sip update-presentation to the board june 9, 2014€¦ · sip update-presentation to the board june...

SIP Update-Presentation to the BoardJune 9, 2014

Demographics2008-09 2012-13 2013-14

Enrollment 508 573 614 (May 1)F/R 45.5 55.2 59.8ELL 67 103 149ELL % 13% 17.9% 24.2%

Behind the Scenes

Ilalko has been open for 22 years and has had 8 principals during that time.

Celebration Principals want to work here

Challenge Building longevity with leadership

Behind the Scenes

Foundational Work Turn-over Trust Relationships Focus Vision Goals

Reading Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3rd 4th 5th

2008-092010-112012-13

Goal 1:The average percentage of students in grades 3-5 meeting or exceeding standard on the state reading test will increase from 79.22% in 2012 to 88.7% in 2016, an increase of 9.48%. This is a yearly increment of 1.6%.

Strengths The percentage of 4th grade students meeting standard on the MSP increased 17%

from 72% to 89% from 2010 to 2012 3rd grade reading MAPs scores increased during the 2011-12 school year from 187.6 in

the fall to 195.9 in the spring, an increase of 8.3 RIT points 4th grade reading MAPs scores increased during the 2011-12 school year from 197.3 in

the fall to 204.5 in the spring, an increase of 7.2 RIT points The number of Hispanic or Latino students meeting standard on the reading MSP

increased 31% from 69% in 2010 to 100% in 2012

Challenges The percentage of kindergarten students considered at benchmark on DIBELS in

the spring decreased 14% from 84% in 2010-11 to 70% in 2011-12 The percentage of 1st grade students considered benchmark on DIBELS in the

fall of 2012 is 20% lower than in 2010-2011, 59% from 79% The percentage of 1st grade students starting in the fall considered at the

intensive level on DIBELS has increased from 3% in 2010 to 14% in 2012 The percentage of 3rd grade students meeting standard on the reading MSP

decreased by 10% from 91% in 2011 to 81% in 2012

Strategies

Explicit Instruction Academic Vocabulary focus Walk to Read Accelerated Reader Leveled Core Student Goal Setting Frequent Monitoring of Learning Common Formative Assessments Use of technology

Math Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3rd 4th 5th

2008-092010-112012-13

Goal 2: By 2016, the average meeting or exceeding standard in math as measured by the state test will increase from 76.37% in 2012 to 82.7% in 2016, an increase of 6.33%. This is a yearly increment of 2.5%.

Strengths The number of 4th grade students meeting standard on the math MSP has increased each year since

2010 The percentage of 5th grade students meeting standard in math as measured by the MSP increased

9.1% from 58.8% in 2011 to 67.9% in 2012 The percentage of Hispanic students meeting standard in math as measured by the MSP has

increased 18% from 62% in 2010 to 80% in 2012 The number of 1st grade students meeting benchmark on subtraction fluency increased 12% in 2012

compared to 2011

Challenges The percentage of 5th grade students that were categorized as level 1 (well below

standard) on the math MSP increased by 15.7% from 7.8% in 2009-10 to 23.5% in 2011-12

The percentage of 3rd grade students that met standard on the state math test decreased by 5.9% from 82.4% in 2010-11 to 76.5% in 2011-2012

16.5% of 4th grade students were categorized as level 1 (well below standard) while the same cohort showed an increase of 8.2% to 24.7% of 5th grade students being categorized as level 1 on the 2011-12 state math assessment

The percentage of 1st grade students meeting standard in math subtraction fact fluency decreased by 20% from 44 % in June 2012 to 24% this cohort of 2nd grade students meeting standard in November 2012

Strategies

Academic Vocabulary Explicit Instruction Balanced Math Walk to Math Common Formative Assessments Technology Enhancements

Writing Performance

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

4th

2008-092010-112012-13

Science Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5th

2008-092010-112012-13

Goal 3: Positive perception of “Monitoring of Teaching and Learning” will increase from 56% in 2012 to 75% in 2014 as measured by the staff perception CEE survey.

TPEP CEL5D Peer Observations Staff Training Conversion of Staff to TPEP by 2015-16 Frequent Feedback Student Growth Goals

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

Implementation September 2013-June 2016 Ilalko Elementary

Strategic Improvement Plan

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

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.

Sample School Mission

At Ilalko, we inspire students to become lifelong learners and productive citizens by teaming together to meet their needs.

