test template document - new discoveries montessori...

School Support Division1500 Highway 36 WestRoseville, MN 55113-4266

Priority, Focusand Continuous Improvement

School Plans2013-14

DISTRICT INFORMATION

District Name and Number: New Discoveries Montessori Academy

Phone: 320-234-6362

Superintendent (Director): Dave Conrad Fax:

District Address: 1000 5th Ave SE Email:SCHOOL INFORMATION

School Name and Number: New Discoveries Montessori Academy

Phone: 320-234-6362

School Address: 1000 5th Ave SE Fax:

Principal: Dr. Bob Cannon Email:Check one: ☒Priority School ☐Focus School☐Continuous Improvement School

Check if applies: ☒School-wide plan

Check one (Regional Centers of Excellence):☐North ☒South/Central ☒SE/Metro

LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION

The local Board of Education/Charter Board of __ New Discoveries Montessori Academy _____ (LEA Name) has authorized Dave Conrad (Name) at a monthly meeting on 8/20/2013 (Date) to act as the Local Education Agency (LEA) representative in reviewing and filing the attached plan as provided under P.L. 107-110 for school year 2013-14. The LEA Representative will ensure that the school district (LEA) will maintain compliance with the appropriate federal statutes, regulations, and procedures and will act as the responsible authority in all matters relating to the administration of this improvement plan. The district (LEA) ensures that its designee(s) will participate as a member of the school leadership implementation team and work in collaboration with the Regional Centers of Excellence and/or MDE providing technical assistance through the Minnesota School Improvement and Support Model.

___________________________________________________ _________________________(Signature of Superintendent/Charter School Board Chair) ( Date)GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1



School Plans2013-14

Template: This Word document will guide leadership implementation teams in completing Title I Priority and Focus school improvement plans in accordance with the ESEA Flexibility Request. This may also serve as the Title I School-wide plan for eligible Priority and Focus schools. Priority and Focus school improvement plans for 2013-14 must be submitted in this MDE template and are due June 1, 2013.

Directions: Complete and update Priority and Focus school plans with the assistance of your Regional Center of Excellence staff (see page 3). Begin by examining what instructional strategies or practices you have in place that can be continued in your action plan efforts. Use multiple data sources to determine needs and prioritize strategies or practices. It is highly recommended to limit the number of instructional strategies or practices, three to five, ensuring effective school action plan implementation.

Review: MDE will only review 2013-14 Priority or Focus school plans after local board approval. Plans that have not met ESEA Flexibility Request guidelines will be returned for changes and/or additional information. (When identification of Continuous Improvement schools occurs, timelines will be determined for developing Continuous Improvement school plans.)

2



School Plans2013-14

MESSAGE FROM THE CABINET

A Message from Commissioner Cassellius and the Cabinet: Purpose of the School Improvement Plan and Essential Partnerships for Improvement PlanningA school improvement plan is an organized, focused, inclusive and public way to plan improvement for student benefit. It guides a school to ask new and deeper questions about teacher and student learning as well as conditions and strategies for success. The School Improvement Plan supports our shared mission: Leading for Educational Excellence and Equity. Every day for Every One.Regional Centers of Excellence—Provide a Statewide System of Support (SSOS) to Focus and Priority Schools that enables implementation leadership teams at district and school to effectively implement evidence-based practices impacting positive student outcomes. Center staff with support from the Minnesota Department of Education specialists, will work on site in participating schools. Building capacity to support growth and improved reading, mathematics and graduation outcomes for all students will focus on closing the achievement gap.District and Charter School Boards—Set direction and provide support for the School Improvement process. Establish policies to ensure that school teams, staff, parents, and other community partners have meaningful roles in developing, communicating, monitoring, and evaluating student benefit as a result of SIP (School Improvement Plan) planning and implementation. Celebrate incremental successes as schools reach established benchmarks for student achievement.District and School Leadership—Meet together regularly about progress towards school goals and needed support for students. Determine next step supports for teaching and learning based on classroom practices and teacher feedback. Monitor the progress of strategies or practices and report progress to stakeholders on a regular basis.School Staff—Lead and participate in assessing and establishing priority needs for student equity and achievement. Understand the root cause of student performance challenges. Ensure that classroom strategies for improvement address the needs of students at all levels of learning.Parents and Families—Learn how to actively contribute to improved academic achievement. Continue a dialogue with school staff about the type of parent engagement that will best support student learning for all students. Students—Participate in strategies to reach individual and school goals. Be responsible for personal learning and achievement. Celebrate progress with teachers, students and parents.Continuous Improvement is the shared learning goal and responsibility of our entire culture. Together, let us continue to explore better information about student performance, better information about factors that impact performance, and increase our focus on improvement planning, progress, and results.

3



School Plans2013-14

4



School Plans2013-14

REGIONAL CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

The ESEA Flexibility Request states:“The primary goal of Regional Centers of Excellence is to focus schools and districts on closing the persistent achievement gap between high and low performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers.”

