Engaged. Inspired. Empowered. 2014­2015

Mrs. Christy Jordan, Principal Mr. Eric Bransteter, Assistant Principal

19000 Cumberland Road Noblesville, IN 46060 Phone: 317­770­2080 Fax: 317­770­2081

1

Table of Contents Content Page Introduction 3 ISTEP+ ELA Assessment Data 5 ISTEP+ Math Assessment Data 9 IREAD Data 12 Acuity Data 13 Student Reading Level Data 14 Attendance Data 16 Conclusion 17 Specific Areas where Improvement is Needed Immediately 20 Language Arts School Improvement Plan 22 Math School Improvement Plan 24

2

INTRODUCTION Vision: We are engaged in intellectual pursuits, inspired to challenge the present, and empowered to adapt, innovate, and succeed today and tomorrow. Mission: Inspired by our students’ infinite potential, Noblesville Schools ensures student­centered learning that seamlessly integrates inquiry learning, 21st Century Skills, and technology in an interdisciplinary, authentic approach to learning. Description of White River Elementary: White River Elementary opened in 1999. It currently has an enrollment of 676 students in early childhood through 5th grade. The socioeconomic status of the school ranges from low­income families who live in subsidized housing to high­income families. White River currently has 64% percent of students paying for lunch, while 36% receive lunch and textbook assistance. The ethnicity is predominately Caucasian students accounting for 85% percent of the school population. The remainder of the population consists of six percent Hispanic students, two percent Asian students, four percent African American students, and three percent multiracial students. White River Elementary also offers special services for specific needs. These include Early Childhood, Title I, At Your School childcare, and FOCUS to meet the needs of the gifted and talented. Resource services are also provided for students with Emotional Disabilities, MiId Mental Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, Communication Disorders, and Occupational and Physical Therapy needs. Additionally, special area instruction in Art, Music, Physical Education, and Technology is delivered to students in grades K­5. Description and Location of Curriculum: Noblesville Schools has adopted the Indiana Academic Standards, which will transition from Common Core State Standards to Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards. Locally developed additions to the curriculum serve to expand and enrich these statewide measures of performance. The core curriculum is viewed as a fluid and flexible document that should respond to the learning needs of students and is impacted by the discovery of new information and technologies. Therefore, the Noblesville Schools’ curriculum is constantly undergoing periodic and systematic analysis and revision. Noblesville Schools’ locally developed curriculum maps along with the Indiana common core standards by content area are located at www.noblesvilleschools.org. Description of Assessment Instruments in Addition to ISTEP+:

IREAD3 is a state­aligned, summative assessment used to measure foundational reading standards through grade three. This assessment is administered to 3rd grade students annually in the spring.

mClass/DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is an individually­administered, standardized assessment, and results measure early mathematical and literacy development . These assessments are administered to students in grades K­2, three times yearly with progress monitoring for literacy skills as needed.

TRC (Text, Reading and Comprehension) is a standardized assessment individually administered to students in grades K­2 three times a year. Accuracy and comprehension scores are used to measure instructional reading levels to assist with small group reading instruction.

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmarking System is a standardized assessment individually administered to students three times a year in grades 3­5. Fluency, accuracy, and comprehension scores are used to measure instructional reading levels to inform next steps with small group reading instruction.

3

Acuity is a state­aligned, computer assessment used to predict a child’s success on ISTEP+ in math, language arts, and science. It also identifies students’ areas of strengths and weaknesses. These assessments are administered at White River Elementary three times per year in grades 3­5.

Running Records are informal assessment tools with anecdotal notes utilized daily to guide next steps in reading instruction.