Sample School Vision

The vision of Ilalko Elementary school is to develop in students the skills and the attitudes that will maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.

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

Ilalko Elementary began the SIP review and rewrite process as part of the professional hours determined by the professional staff. This began with a review of data and previous SMART goal statements. Staff was divided into groups that were focused on the three goal areas, reading, math, and environment. Each team reviewed data and reported back to the larger staff regarding the progress that was made and the work that still needed to be completed in the last year. As part of the fully revised process, Ilalko Elementary principal, Tim Carstens, solicited volunteers to serve on the team that would meet with the district and with state

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

consultants. Mrs. Tammy Myka and Mrs. Cheryl Nielsen volunteered in the executive capacity. Additionally, a larger execut ive advisory group was established that included representation from primary and intermediate teachers, classified staff, and parents. Based on information received from the executive meetings, the entire staff participated in a data carousel that include d data on reading and math. Teachers and members of the executive advisory group completed strength and challenge statements that were then compiled by the executive team. The staff met at a regular staff meeting and used Turning Point clickers to determ ine the levels of priority to be reflected in the final SIP document and on which the SMART goals would be based.

Highly Qualified Staff

All Ilalko staff members have met the requirements for highly qualified.

Demographic data

Since the opening of Lakeland Hills Elementary in 06-07, the demographics of Ilalko Elementary have shifted dramatically. In 2005-06 the free and reduced rate was 35.5% compared to 54.3% in 2011-12. The percentage of students identified as English Language Learners in 2005-06 was 13.3% compared to 15.8% in 2011-12. In analyzing the growth of ethnic groups represented and reported at Ilalko, the most significant change was a 15% growth in the Hispanic population.

Discipline and Attendance Analysis

In analyzing the attendance data at Ilalko the unexcused absence rate has remained constant over the past 6 years at .1%. In the absence of historical data on student discipline, baseline data has been established starting with the 2012-13 school year.

Assessment Decisions

Ilalko Elementary participates in all state and district mandated testing and uses the resulting data to make recommendations regarding instructional decisions. Ilalko Elementary has also included the use of a math fact fluency measure at each grade level. The staff and a math specialist developed this assessment . In addition to the required MAPs testing for 3 rd and 5 th grade students, Ilalko Elementary has elected to have 4 th grade students participate in testing three times a year. This information, along with the correlation document from NWEA, provides the school with instructional recommendations.

Data Analysis- DIBELS

Ilalko Elementary examined the DIBELS summary report for each grade level as part of the reading data carousel . This information provided staff with a three-year longitudinal view of the successes and challenges facing the staff. A number of the reading challenge statements were developed based on the data from the DIBELS

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

summary report. Action steps and SMART goals are based upon the need of the students this year while taking into consideration the trends that are presented by the data.

DIBELS (End of Year Benchmark Instructional Recommendations)

2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013

Kindergarten

Intensive: 7% Intensive: 15% Intensive: 15%

Strategic: 9% Strategic: 15% Strategic: 11%

Benchmark: 84% Benchmark: 70% Benchmark: 72%

1st grade




2nd Grade




3rd Grade




4th Grade




5th Grade




Data Analysis- MAPS

Students in 3rd-5th grade at Ilalko Elementary are assessed three times a year in mathematics and reading using the NWEA Measure of Academic Progress. Staff examined the results of MAPs based on gender and as a whole group.

3rd grade math mean scores dropped from a RIT of 190.4 in the fall of 2011 to 186.3 in the fall of 2012

3rd grade reading mean scores dropped from a RIT of 187.6 in the fall of 2011 to 185.4 in the fall of 2012

4th grade math mean scores dropped from a RIT of 202.4 in the fall of 2011 to 197.5 in the fall of 2012

4th grade reading mean scores dropped from a RIT of 197.3 in the fall of 2011 to 194.7 in the fall of 2012

5th grade math mean scores dropped from a RIT of 211.1 in the fall of 2011 to 209.2 in the fall of 2012

5th grade reading mean scores increased from a RIT of 202.4 in the fall of 2011 to 203.4 in the fall of 2012

There were dramatic increases in enrollment at the third and fifth grade levels compared to the previous years; an increase of 35 at 3rd grade and an increase of 21 at 5th grade. There was also a change in the testing environment with students testing on the stage area adjacent to the gym. In

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

addition to these challenges, four of the seven teachers at the 3rd and 4th grade level were new to the building and teaching.