The Department has established three Regional Centers of Excellence to:• Bring together cross-agency Statewide System of Support (SSOS) implementation teams with specific expertise• Build state capacity to support regional teams• Provide equitable technical assistance in evidence-based practices for Focus and Priority Schools• Assist school leadership teams in taking evidenced-based practices to scale

The vision of the Regional Centers of Excellence is to create a Statewide infrastructure that will support a common, coherent implementation of evidence-based strategies and practices; and apply the Common Principles of Effective Practice (WHAT) and key components of implementation (HOW) to support the infrastructure.The roles of Center staff which will include a director, and several educational specialist in the areas of reading, mathematics, English language development, special education, and implementation science to:• Determine the district’s or school’s current operational and performance status• Assist the district and school with school improvement planning (SIP) to prioritize instructional strategies or

practices based on identified needs • Provide consultation, training and technical assistance to support the school’s or district’s implementation of its

specific planned instructional strategies or practices• Monitor the district’s or school’s progress with implementation and provide support for necessary modifications

to the plan

PLAN DO STUDY ACT (PDSA) IMPROVEMENT CYCLE

The PDSA Improvement Cycle is an ongoing effort to identify student learning challenges and change instruction for student benefit. Continual follow-up and assessment of implementation and impact for each instructional strategy or practice informs next right steps to support both teacher instruction and student learning.

.

5



School Plans2013-14

6



School Plans2013-14

LEADERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION TEAM REFLECTION QUESTIONS (NO WRITTEN RESPONSES REQUIRED)

PLAN (Take Stock and Choose the Right Focus): What is the school plan for identifying the need and instructional strategy or practice(s) to close the achievement gap? Is there an existing team that serves as the instructional leadership implementation team? Is there appropriate

representation of stakeholders based on identified student groups? How does the school Comprehensive Needs Assessment determine math/reading SMART goals, appropriate

strategies/ practices and supports that will best increase student achievement? How will instructional strategy or practice planning be aligned with the school’s mission, vision and goals? How will the leadership team target a root cause of student performance challenges? How do implementation and results data from the previous school action plan inform the next right steps? How will the leadership implementation team prioritize student needs, plan for implementation of targeted

instructional strategies/practices, and evaluate the action plan as the central focus of the continuous improvement process (Plan Do Study Act)?

How do selected instructional strategies/practices fit with current culture, other initiatives, supports and planned parent engagement?

What technical assistance, professional development and resources are available for each selected strategy/practice? What will strategies and practices look like when successfully implemented?

What ongoing data will be collected to assess fidelity of implementation and measure student learning? What will be frequency of data collection?

How will the leadership implementation team plan for immediate results (Quick Wins) in math/reading?

DO (Take Collective Action): How is strategy/practice being implemented? How will Person(s) Responsible communicate action steps, roles, staff responsibilities, and parent/community

partner roles and responsibilities? How will the leadership implementation team engage stakeholders? When will best practice coaching in reading/math begin and how will implementation data and student outcomes

be measured and monitored?

STUDY (Monitor and Adjust): How is the strategy/practice being implemented and impacting student achievement within the PDSA improvement cycle? What do Benchmarks (i.e. unit tests, short-cycle assessments or system-wide quarterly common assessments) predict

about proficiency and growth of student learning? How does Progress Monitoring (i.e. teacher observation, learning team minutes, coaching logs, interim assessments

and classroom formative assessment processes) determine training, re-training, re-teaching and resource needs? How will job-embedded professional development (e.g., instruction focused learning teams) and coaching

strengthen the impact of the strategy/practice on teacher instruction and student learning? Are expected changes in teacher instruction addressing root causes of the challenges to student performance?

ACT (Reflect, Celebrate and Re-engage; Maintain Momentum): What evidence supports continuing or moving to a 7



School Plans2013-14

8



School Plans2013-14

LEADERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION TEAM (IF APPROPRIATE, SCHOOL-WIDE)

A formal leadership implementation team should be in place to lead the process of developing the school plan. Primarily, this team should organize and oversee the Comprehensive Needs Assessment process; lead the development of an improvement plan focused on root cause analysis, oversee implementation of evidence-based instructional strategies/practices, and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of strategy/practice within a PDSA cycle. The school action plan for each evidence-based instructional strategy or practice is a dynamic document to be changed and added to on a continuous basis by the team. It reflects a running record of short improvement cycles, approximately four to six weeks, focused on adjusting instruction using both implementation and student achievement data related to the selected strategy or practice.The school will want to consider these questions to determine the selection of the leadership implementation team: Is there an existing team or committee that can serve as the school leadership implementation team? If a new team is established, how will members be selected and recruited? Is the team membership periodically adjusted to meet changing instructional support needs with attention to

inclusion of staff with expertise related to both selected strategies/practices and improvement of most challenging student subgroups?

Leadership Implementation Team membership must represent identified school needs: Principal, Title I staff, data coach, reading & math instructors/coaches, parent representatives, and specialists as determined by the Multiple Measurements Rating or Focus Rating (i.e. special education, English Language Development).

