template

24 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

SIP Template

25 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Strengths: GR3

o In 2013 on the third grade math MSP 87.8 percent of student’s passed.

o In MSP Reading, from 2009 -2013, ELL has made a 31.9 percent increase.

o In 2012 and 2013, 3rd graders surpassed the AMO goal in MSP math.

o From 2009-2013, ELL increased 31.9 percent in reading.

o In 2013, 88.6percent of third graders met standard on MSP reading.

GR4

o In 2011 on the Math MSP there was a 3.5 percent difference between the low

income and all students.

o In 2010, in 4th grade reading MSP, SPED passed at 84.9 percent.

o From 2011 to 2012, in reading, math and writing, the number of low income 4th

graders passing the MSP increased.

GR5

o In 5th grade MSP science, 2012-2013, low income increased 17 percent and ALL

increased 11.5 percent.

o From 2012-2013, 5th grade math ALL increased from 76.5 – 88 percent.

o In 5th grade Science on the MSP, low income students performance improved from

57.6 percent in 2011 to 75.8 percent in 2013.

Challenges: GR3

o From 2008 to 2009, there was a 15 percent drop for all third grade students on the

math MSP.

o From 2008 to 2009, all students dropped 9.6 percent on the reading MSP while low

income students dropped 32.9 percent.

o Reading and Math, Low income and ALL are a similar distance apart.

o In both reading and math MSP, low income 3rd graders underperform the ALL group.

SIP Template

26 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o Across the board, low income students perform lower in reading and math.

GR4

o In 2010, 15.4 percent of SPED students passed the Math MSP.

o Low income 4th graders have not met AMO in math or reading.

o From 2012-2013, low income 4th graders have decreased by 6.9 percent on MSP

math.

o From 2012 – 2013, low income 4th graders have decreased by 7.7 percent on MSP

reading.

o In both reading and math MSP, low income 4th graders underperform the ALL group.

GR5

o In 2009, zero percent of ELL students passed the 5th grade Science MSP.

o In 2013, 5th grade reading, the difference between AMO and our low income was

12.1 percent.

o In both reading and math MSP, low income 5th graders underperform the ALL group.

o In 2009 and 2011, when there are enough ELL students to report, the number of low

income 5th graders passing the math MSP is lower than any other year.

Questions: GR3

o Why was there such a discrepancy between all students and low income students

between 2008 and 2009 on the Reading MSP?

o How many of the low income are also SPED and/or ELL?

GR4

o Was there a big drop because of the WASL/MSP change?


GR5

o Why was there such a big drop in MSP reading, math and science between 2008 and

2009 for all groups?


What is the target percentage for each subgroup?

How many students are in each of those subgroups?

SIP Template

27 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

MSP Historical

Strengths: GR3

o 3rd grade increased 4% in Math MSP between the years 2011-2012.

o 3rd Reading MSP in the year 2011 was 99% passing.

SIP Template

28 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o In 2012 the 3rd grade reading MSP scores were above the building target of 88% by

5.3%

GR4

o 4th grade has increased 9% in the reading MSP from 2011 to 2013.

o 4th grade has increased 5% in Math MSP scores from 2011 to 2013.

o Grade 4 MSP math and reading scores have increased for the last three years.

Reading: 82.6% from 2011 to 91.5% in 2013.

o In 2013 scores for students in 4th grade exceeded amo in reading and math.

o In 2013, 85% of fourth grade students met Benchmark on the MSP Math test

o In 2013, 87.5% of Asian fourth grade students met Benchmark on the MSP writing

test.

GR5

o 5th grade had an 11% increase in Math MSP scores from 2011-2013

o 5th grade Reading MSP was between 87% and 89% over the years 2011-2013.

Growth was consistent.

o 5th grade math MSP scores increased 11.5% from 2012-2013

o In 2013 5th grade MSP math exceed the reading and science scores.

o In 2012 & 2013 grades 3-5 were exceeding building amo in math MSP.

o In 2012-2013 5th grade Science scores increased 11.5%

o In 2013, 88% of fifth grade students met Benchmark on the MSP Math test.