Data Analysis- WELPA

WELPA data covering the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 demonstrate Ilalko meeting all three AMAO goals. Data demonstrates that in 2010 -11, 70.4% of students made progress on AMAO 1 and increased to 90.7% in 201-12, an increase of 20.3%. There was a slight decrease in the percentage of students transitioning out of ELL in 2010-11 to 2011-12, but still exceeded both the state and district with 16.9% transitioning out of ELL .

Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey

Ilalko Elementary participated in the Educational Effectiveness survey from the Center for Educational Effectiveness. The survey was distributed to parents and staff. Fifth grade students were included in the data. The participation in the survey is confidential and optional. There were a total of 33 staff members, 101 parents, and 62 students. The survey compared results from Ilalko with those of high performing and high achievement schools. Results compared schools in the areas identified as the Characteristic of Highly Effective schools. The Center provided longitudinal data over three survey opportunities dating back to 2008. Ilalko used this information as well as information from interim surveys to develop a summary. There have been three changes of principal and approximately a 25% turnover in teaching staff during the survey administration.

The percentage of staff indicating “almost always” or “often true” on the Supportive Learning Environment score of the Center for Educational Effectiveness increased from 67% to 76% from October 2010 to November 2012

The percentage of staff indicating “Almost Always” or “Often True” on “Our staff shares new ideas and strategies with one another” increased from 36% to 58% from October 201 to November 2012

The percentage of staff indicating “Always True” or “Often True” on “Students understand the expectations and standards of this school” decreased from 81% to 72% from October 2010 to November 2012

The percentage of staff indicating “Always True” or “Often True” on “This school addresses issues of diversity in a timely and effective manner” decreased from 39% to 30% from October 2010 to November 2012.

MSP/HSPE Reading

THIRD GRADE: 80.9% of third grade students met or exceeded standard as measured by the 2012 MSP in Reading. This is a decrease of 9.6% over the previous year. This is 12.1% above the state and 7.2 % above the district.

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

FOURTH GRADE: 89.3% of fourth grade students met or exceeded standard as measured by the 2012 MSP reading. This is an increase of 9.5% over the last year. This is 17.8% higher than the state and 6.8% higher than the district. FIFTH GRADE: 70.4% of fifth grade students met or exceeded standard as measured by the 2012 MSP reading this is a decrease of 18.9% over the previous year. This is 6.7% lower than both the district and state.

Three Year MSP Trend: Reading 2010 2011 2012

3rd

88.2 90.5 80.9 4

th 71.7 79.8 89.3

5th

72.8 89.3 70.4

MSP/EOC Math

THIRD GRADE: 76.5% of third grade students met or exceeded standard in math as measured by the 2012 MSP math. This is an increase of 6.3% from the previous year. This is 10.2% above the state and 5.9% above the district. FOURTH GRADE: 84.5% of fourth grade students met or exceeded standard as measured by the 2012 MSP math. This is an increase of 14.5% over the previous year. This is 25.9% above the state and 13.7% above the district. FIFTH GRADE: 67.9% of fifth grade students met or exceeded standard in math as measured by the 2012 MSP. This is a 9.1% increase over the previous year. This is 4.1% above the state but 4.6% below the district.

Three Year MSP Trend: Math 2010 2011 2012

3rd

82.4 70.2 76.5 4

th 68.7 80 84.5

5th

56.3 58.8 67.9

MSP Science/EOC Science

FIFTH GRADE: 59.3% of fifth grade students met or exceeded standard in science as measured by the 2012 MSP. This is a 7.8% increase over the previous year. This is .3% above the district and 7% below the state.

Three Year MSP Trend: Science 2010 2011 2012

5th

39.8 51.5 59.3

MSP/HSPE Writing

Additional time during data carousels was devoted to identifying trends in COS and CON on the 4 th grade MSP. Trend lines were identified and the recommendations based on challenges and strengths were considered when writing the literacy goals.

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

57.1% of fourth grade students met or exceeded standard in writing as measured by the 2012 MSP. This is a decrease of 1.2% over the previous year. This is 4.3% below the state and 4.5% below the district.