SUMMARY OF DATA

4

ISTEP+ English/Language Arts Results

Noted Trends & Conclusions: In the 2013/2014 ELA portion of ISTEP+, 4th and 5th grade achievement was just 1% and 2% away from meeting our goal of 90% passing. 3rd grade scores were significantly lower than previous years and the other grade levels. 5th grade student scores were 9% higher than last year’s 5th grade. In 2012/2013, Noblesville Elementary Schools expanded grade levels from Kindergarten­4th grade, to Kindergarten ­5th grade. Prior to that year, 5th graders attended one Intermediate School with 6th graders, instead of elementary schools. As such, 5th grade does not have data in the 2011/2012 school year.

When comparing cohorts, 4th grade students scored 1% higher than when in 3rd grade, and 5th grade students scored 1% lower than when in 4th. The 5th grade cohort has dropped each grade level since 3rd grade with a total of 3% fewer students passing.

Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Student data will be closely monitored to inform teachers’ efforts with core and intervention instruction.

5

Noted Trends & Conclusions: There were not enough 3rd grade special education students to qualify as a subgroup in 2011/2012, and this continued with 4th grade in 2012/2013 and 5th grade in 2013/2014. In 3rd grade, 81% of general education students passed the E/LA portion of ISTEP in 2013/2014 compared to 40% of special education students. In 4th grade, 91% of general education students passed while 74% of special education students passed. A comparison of cohorts shows that 4th grade special education students scored 3% higher in 2013/2014 than in 2012/2013.

Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Instructional time is maximized for special education students through the collaboration of general education and special education teachers. A focus for these collaborative efforts is to scaffold special education students to independent learning through the implementation of appropriate accommodations and modifications.

6

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Students of lower socioeconomic status (SES) is represented by their eligibility for free or reduced priced lunch. The percentage of the cohort of students of lower SES passing decreases from 84% to 76%. 96% of 3rd grade students with higher SESpassed the 2011/2012 ISTEP test. This cohort dropped to 94% passing in 2012/2013 and stayed the same in 2013/2014. Students showed an 8% drop in the 3rd grade lower SES cohort while the higher SES cohort group dropped 2%. The difference between students of lower SES to students with higher SES widened from 12% in 2011/2012 to 18% as 5th graders in 2013/2014. The most noted trend is that a gap exists between our students of higher and lower SES in all grade levels. This gap ranges from 9% in the 2010/2011 4th grade students to 33% in the 2013/2014 3rd grade students. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Student data will be closely monitored to help teachers be intentional with core and intervention instruction.

7

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Scores of the 2011/2012 3rd grade cohort group dropped from 91% passing to 89% passing as 5th grade students in 2013/2014. The 3rd grade and 4th grade cohort groups in 2012/2013 stayed the same at 86% passing in 3rd and 89% passing in 4th. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Student data will be closely monitored to help teachers be purposeful with core and intervention instruction.

8

ISTEP+ Math Results

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Overall percentages of student cohorts passing in each grade level increased on the 2013/2014 ISTEP+ test. The 3rd grade cohort group in 2011/2012 increased from 92% to 98% in 2013/2014. 3rd grade scores have decreased from 92% passing in 2011/2012 to 79% in 2013/2014. 4th grade scores dropped by 4% passing, but 5th grade increased by 5%. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Student data will be closely monitored to help teachers be purposeful with core and intervention instruction.

9

Noted Trends & Conclusions: There were not enough 3rd grade special education students to qualify as a subgroup in 2011/2012, and this continued in 4th grade in 2012/2013 and 5th grade in 2013/2014. 4th grade students showed an 8% increase in scores when compared to their results as 3rd graders. 47% of 3rd grade special education students passed in 2013/2014, a drop of 29% from the 2012/2013 3rd grade results. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Instructional time is maximized for special education students through the collaboration of general education and special education teachers. A focus for these collaborative efforts is to scaffold special education students to independent learning through the implementation of appropriate accommodations and modifications.

10

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Overall percentages of student cohorts passing in each grade level increased on the 2013/2014 ISTEP+ test regardless of SES. The passing scores of the 3rd grade 2011/2012 students with lower SES cohort group increased by 10% from 2011/2012 to 2013/2014.