Challenges: GR3

o In 2011 3rd grade achieved at 99% in Reading MSP, so to show growth we would

have to have 100% passing scores.

o In 2013 the third grade reading MSP scores were 3.4% below the targeted goal of

92%.

o The grade 3 Reading MSP decreased by 11% from 2011 to the spring of 2013.

o 3rd grade Reading MSP scores went from 99% in 2011 to 91.7% in fourth grade in

2012, an 5th grade went to 86.9% . (Looking at the same cohort from year to year.)

o The third grade MSP reading trajectory needs to increase by 7.4% in reading and

8.2% in math.

o From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of third grade students who met Benchmark on

the MSP Reading test decreased by 4.7 percentage points.

o From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of third grade students who met Benchmark on

the MSP Math test decreased by 4.6 percentage points.

GR4 - The 4th grade MSP math trajectory needs to increase by 11%.

GR5

o 5th grade reading MSP scores must achieve a level of 91.2%. No fifth grade group

has ever achieved that before.

SIP Template

29 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o 5th grade MSP reading scores need to increase by 4.3%

o In 2009, 8.3 % of Hispanic fifth grade students met Benchmark on the MSP Science

test.

Questions: GR3 - The grade 3 Reading MSP decreased by 11% from 2011 to the spring of 2013.

o What is the impact going to be on losing 12 students to the gifted program in 2013-

14?

GR4 - Looking at the 2013-14 group, did they underperform as second graders? What

was their cohort like?

GR5 - Are split classes a factor in scores?

What will happen if our students don’t achieve at the AMO goals for reading and math

this year?

SIP Template

30 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Prioritized Challenges

The staff took the above narrative statements and went through and exercise to identify

which statements were the most critical to address. The list below contains the results of

this ranking activity from which the SMART goals and Action Steps have been derived from.

• 26 Votes - Low income students MSP reading scores declined in grades 3, 4, and 5

from 2012 to 2013. (“MSP By Program” Challenge Narrative Statement)

• 22 Votes –The Hispanic population is consistently lower in every grade level in

every subject in all areas, with the exception of 2013 Hispanic writing scores

exceeded the all group…(with few exceptions). (“MSP By Ethnicity” Challenge

Narrative Statement)

• 3 Votes – The same group of GR5 Hispanic students performed at 42.9% in math

but performed 85.7% in Reading in 2012 (in fourth grade); In 2013 the Hispanic

population performed at 81% in math but only 66.7% in reading. (“MSP By

Ethnicity” Challenge Narrative Statement)

• 1 Vote – The 2012 overall the Hispanic population performed 9.2% below AMO in

reading, while all other subgroups met or exceeded AMO. (“MSP By Ethnicity”

Challenge Narrative Statement)

• 1 Vote – The 4th grade MSP math trajectory needs to increase by 11%. (“Historical

MSP” Challenge Narrative Statement)

• 1 Vote – From 2012-2013 there was a decrease in the GR5 MSP reading score 85.7-

66.7 Hispanic population (“MSP By Ethnicity” Challenge Narrative Statement)

SIP Template

31 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Rationale for SMART Goals:

LLH Math MSP Executive Summary: The percent of all students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level for the years 2007 to 2013 were reviewed in comparison to the performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED for the same years. The percent of Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard in each subgroup was compared to the success of all students. Strengths:

The percent of all Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level has increased from 2007 to 2013 (GR3 80.2% to 87.8%, GR4 73% to 85.1%, GR5 65.8% to 89%).

Challenge: There is a consistent and significant achievement gap between the performance of all students and the performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED. LLH DIBELS Executive Summary: The percent of all students meeting/exceeding benchmark at each grade level for the years 2011 through 2013 were reviewed in comparison to the subgroups of Ethnicity (Asian, White, Hispanic), ELL and SPED performance on the DIBELS assessment. Strength: Students in all grade levels increase their reading fluency from fall to spring every year. Challenges:

From 2012 to 2013 grades K-1 and 3-5 performance of all students meeting/exceeding benchmark on DIBELS decreased between 2-5%.