Three Year MSP Trend: Writing 2010 2011 2012

4th 51.5 58.3 57.1

Strengths

Reading

The percentage of 4 th grade students meeting standard on the MSP

increased 17% from 72% to 89% from 2010 to 2012

3rd grade reading MAPs scores increased during the 2011 -12 school year

from 187.6 in the fall to 195.9 in the spring, an increase of 8.3 RIT points

4th grade reading MAPs scores increased during the 2011-12 school year

from 197.3 in the fall to 204.5 in the spring, an increase of 7.2 RIT points

The number of Hispanic or Latino students meeting standard on the

reading MSP increased 31% from 69% in 2010 to 100% in 2012

Math

The number of 4 th grade students meeting standard on the math MSP has

increased each year since 2010

The percentage of 5 th grade students meeting standard in math as

measured by the MSP increased 9.1% from 58.8% in 2011 to 67.9% in

2012

The percentage of Hispanic students meeting standard in math as

measured by the MSP has increased 18% from 62% in 2010 to 80% in

2012

The number of 1st grade students meeting benchmark on subtraction

fluency increased 12% in 2012 compared to 2011

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

Prioritized Challenges

Reading

The percentage of kindergarten students considered at benchmark on

DIBELS in the spring decreased 14% from 84% in 2010 -11 to 70% in

2011-12

The percentage of 1st grade students considered benchmark on DIBELS in the fall of

2012 is 20% lower than in 2010-2011, 59% from 79%

The percentage of 1st grade students starting in the fall considered at the intensive

level on DIBELS has increased from 3% in 2010 to 14% in 2012

The percentage of 3rd grade students meeting standard on the reading MSP

decreased by 10% from 91% in 2011 to 81% in 2012

Math

The percentage of 5th grade students that were categorized as level 1 (well below

standard) on the math MSP increased by 15.7% from 7.8% in 2009-10 to 23.5% in

2011-12

The percentage of 3rd grade students that met standard on the state math test

decreased by 5.9% from 82.4% in 2010-11 to 76.5% in 2011-2012

16.5% of 4th grade students were categorized as level 1 (well below standard)

while the same cohort showed an increase of 8.2% to 24.7% of 5th grade students

being categorized as level 1 on the 2011-12 state math assessment

The percentage of 1st grade students meeting standard in math subtraction fact

fluency decreased by 20% from 44 % in June 2012 to 24% this cohort of 2nd grade

students meeting standard in November 2012

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

Study Teams (Each study team should consider parent/community involvement, cultural competency and integration of technology as potential strategies in

each goal area e.g. How can parent involvement, cultural competence and technology assist the school in meeting its reading goal?)

Literacy Goal Group: Write names of group members here. Reading Goal Group Research Materials:

o Visible Learning-John Hattie o Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools o Seven Strategies of Assessment o Anita Archer-Explicit Instruction

Math Goal Group: Write names of group members here. Math Goal Group Research Materials:

o Visible Learning-John Hattie o Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools o Seven Strategies of Assessment o Anita Archer-Explicit Instruction

Supportive Learning Environment Goal Group: Write names of group members here. Supportive Learning Environment Research Materials:

o Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools o CEL5D+ released items o TPEP

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

Rationale for SMART Goals:

After reviewing data relative to math and reading assessment, we decided to base our goals on the AMO requirements

SMART Goal 1:

The average percentage of students in grades 3-5 meeting or exceeding standard on the state reading test will increase from 79.22% in 2012 to 88.7% in 2016, an increase of 9.48%. This is a yearly increment of 1.6%.

SMART Goal 2:

By 2016, the average meeting or exceeding standard in math as measured by the state test will increase from 76.37% in 2012 to 82.7% in 2016, an increase of 6.33%. This is a yearly increment of 2.5%.

SMART Goal 3:

Positive perception of “Monitoring of Teaching and Learning” will increase from 56% in 2012 to 75% in 2014 as measured by the staff perception CEE survey.

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

Needs Assessment Data Documents

o DIBELS Dashboard

Kindergarten 2012 Beginning

1

st Grade 2012 Beginning

2nd

Grade 2012 Beginning

3

rd Grade 2012 Beginning

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

4th Grade 2012 Beginning

5

th Grade 2012 Beginning

o MAP Data Dashboard

3rd

Grade Fall Math

3rd Grade Fall Reading

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

4th

Grade Fall Math

4

th Grade Fall Reading

5

th Grade Fall Math

5

th Grade Fall Reading

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

o CEE Spider chart

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

o Discipline Dashboards

2011-12 School Year

September 2012-February 2013

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

o Demographic charts

Student Demographics

Enrollment

October 2011 Student Count

499

May 2012 Student Count

514

Gender (October 2011)

Male 266 53.3%

Female 233 46.7%

Race/Ethnicity (October 2011)