The score gap between students with higher and lower SES remains inconsistent. In 2011/2012, there was a 15% difference in scores in 3rd grade students and a 13% difference in 4th grade students. In 2012/2013, the gap increased to 16% in 3rd and 4th grade and 15% in 5th grade. This gap further widened in 2013/2014 to 22% in 3rd grade, 9% in 4th grade, and 8% in 5th grade. 100% of students with higher SES passed the math portion of ISTEP+ in 2013/2014. The most noted trend is that a gap exists between our students with higher and lower SES. This gap ranges from 6% in the 2012/2013 3rd grade students to 22% in the 2013/2014 3rd grade students. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Instructional time is maximized for special education students through the collaboration of general education and special education teachers. A focus for these collaborative efforts is to scaffold special education students to independent learning through the implementation of appropriate accommodations and modifications.

11

IREAD 3 Data

Noted Trends & Conclusions: IREAD student scores have dropped since the 96% passing rate in 2011­2012. Passing rates dropped 3.5% in 2012­2013 and 4.5% in 2013­2014. This trend of scores decreasing will continue to be monitored, and it shows a need for reflection on core instruction and how interventions are being implemented and tracked. Developing independent learners through a gradual release of responsibility model is the focus of our improvement effort; purposeful instruction, authentic practice, and engaging students in real world application are the cornerstones of our plan. Instructional time is maximized for special education students through the collaboration of general education and special education teachers. A focus for these collaborative efforts to scaffold special education students to independent learning through the implementation of appropriate accommodations and modifications.

12

Acuity Data

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Identifiable trends in the percent of students passing Acuity do not exist. However, grade level teams analyze Acuity standards and item level data to determine trends in grade level, class, and individual progress in order to plan instruction to meet individual student and group needs. The use of Acuity data and instructional materials continues to guide core instruction and targeted intervention instruction.

13

Student Reading Level Data The graphs below show results of End of Year (EOY) benchmark reading assessments given three times per year. These results are based on students' instructional reading levels.

14

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Analysis of reading level data show that we do not consistently meet the goal of 85% or more of students achieving benchmark level reading. This indicates that a shift in core instruction should be made to better meet the needs of students. In the upcoming year, teachers will collaboratively plan unit objectives for language arts instruction, but will focus their weekly/daily lesson planning on strategies to scaffold the learners in their classrooms to meet grade level objectives. All teachers will be focused on gradually releasing responsibility for reading and thinking to students, such that they can engage in independent reading with high levels of thinking. Additionally, close monitoring of RtI will be in effect this coming year. Monthly RtI data meetings will focus on closing the achievement gap early. Monthly grade level and classroom level data will be reviewed, and a problem solving method will be applied to brainstorm intensified instruction for those students with three or more points below the aim line. Our goal is to consistently have 85% or more of students achieve benchmark reading levels.

A comparison of students’ EOY reading levels to their beginning of the year levels the following year reveals an overall trend of reading­level regression from EOY to the BOY. The analysis of this data has driven differentiated reading instruction and proven to be successful. Shuffleboard meetings serve as a time for collaborative data analysis among all Title One staff, general education teachers, and special education staff. These conversations about data help individualize instruction for all students. Another trend is the Benchmark data in half of the grade levels does not make the 85% threshold of students at or above benchmark, indicating further analysis of core instruction is necessary.

15

Attendance Data

Noted Trends & Conclusions: Research shows a high attendance rate improves student achievement. The 13­14 school year saw a drop of 1.2% attendance rate from the 12­13 school year. The 13­14 school year was the first in which Noblesville Schools followed a balanced calendar in which the summer break was shortened, and fall, winter, and spring breaks were each two weeks in length. The school continues to strive to boost this rate. Individual teachers, including special areas teachers, recognize students with perfect attendance. In addition to implementing Noblesville Schools’ “Be Present” initiative, students are recognized each quarter for perfect attendance. Additionally, students with yearlong perfect attendance receive a t­shirt at the school’s end of the year celebration. Future plans to increase attendance percentage include competitions among grade levels for the best attendance rate.