Cohort data reveals a pattern of decreased levels of achievement from GR2-4 for the years 2011-2013. Disaggregation of the data by ethnicity, SPED and ELL indicates a gap in attaining benchmark in comparison to all students.

The number of 2011 GR2 Hispanic subgroup cohort meeting/exceeding benchmark decreased from 2nd to 4th grade (85.7% in 2011 64.3% in 2012 to 52.9% in 2013).

LLH Reading MSP Executive Summary: The percent of all students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level for the years 2008 through 2013 were reviewed by subgroups (program and ethnicity). The percent of Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard in each subgroup was compared to the success of all students. Strength:

The percent of all Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level has increased from 2008 to 2013 (GR3 80.2% to 88.6%, GR4 89.9% to 91.5%, GR5 79.6% to 86.9%).

SIP Template

32 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Challenge: There is a consistent and significant achievement gap between the performance of all students and the performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED.

SMART Goal 1: Math: The percentage of all GR 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBAC math assessment will increase from 87.5% to 91% for GR 3-5 in 2017. Subgroup’s performance (ELL, Low Income and SPED) will increase to 50% (ELL & SPED) and 80% (Low Income) for GR 3-5 in 2017.

SMART Goal 2: ELA: The percentage of all GR 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBAC English Language Arts (ELA) assessment will increase from 88.8%to 94% for GR 3-5 in 2017. Subgroup’s performance (ELL, Low Income and SPED) will increase to 50% (ELL), 75% (SPED) and 85% (Low Income) for GR 3-5 in 2017.

SIP Template

33 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Needs Assessment Data Documents

o DIBELS Dashboard – See Previous Section

o MAP Data Dashboard – See Previous Section

o WELPA results – See Previous Section

o Credit Attainment Dashboards - N/A

o Honors/AP Dashboards – N/A

o CEE Spider chart – See Previous Section

o SAT/ACT results – N/A

o Discipline Dashboards – See Previous Section

o Demographic charts – See Previous Section

o AYP Results – See Previous Section

o MSP Results and trend charts – See Previous Section

o Other data - None

SIP Template

34 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

SMART Goal 1

Subject Area: Mathematics

School Name: Lakeland Hills Elementary School

Target Population- based on

demographic, discipline and attendance

data analysis:

The percent of all students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level for the years 2007 to 2013 were

reviewed in comparison to the performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED for

the same years. The percent of Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard in each subgroup was

compared to the success of all students.

Our Reality-based on assessment

data analysis:

Strengths:

The percent of all Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level has

increased from 2007 to 2013 (GR3 80.2% to 87.8%, GR4 73% to 85.1%, GR5 65.8% to 89%).

Challenges:

There is a consistent and significant achievement gap between the performance of all students and the

performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED.

Our SMART Goal-based on

target population and your reality:

The percentage of all GR 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBAC math assessment will increase from

87.5% to 91% for GR 3-5 in 2017. Subgroup’s performance (ELL, Low Income and SPED) will increase to

50% (ELL & SPED) and 80% (Low Income) for GR 3-5 in 2017.

Action Plan

Action Step Implementing Best Instructional Practices

Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility

Monitor Learning Through Common

Assessments

1. CFAs For Each Math CCSS

2. End of Unit Summative Assessments

Student performance on

CFAs will identify which

students need intervention or

enrichment on that standard.

Summative assessment

results will align with

formative results and show

student growth over time.

Fall 2014 Primary – End of standard

CFA, End of Trimester

Benchmark Assessments

Intermediate – Weekly

Problem Solver CFAs, End

of Unit Summative

Assessments, Mirror

Assessments

All Classroom

Teachers &

administrators

District Support Staff

SIP Template

35 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Balanced Math Instruction

1. Tier I Core Instruction: 50min/day, 5

days/wk

a. 10min Review of Previous Content

b. 40min Core CCSS Instruction

2. Tier II & III – WTM: 45min/day, 4

days/wk

a. 30min Problem Solving

b. 15min Fact Strategies Instruction

(10min) & Practice (5min)

All students will receive

more time with math

instruction (including

problem solving and fact

fluency), practice and

intervention/enrichment.