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 0.8%

Asian 36 7.2%

Pacific Islander 10 2.0%

Asian/Pacific Islander 46 9.2%

Black 26 5.2%

Hispanic 125 25.1%

White 256 51.3%

Two or More Races 42 8.4%

Special Programs

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2012) 279 54.3%

Special Education (May 2012) 61 11.9%

Transitional Bilingual (May 2012) 81 15.8%

Migrant (May 2012) 0 0.0%

Section 504 (May 2012) 1 0.2%

Foster Care (May 2012) 0 0.0%

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

o AMO Results

o MSP/HSPE/EOC Results and trend charts

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

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

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

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

SMART Goal 1

Subject Area:Literacy

School Name: Ilalko Elementary

Target Population- based on

demographic, discipline and attendance

data analysis:

All Students K-5

Our Reality-based on assessment

data analysis:

Data reflects a flat-lining of students in almost all areas in grades 4 and 5 as measured by MSP, with the exception being 4th grade reading. There is a

downward trend in 3rd grade reading as measured by MSP.

Our SMART Goal-based on target

population and your reality:

The average percentage of students in grades 3-5 meeting or exceeding expectations on the state test will increase from 79.22% in 2012 to 89.03% in

2016, an increase of 9.81%.

Action Plan

Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal

Attainment

Sequential- what comes first?

( 3-5 Action Steps)

Who will monitor?

Who will

implement?

Measures of

progress towards

evidence

Examples include:

PLC, Building 21, CEE data,

Power Standards

Evidence of Implementation

Evidence of student impact

Implement strategies for vocabulary

acquisition in academic and content areas

Grade level agreement on the vocabulary

that will be instructed-content tier II

Common core language

50 words crucial to common core

Principal Building Coordinator Certificated staff Classified staff

June 2013 August 2013 Ongoing

Anita Archer training with in-building ongoing teacher support

Implementation:

Grade levels will review and identify Tier II content vocabulary Grade levels will articulate academic vocabulary to be taught, reinforced, and assessed at each grade level Within each grade level, teachers will collaborate around Tier II content vocabulary for introduction, review, and assessment Teachers will follow the Anita Archer four step program (Templates) Classroom evidence of teaching

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

and assessing agreed upon vocabulary Use of agreed upon vocabulary in student communication Common assessments developed and analyzed for Tier II content vocabulary and academic vocabulary in reading, social studies and science. Impact:(How we will measure)

State assessment reading scores STAR scores MAPS scores DIBELS ORF scores Kindergarten Jump Start 2013-14 Grade level and K-5 review of DIBELS data Evidence: AR used as a tool to check how many kids are using non fiction

Implement strategies to increase

comprehension of non-fiction and complex

text

Classroom Teacher LAP Teacher Paraprofessionals

Ongoing Science A-Z subscription Sciencesaurus Common Core Anchor Texts – Basic Ed Funding Best Practices

Implementation:

Teachers will increase capacity to develop text dependent questions using agreed upon anchor texts at each grade level Rigor of questions will be based on Depth of Knowledge levels 2 and 3 Teachers will work in grade level teams to develop a year-long reading plan identifying resources focusing on text complexity and non-fiction

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

Use grade level based assessments that reflect increased complexity and text evidence each trimester Building-wide agreement on use of above/below grade-level texts (Core instruction at grade level Walk-to-Read differentiation) Impact:

Increased state assessment reading scores Increased formative assessment scores

Develop and implement student self-

assessment tools (to be launched in

conjunction with SBAC interim

release)Spring 2016

Classroom Teachers ATLA Teachers

August 2016 PLCs - Basic Ed Funding Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning book

Implementation:

Teachers will review SBAC interim assessment data from Spring 2016. Teachers will work with students and families to develop student growth goals aligned with SBAC assessments.

Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives:

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

SMART Goal 2

Subject Area: Math




data analysis:

All K-5 students


data analysis:

While there have been incremental improvements in all grades in math, focus needs to remain to maintain improvement to meet AMO requirements.

Currently, 5th grade is outperforming the state average, but is below the district.



By 2016, the average meeting or exceeding standard as measured by the state test will increase from 76.37% in 2012 to 83.06% in 2016, an increase of

6.69%.

Action Plan


Attainment


( 3-5 Action Steps)

Who will monitor?

Who will

implement?

Measures of

progress towards

evidence

Examples include:

PLC, Building 21



Each grade level, K-5, will explicitly and

consistently teach number sense in core

instruction.