16

CONCLUSION Supporting Indiana Academic and Common Core State Standards:

District­wide curriculum mapping has aligned the Common Core and Indiana Academic Standards. Materials provided by the Indiana Department of Education will support our transition to the Indiana College and Career Readiness Standards this year.

Within the use of the district­wide Balanced Literacy Framework, including Readers Workshop, Language Word Study, and Writers Workshop, instruction is differentiated based on individual student needs. Engaging students in authentic reading practice throughout the day as a point of emphasis.

A comprehensive reading program evaluation was conducted in 2012/2013 and resulted in the adoption of Journeys as a resource to supplement instruction in a balanced literacy framework.

2012/2013 was the first year of implementing Everyday Mathematics for grades K­5. Practice, remediation, and enrichment strategies support math instruction based on individual

student need. Conclusions about Student Achievement Based on ISTEP+ and Other Assessments:

Based on formative and summative assessment data, reading comprehension and math reasoning will continue to be a school improvement goals for our school.

In order to close the achievement gap for our subpopulations, improvement efforts will focus on providing purpose­driven instruction, utilizing a gradual release of responsibility model, and providing students opportunities to apply learning in unique and authentic situations.

We will continue to closely monitor individual student data, especially in our socio­economic and special education subgroups, in order to be as intentional as possible with core and intervention instruction.

In the 2014/2015 school year, we will focus on closely monitoring the outcomes of our RtI efforts through reading level data. It is important that we close the achievement gap as early as possible. We will monitor how effectively we are doing so and adjusting practice to achieve such outcomes early in students’ school years.

Parental Involvement in the School Parents are a vital part of White River Elementary School’s collaborative team. White River Elementary welcomes and encourages parents to become an active part of the learning environment. Volunteer opportunities are numerous at White River Elementary, which may include classrooms working with small groups of students and/or individuals, in the media center, on field trips, and serving on school and district­level committees. Parents are welcome to eat lunch with their child, participate in parent/teacher conferences and information nights, and attend celebration assemblies. The White River Elementary Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) also offers endless opportunities for involvement for all parents: fundraisers, movie night, the ice cream social, staff appreciation events, book fairs, clerical assistance from home or at school, and enrichment opportunities among others. The PTO and parent volunteers offer support and seek new opportunities for students, teachers, families, and community members throughout the year. Safe and Disciplined Learning Environment White River Elementary School provides a safe and disciplined learning environment to all students. Families are provided with the Noblesville Schools Elementary Family Handbook that clearly defines district policies and expectations. Beginning in the 2011­2012 school year, White River implemented 17

Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports, an evidence­based plan for improving behavior. This plan encourages and rewards appropriate choices on a daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. Expectations for students are clearly modeled, taught, and posted. Reteaching and modeling of desired behavior assists students in making positive choices. Additionally, White River Elementary has created a school crisis team, whose task is to create, publicize, and regularly review plans of action for various crises that align with corporation and state mandates. Crisis drills are also conducted regularly to practice school­wide procedures. Building access is limited to guests entering through the main doors throughout the school day, and all visitors are required to sign in at the office and wear a visitor badge while in the building. Cameras also provide additional security coverage. This year, Noblesville Schools has committed training staff in a proactive crisis response ­ ALICE. Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate (ALICE) is based on research compiled from crises across the nation. It allows for informed decision­making to occur during a crisis situation, thus increasing the survival rates. The district plans to have all staff trained by January 2015. Technology as a Learning Tool Based upon the Noblesville Schools Technology Plan’s mission and philosophy statements, the integration of media and technology into the curriculum plays an important role in supporting student achievement in all content areas. Noblesville Schools looks to national media and technology standards in providing educational opportunities for staff, so that they successfully assist students with developing and refining media literacy and technology skills in their daily lives. At White River Elementary, the School Librarian, Technology Paraprofessional, and all teachers in Early Childhood through 5th grade plan collaboratively to assure that students are taught inquiry, research, digital citizenship, and media literacy needed to be successful as they complete their education and become life­long learners. Emphasis is on the American Association of School Libraries Standards for the 21st Century Learner: Think, Create, Share, and Grow. Media Technology Aides are provided for each school to support the use and care of all media and technological services available. These aides assist students and staff in utilizing the multiple forms of technology available. This year, the additional support of a building Technology Lead Teacher and the district Technology Coach has supported teachers in implementing technology tools in daily instruction to enhance learning for students. Professional Development