Fact fluency & problem

solving proficiency will

increase fall to spring.

PD on SBAC Test & Item

Specs related to CFA

development

Core Instruction in math

will be 250 minutes/wk,

Scheduled time in master

schedule for WTM

Extended Day math

instruction to support below

level learners.

Define fact fluency

benchmarks K-5

Action Step Professional Development


VEPS Problem Solving

Engagement Strategies –

1. Student to Student (STS) Talk,

2. Multiple Response Opportunities (turn

and talk, white boards, nonverbal,

choral responses, think/pair/share, etc),

3. Maximizing Instructional Time

VEPS implemented K-

5, Students use VEPS

proficiently to solve

word problems

Increase in

mathematical discourse

by students.

Increase in response

opportunities during

instruction

Efficient transitions as

demonstrated in

observations

May 2014

Fall 2014

Handouts/Staff

Training

Anita Archer Explicit

Instruction

Bldg hrs & Waiver

Days support

implementation of

Engagement Strategies

Brendan Jeffreys

Math Coordinator

SIP Team

All teachers & bldg

administrators

SIP Template

36 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Common Instructional Language –

1. Big Ideas in Math (ie: 4 Operations

(gestures), area, perimeter, fractions,

etc.), Fact Strategies, etc.

Student Self Assessment of Learning

Explicit instruction in

common language in

math,

Students understand and

use common language

in all classrooms

Teachers implement

formal and informal

student self assessment

strategies.

Students reflect on their

learning and set goals

for growth

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Classrooms post

instructional targets &

common language,

ASCD CCSS Vocab

Book, CCSS Flip

Chart & DOK Wheel,

Videos on ASD

Google Math site

CEL5D+ Indicators,

Fact fluency goal

setting,

MAPs,

CFA redo/retakes

instruction

All teachers & bldg

administrators

All teachers & bldg

administrators

Action Step Family Engagement for Underperforming Students


Parent Night – October (2 bldg hrs)

1. Math resources (ie: IXL, etc.)

2. Content Preview/Calendar

3. At Home Support/Training

Regular reporting of progress for students not

meeting standard (Jan/Feb)

Families use resources

shared from parent night

to support their child’s

learning,

Increased awareness and

ability to support

learning at home

Increase participation in

Fall 2017

Winter 2016

CEE Parent Survey

Data

Bldg 28hrs

Neighborhood House

& Auburn Manor

Cabana

Translators/Interpreters

All teachers & bldg

administrators

Parent participation

ASD Family

Resource

Coordinator

Neighborhood

House Coordinator

SIP Template

37 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

1. Goal-setting conferences

a. Next steps for at home

practice/support

b. Invitation for extra support

extended day programs

Students & parents will

understand current

challenges and plan for

growth to meet end of

year benchmarks/growth

goals

Building 28hrs

Staff training as

needed

Parent Engagement

Training


All teachers & bldg

administrators

SIP Template

38 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

SMART Goal 2

Subject Area: English Language Arts

School Name: Lakeland Hills Elementary School

Target Population- based on

demographic, discipline and attendance

data analysis:

The percent of all students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level for the years 2008 through 2013

were reviewed by subgroups (program and ethnicity). The percent of Lakeland Hills students

meeting/exceeding standard in each subgroup was compared to the success of all students.

Our Reality-based on assessment

data analysis:

Strength:

The percent of all Lakeland Hills students meeting/exceeding standard at each grade level has

increased from 2008 to 2013 (GR3 80.2% to 88.6%, GR4 89.9% to 91.5%, GR5 79.6% to 86.9%).

Challenge:

There is a consistent and significant achievement gap between the performance of all students and the

performance of the subgroups of Low Income, ELL, Hispanic and SPED.

Our SMART Goal-based on

target population and your reality:

The percentage of all GR 3-5 students meeting standard on the SBAC English Language Arts (ELA)

assessment will increase from 88.8%to 94% for GR 3-5 in 2017. Subgroup’s performance (ELL, Low

Income and SPED) will increase to 50% (ELL), 75% (SPED) and 85% (Low Income) for GR 3-5 in 2017.