All Math Instructional Staff

August 2013 Review USA

problem solving strategy to be used throughout the building

Demonstrate excel data entry for fact fluency

October 2013 Staff meeting

focused on

Grade level and cross – grade level collaboration to review number sense during staff meetings - Share and discuss

number sense strategies used K-5

Origo Math Kits/Kim

Sutton 10 Block/Balanced Math

Building-wide review

on core math lesson structure

Implementation:

Grade level teams will collaborate monthly during PLC time plan instruction in number sense aligned to CCSS.

Analyze problem solving

assessments monthly to inform instruction.

Alignment and articulation of

fact fluency assessments across K-5 August 2014.

Incorporate time for daily fact

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

math fact fluency data

December 2013 Formative

assessment sharing in the area of math

Information from Gildo

Rey standards brought over by Dianna Linville for intermediate classes

fluency practice and skill review during core math instruction

Teach (Ve/pS) problem solving strategy K-5.

Impact:

Monthly student fact fluency scores will indicate more students meeting or exceeding benchmark goals.

Students will be able to set up problem solving using the (Ve/pS) method and explain/show their thinking

Student performance in grades 3-5 on the state test and MAPs will increase.

Strengthen Tier 2 math intervention within

core math instruction.

All Math Instructional Staff

Building 28 hours dedicated to K-5 examination of benchmark/interim assessments (fall-winter-spring)

Implementation:

Develop common formative/summative assessments during weekly PLC/team times to determine student needs for tier 2 intervention within core math instruction - Assessments should be

based on grade level math scope and sequence.

- Formative/summative assessments will be given and used to analyze student progress to determine need for Tier 2 intervention to provide support for a specific

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

skill(s).

Within core math lesson structure, teachers will teach a new skill, assess that skill, analyze assessment results, and use the results to determine students who need tier 2 instructions on the skill taught. Teachers will then re-teach the skill to those specific students in need (in a small group if necessary) and re-assess that skill after second level of instruction.

Impact:

80% of students will meet standard through core instruction as measured by benchmark and/or formative assessments.

PLC minutes reflect focus on Math data each month (on average)


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

SMART Goal 3

Subject Area:




data analysis:

All students and families K-5


data analysis:

Only 70% of staff surveyed with CEE in 2012 responded that “Assessment data are used to identify student needs and appropriate instructional

intervention,” compare to 89% in 2010 and 71% in 2008.



Staff perception that, “Assessment data are used to identify student needs and appropriate instructional intervention,” will increase from 70% in 2012 to

80% 2014 and 90% in 2016.

Action Plan


Attainment


( 3-5 Action Steps)

Who will monitor?

Who will

implement?

Measures of

progress towards

evidence

Examples include:

PLC, Building 21



All staff K-5 and specialists will

intentionally and routinely use assessments

to identify student needs and plan

instruction.

Leadership Team; Grade level teams; K-5 teachers and Specialists

Launch August 2014

PLC Building 28 hours ATLA teachers for facilitation Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning Basic Excel training for all staff using expertise within the building and district

Implementation: will be scheduled

PD calendar reflects ongoing focus on use of Excel and Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning K-5 data analysis of DIBELS results and books October/March/June to plan next steps in instruction and intervention DIBELS progress monitoring tool will be used intentionally; intensive-weekly; strategic-every two weeks; benchmark-monthly

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

Use SBAC released items and test

specification to design classroom based

formative assessments

All k-5 teachers; grade level teams

Launch August 2015

Building 28 hours

Impact:

The number of students at benchmark will increase while the number of students at intensive and strategic will decrease as measured by DIBELS. K-5 analysis of MAPs data to align instruction to areas of need October/January/June. Analyze test specs to identify question stems and key academic vocabulary.


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

Planning Implementation Calendar:

In this section develop a timeline for the SIP process for the next school year.

Timeline for Planning Process School Leadership Team Meetings:

August 29, 2012 Goal group work August 30, 2012 Goal group October 22, 2012 Executive meeting October 25, 2012 AMO Staff Meeting November 8, 2012 Current Reality Reading data carousel-MAPs MSP DIBELS (all demographic areas) November 20, 2012 Current Reality Math data carousel-MAPs MSP Fact Fluency November 27, 2012 SIP Executive Committee-reviewing challenge narratives November 29, 2012 Staff meeting to prioritize challenge statements December 12, 2012 Executive meeting to complete template 5-8, 11 Executive summary