White River Elementary School’s staff has organized internal professional development opportunities. In addition to district provided early release time, staff members are involved in continuous professional development through shared study of professional literature, grade level collaboration days, common planning times, staff learning meetings, and the use of Lead Teachers. Student achievement data analysis, school improvement plans, and collaboratively developed implementation rubrics are the cornerstone of professional development initiatives. Teachers are also encouraged to seek independent professional development opportunities to further personal practice.

Staff was surveyed at the end of the 2012/2013 school year to determine which of the five instructional strategies (teachers will communicate clear learning objectives and checks for understanding, teachers will facilitate frequent collaboration among students that require higher level thinking, teachers will purposefully plan and execute lessons that gradually release the responsibility for higher level thinking

18

from the teacher to the student, teachers will provide literacy instruction through a balanced literacy framework with an emphasis on guided reading, and teachers will implement Everyday Math with fidelity) need the most professional development to implement. Results came back with staff having the most understanding in providing literacy instruction through a balanced framework with an emphasis on guided reading and communicating clear learning objectives and checking for understanding. The areas identified as most needed in developing staff understandings are facilitating frequent collaboration among students that require higher­level thinking and purposefully planning and executing lessons that gradually release the responsibility for higher­level thinking from the teacher to the student. In the 2012/2013, the staff of White River Elementary began formally studying lesson objectives. Teachers studied and discussed research­based chapters and articles, analyzed examples and non­examples, and created lesson objectives based on our understandings. The staff created a model for creating and communicating lesson objectives. The implementation of effective learning objectives will be evaluated through the use of the Teacher Evaluation Rubric.

In the 2013/2014 school, the staff studied studied the Gradual Release of Responsibility model while still emphasizing and incorporating lesson objectives. All teachers carefully read Better Learning through Structured Teaching, by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey. Staff professional development time focused on discussing the implications of what was learned in the chapters and planning lessons based on the gradual release model. An added bonus of studying Fisher/Frey’s model of gradual release is that it emphasizes collaborative practice as an important step in becoming independent with a skill. The study of this model has supported teaching effectiveness in the areas of collaborative practice and scaffolding student learning to independent application.

Literacy professional development has focused on implementing a writer’s workshop and increasing the rigor and authenticity in reading lessons through close reading. Throughout each of these professional development opportunities, purposeful objectives and the gradual release of responsibility model have been emphasized.

Our professional development focus for 2014­2015 will be on authentic student engagement and real world application of learning. Professional learning opportunities will include Project Lead the Way training and implementation, coaching cycles and reflection in Writers Workshop implementation, collaborative planning focused on backward design and teaching for real world transfer, using data to differentiate instruction for individual learners, and increasing student engagement. Specific Areas Where Improvement is Needed Immediately

19

When initially writing this plan in 2011/2012, all staff participated in an inquiry process with our data. First, all White River Elementary Staff participated in the review and analysis of student achievement data. Next, problem statements were identified and prioritized. Staff members then reflected upon these problem statements in order to develop inquiry questions to provide direction for school improvement. Finally, staff collaborated in cross­grade level teams to develop hypotheses to best address the greatest areas of need. The problem statements, inquiry questions, and hypotheses are listed below: Problem Statement #1 Students’ end of the year reading levels are higher than their beginning of the year levels of the next grade. Inquiry Questions:

What strategies are being taught to develop higher­level thinking? What instructional strategies are effective in maintaining reading skills and learning over time? How might we use goal setting to further involve students in the learning process?