Action Plan

Action Step Best Instructional Practices


Monitoring learning through common assessments

1. ELA CCSS

a. Primary: Foundational Skills & 9 Standards (9RL

& 9 RI)

b. Primary: Scaffolding for district writing assessment

@ each progress report

c. Intermediate: Foundational skills & SBAC Targets

Student performance on CFAs will

identify which students need

intervention or enrichment on that

standard.

FDK & GR1 – Foundational Skills

GR2 – CCSS Standard

GR3-5 – SBAC Targets

Fall 2014

Create common

pacing at each grade

level for instruction

& CFAs based on

RL/RI Standards

(GRK-2) or Targets

(GR3-5)

All teachers & bldg

administrators

District Support

Staff

SIP Template

39 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

(7 Literary & 7 Informational)

d. Intermediate: Scaffolding for Performance Tasks at

each progress report

2. Monthly DIBELS progress monitoring for students

below target, using 3 passages

Strategies – Rereading, visualize, asking questions, text to text

connections, etc.

Summative assessment results will

align with formative results and

show student growth over time.

Monthly Progress Monitor below

these levels:

FDK – 40 WCPM

GR1 – 65 WCPM

GR2 – 100 WCPM

GR3 – 120 WCPM

GR4 – 130 WCPM

GR5 – 140 WCPM

Student performance on CFAs and

summative assessments will show

an increase for all and subgroups.

DIBELS Passages

Strategies that Work

(S. Harvey)

All teachers & bldg

administrators

All teachers & bldg

administrators

Action Step Professional Development


1. Close Listening/Reading

2. Performance Tasks (Writing) – Citations,

paraphrasing, comparing text, point of view,

etc.

Teachers utilize Close

listening/reading,

Students use Close reading

strategies to comprehend text

on classroom activities &

assessments

Student proficiency on

performance tasks increases

fall to spring

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Close

listening/reading

training using

bldg or waiver

day hours

Teacher training

on implementing

performance tasks

including

Lyn Hess &

bldg

administrators

All teachers

Intermediate

Teachers & bldg

administrators

SIP Template

40 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

3. Common Instructional Language

a. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Levels 1-

4

b. Assessment Vocabulary

4. Item Writing Best Practices & Training

Explicit instruction in

common language in ELA,

Students understand and use

common language in all

classrooms

Classroom assessments use

SBAC format

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

DOK Wheel,

CCSS Flip Charts

ASCD Vocab.

Book

Mirror district

assessments,

SBAC Items

Specs & Question

Stems

All teachers &

bldg

administrators

All teachers &

bldg

administrators

Action Step Family Engagement for Underperforming Students


Parent Night

1. ELA resources (ie: Starfall, AR,

TruFlix, Harcourt, etc.)

2. Content Preview/Calendar

3. At Home Support/Training

Regular reporting of progress for students

not meeting standard (Jan/Feb)

1. Goal-setting conferences

a. Next steps for at home

practice/support

b. Invitation for extra support

Families use resources

shared from parent night

to support their child’s

learning,

Increased awareness and

ability to support

learning at home

Increase participation in

extended day programs

Students & parents will

understand current

challenges and plan for

growth to meet end of

year benchmarks/growth

Fall 2017

(October)

Winter 2016

CEE Parent Survey

Data

Bldg 28hrs

Neighborhood House

& Auburn Manor

Cabana


Building 28hrs

Staff training as

needed

Parent Engagement

Training


All teachers & bldg

administrators

Parent participation

ASD Family

Resource

Coordinator

Neighborhood

House Coordinator

All teachers & bldg

administrators

SIP Template

41 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

goals

SIP Template

42 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Planning Implementation Calendar:

2013-14 Timeline for Planning Process

School Leadership Team Meetings:

November 5, 2013 3:30-5pm School Work Session

December 3, 2013 3:30-5:30pm Certificated Data Carousel Session

February 25, 2014 7-8:15am SIP Math Goals/Strategies Staff Presentation Planning Mtg

February 27, 2014 3:30-5:30pm Certificated Math Goals/Strategies Presentation & Discussion Session