Hypotheses Statements:

If we purposely plan and execute lessons that gradually transfer responsibility for higher level thinking from teacher to students, then our students will be able to think at a high level and maintain those skills over time.

If we set clear learning goals and check for students’ understanding throughout lessons, then students will be more involved in the learning process and be able to maintain learning over time.

Problem Statement #2 Students with higher SES are more proficient than students with lower SES in all areas of ISTEP+ testing. AND Problem Statement #3 General education students consistently outperform special education students. Inquiry Questions:

How can we meet the learning styles of all students in each subject area? Which instructional strategies most effectively engage and best support the learning of our

sub­group populations? How might we use goal setting to further involve students in the learning process?

Hypotheses Statements:

If we facilitate frequent collaboration among students that requires higher­level thinking, then student engagement will increase; thus, meeting the learning needs of all students.

If we set clear learning goals and check for students’ understanding throughout lessons, then students will be more involved in the learning process and be able to maintain learning over time.

If we implement a balanced literacy framework and Everyday Mathematics with fidelity, then we will be able to meet the learning needs of all students.

White River staff has been making strides in addressing the identified issues through the strategies determined as most likely to improve classroom instruction. After studying both purposeful learning

20

objectives and a gradual release of responsibility model, implementation of these strategies in daily instruction is most important. Additional trends have also surfaced during the past two years, which have prompted the following additional Problem Statement: Problem Statement #4: Our school has earned the letter grade of a B through the IDOE school grading model. While our ISTEP+ percent passing scores have been high enough to earn an A, White River has lost a point each year due to a high number of students making low growth, as determined by the IDOE school grading model. Inquiry Questions

How can we insure each and every student is challenged during language arts instruction each day?

How can we support high levels of independent applications of reading and writing? How can we develop readers both in and out of school?

Hypothesis Statement:

If we organize our reading and writing curriculum around purposeful application and plan lessons to that meet a variety of multi­level needs, we will insure higher levels of learning for all.

If we plan backwards from authentic outcomes, our instruction will be more relevant and engaging for all learners, thus increasing their participation as a reader and writer.

STATUTES AND RULES TO BE WAIVED There are no statutes and/or rules to be waived.

Noblesville Schools School Improvement Action Plan

Goal All students will improve reading comprehension

Benchmarks By June 30, 2015 90% of students will pass the E/LA portion of the ISTEP+ assessment

Supporting Data Areas of Greatest Progress Areas of Greatest Challenge Summer regression in reading levels is

reduced in grades 3, 4, and 5 when compared to grades 1 and 2.

Decreasing cohort scores in ISTEP+ ELA Trend of decreasing IREAD3 scores Low individual student growth in English/Language Arts Less than 85% of students at EOY Benchcmark

21

Targeted Subgroups Free and reduced lunch; Special education students

Instructional Strategies (Teachers will…) Learning Outcomes (Students will…)

Teachers will establish and communicate the purpose of the lesson.

Students will reflect on their own learning to determine deeper implications and real­world applications to deepen understanding and direct future learning.

Teachers will purposefully plan and execute instruction using the gradual release of responsibility.

Students will independently apply their learning in flexible ways to new and unfamiliar situations.

Teachers will engage students in writing workshop.

Students will communicate ideas clearly and effectively through various modes and media to a variety of authentic audiences.

Teachers will engage learners in authentic, challenging tasks that encourage elaboration, questioning, and explanation.

Students will identify, analyze, and define real­world problems; consider multiple solutions and determine an appropriate course of action; develop actionable steps; implement a plan; and evaluate outcomes.

Research Supporting Instructional Strategies

Continuum of Literacy Learning, Fountas & Pinnell Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children, Fountas & Pinnell Guiding Readers and Writers, grades 3­6, Fountas & Pinnell Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency, Fountas & Pinnell Preventing Misguided Reading, Jan Miller & Melody Croft Where Great Teaching Begins, Anne Reeves Better Learning Through Structured Teaching , Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey Learning Targets, Connie M. Moss and Susan M. Brookhart Purposeful Classroom, Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey Conferring with Readers, Gravity Goldberg and Jennifer Serravallo The Units of Study in Opinion/Argument, Information, and Narrative Writing Series, Lucy Calkins The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High­Quality Units, Wiggins and McTighe

Professional Development

Action Timeline Study and implement the Gradual Release of Responsibility model of instruction Study and implement Writing Workshop in all classrooms Study and implement Project Lead the Way in all classrooms Reflect upon and adjusting Collaborative Planning to personalize instruction and meet individual student needs

August 2013 through 2014­2015 school year January 2014 through 2014­2015 school year 2014­2015 school year 2014­2015 school year

22

Study Essential Questions

January 2015

Monitoring System

Action Review and Revision Student reading levels Coaching cycle with instructional coach RtI data meetings Review Acuity data Review ISTEP data Review IREAD data Observations and evaluations Quick checks

Beginning, middle, and end of year Each semester Monthly September, November, February Summer May Each semester Weekly

Assessments: Standardized and/or locally developed measures of progress toward the goal ISTEP+ (3­5) IREAD (3) Fountas and Pinnell Leveling System (3­5) Running records (K­5) DIBELS (K­2) TRC (K­2) Acuity (3­5) Intervention data (K­5)

Noblesville Schools School Improvement Action Plan

Goal All students will demonstrate improved math reasoning skills when solving problems.

Benchmarks By June 30, 2015 90% of students will pass the Mathematics portion of the ISTEP+ assessment

Supporting Data Areas of Greatest Progress Areas of Greatest Challenge Scores for cohort groups in math

increased from last year. 4th and 5th grade math scores exceeded our goal of 90% passing

Low individual student growth in math reasoning skills

Targeted Subgroups Free and reduced lunch; Special education students

23

Instructional Strategies (Teachers will…) Learning Outcomes (Students will…)

Teachers will establish and communicate the purpose of the lesson.

Students will reflect on their own learning to determine deeper implications and real­world applications to deepen understanding and direct future learning.

Teachers will purposefully plan and execute instruction using the gradual release of responsibility.

Students will independently apply their learning in flexible ways to new and unfamiliar situations.

Teachers will engage learners in authentic, challenging tasks that encourage elaboration, questioning, and explanation.

Students will identify, analyze, and define real­world problems; consider multiple solutions and determine an appropriate course of action; develop actionable steps; implement a plan; and evaluate outcomes.

Research Supporting Instructional Strategies

Response to Intervention, Fuchs, Fuchs, Vaughn Focus: Evaluating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning, Mike Schmoker Where Great Teaching Begins, Anne Reeves Better Learning Through Structured Teaching, Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey Learning Targets, Connie M. Moss and Susan M. Brookhart Purposeful Classroom, Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High­Quality Units, Wiggins and McTighe

Professional Development

Action Timeline Study and implement the Gradual Release of Responsibility model of instruction Study and implement Project Lead the Way in all classrooms Implement Collaborative Planning among teams Study Essential Questions

August 2013 through 2014­2015 school year 2014­2015 school year 2014­2015 school year January 2015

Monitoring System

Action Review and Revision Coaching cycle with instructional coach RtI data meetings Review Acuity data Review ISTEP data Observations and Evaluations Math Lead Teacher trainings/workshops

Each semester Monthly September, November, February Summer Each semester 2014­2015 school year

24

Quick checks

Weekly

Assessments: Standardized and/or locally developed measures of progress toward the goal ISTEP+ (3­5) mClass Math (K­2) Acuity (3­5) Intervention data (K­5)

25