April 1, 2014 3:30-5:30pm Certificated ELA Goals/Strategies Presentation & Discussion Session

District Meetings:

September 2013: Template & Rubric, Mission/Vision, Data

Facilitators: Pili Wolf and Adriane Hartness

October 2013: Data, Communication, Decision Making


December 2013: SMART Goals & Action Plans


January 2014: SMART Goals & Action Plans


February 2014: Evidence of Implementation & Impact


March 2014: Evidence of Implementation & Impact


April 2014: Systems to Monitor & Adjust


2013-14 Staff Professional Development:

August 2013

o ATLA Activities (Jump In/Jump Out, The 4 Tensions, Norms for 2013-14 Development)

o MSP, MAPs DIBELS Results from 2012-13

o ELA Implementation in Primary, Yr 2 Math Implementation

o Fully Revised SIP Plan for 2014-17 Plan Creation

o Refining & Revising Reading & Math Data & Intervention/Enrichment Cycles for 2013-14

o DIBELS Next Training for K/1 & Primary Specialists

October 11, 2013

o DIBELS Fluency September Scores Review for WTR Placements

o AMO Calculations Overview

o ICU Kids Identification

SIP Template

43 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

o Drop in Observation Individual & Team goals

o Peer Observations Implementation

o CEL5D Framework Overview

March 10, 2014

o DIBELS Fluency January Scores Review for WTR Placements

o Next Steps in PLCs – Survey Assessment for Team Considerations & Goal Setting

o Common Core Transition & Support Plan

May 12, 2014:

o VEPS Problem Solving in Math

o DOK Training & CCSS Math Implementation for 2014-15

Staff Meetings/Trainings 2013-14

o October 2013:

Staff Meeting Norms Discussion & Development for 2013-14

o November 2013:

Family Resources Overview – Denise Daniels

CEL5D+ “Purpose” Training

o December 2013:

CEL5D+ “Student Engagement” Training

o January 2014:

Mission & Vision Discussion/Approval for Fully Revised SIP

CEL5D+ “Curriculum & Pedagogy” Training

o February 2014:

CEL5D+ “Assessment for Student Learning” Training

o March 2014:

CEL5D+ “Classroom Environment & Culture” Training

Cultural Diversity Classroom Implications – Kris Connors

o April 2014:

CEL5D+ “Professional Collaboration & Communication” Training

o May 2014:

2014-17 Fully Revised SIP Discussion & Approval

2014-15 Bldg 28hrs Proposal Discussion & Approval

o June 2014:

Transgender Transition

SIP Template

44 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Planning Implementation Calendar:

2014-15 Timeline for Planning Process

School Leadership Team Meetings:

Monthly meetings as needed to prepare for next in-service offering per the timeline and strategies

implementation schedule outlined above.

District Meetings:

August 2014: Needs Assessment

3 Full Day Releases (TBD: Oct., Feb, June)

Additional Supports: Consultant Time, Release Time, Extra Hours as described in needs assessment in August

Staff Professional Development:

May 2014:

o VEPS Problem Solving in Math

Fall 2014:

o Engagement Strategies in Math & ELA (Student to Student Talk, Multiple Engagement

Strategies, Maximizing Instructional Time)

o CLOSE Listening/Reading

o Writing Performance Tasks in ELA

o Common Instructional Language in ELA (DOK, Assessment Vocabulary)

o Item Writing Best Practices in ELA

o Implement Fluency Monthly Progress Monitor (for students below these levels):

FDK – 40 WCPM (3 ORF passages per month)

GR1 – 65 WCPM (3 ORF passages per month)





Fall 2015:

o Common Instructional Language (Big Ideas in Math: ie: gestures/defn for 4 operations, area,

perimeter, fractions, fact strategies, etc.)

Winter 2016:

o Math & ELA Goal Setting Conferences for Students Below Benchmark

Next Steps for At Home Support

Invitation for Extended Learning

SIP Template

45 | P a g e 1 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3

Fall 2016:

o Student Self Assessment of Learning in Math

Fall 2017: o Parent Night for Math & ELA

Resources for Use At Home

Content Preview/Calendar

At Home Support Training