Name Role1. Dave Conrad Superintendent / BOM / FCL / CFLS2. Dr. Bob Cannon Principal3. Dr. Lora Dagel CIS / IC / MRC Internal Coach4. Rosine Hermodson Olsen MIC5. Joan Sax Bendix DIC6. Donna Hergegen RMSC7. Heather Vaillencourt E1 teacher8. Dr. Mary Jenatscheck RCOE9.

9



School Plans2013-14

Please address the following questions:1. Explain how the team composition represents prioritized needs of the school.

The Transformational Leadership Team is composed of five members, each of whom brings a different, yet equally vital element to the transformational process. The team includes members with experience and advanced degrees in both reading (literacy) and mathematics.

2. How will the leadership implementation team establish working relationships among themselves including consistent use of agendas/meeting best practices and a collaborative decision making process focused on instructional issues?The Transformational Leadership Team has and will continue to structure all meeting agendas using the Northern Star system. Agendas are collaboratively generated and summary notes are compiled and archived as evidence of goal attainment. Future goals are also realized through the Northern Star Indicators process. Norms will be addressed early in this school year to help ensure fidelity of the PLC functionality.

3. How will the leadership implementation team implement a systemic continuous improvement framework to guide instructional changes to increase student learning?The Transformational Leadership Team is fully data driven. The focus will be on student achievement data throughout the school year. Great Practice Strategies will continue to be the ‘go to resource’. The RCOE Implementation Specialist, Dr. Mary Jenatscheck will facilitate this ongoing, recursive cycle of systematic and continuous improvement.

4. How will the leadership implementation team communicate and establish feedback loops with stakeholders?The Transformational Leadership Team has established feedback / feed forward communication loops with current stakeholders. The means through which the stakeholders are kept ‘in the loop’ include (but not limited by):

NDMA Website Weekly updates by the Superintendent, Dave Conrad Email blasts to parents, community, school board and staff Frequent (monthly) newspaper articles featuring celebrations and academic events

(Family Learning Discovery Events) Classroom newsletters Radio interviews (quarterly)

10



School Plans2013-14

11



School Plans2013-14

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Using the information on instructional strengths and challenges in the previous two tables, answer the following questions.

1. What priority needs do the data suggest? Include rationale/process for prioritizing needs. Consider: Is student performance in one content area weaker than another? Is the school gap for a subgroup significantly larger for one group than another? Is the size of a subgroup significantly larger than another? Does the school have greater capacity to implement one instructional strategy/practice?

What priority needs do the data suggest? Include rationale/process for prioritizing needs.The August 12 job-embedded professional day was spent with Dr. Mary Jenatscheck, RCOE Implementation Specialist, facilitating a

comprehensive needs assessment and root cause analysis for both reading and math using the fishbone strategy. Data were examined from the MCA preliminary math results for grade 3-6 and the NWEA_MAP reading for grades 3-6. The data analysis included both reading and math because both areas showed a need for improvement. The reading and math SIP goals and main strategies were identified by the end of the JEPD session. The late August release of the MCA data for reading and math helped us redefine our professional goals. Subsequent collaborative meeting time was spent in data analysis and determining next steps using best-practice research-based strategies.

The data results showed the greater need is math since the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards on all state accountability tests was 33.3%; however, reading was not significantly ahead; showing a decline from the previous score with 43.3% of students meeting or exceeding the standards on all state accountability tests in reading.

However, when examining the achievement gap groups: special education population and free/reduced lunch population, the data showed a substantial gain in achievement which resulted in a significant narrowing of the achievement gap when compared to our non-identified student groups. The achievement gap in both math and reading between our non-free and reduced lunch population and our free and reduced lunch population (54% of the entire school population) is closing. Data and the PLC discussions have led the NDMA Instructional team to hypothesize that this gap reduction is due to greater reading proficiency among our free and reduced lunch population. Since NDMA has such a high Special Education population (currently at 22% and rising) the other gap group of focus was the Special Education population. The achievement gap in both math and reading between proficiency in our non-special education population and proficiency in our special education population is closing. NDMA’s special education population reflected a greater percentage of students proficient in math, and a similar percentage of students proficient in reading when compared to 2011 proficiency percentages.

As a result of the data analysis and the CNA, a collaborative decision was reached to implement two main goals for the School Improvement Plan (SIP). They include:

Close Reading strategy to improve comprehension Academic/accountable math talk to improve math competence and confidence

These strategies will be embedded school-wide and are the core of all PLC meetings, Great Practice Strategy sessions and Job-Embedded Professional

12



School Plans2013-14

Development meetings. The leadership team with RCOE support provide continuing professional guidance for all NDMA staff to ensure strong fidelity of implementation of the SIP goals.

2. What evidence-based instructional strategies or practices will be selected for mathematics, reading, and/or graduation based on prioritized needs? How was Root Cause Analysis used to determine instructional strategies or practices?

Math instructional strategies include:

o Montessori math materials aligned with Minnesota Math Standards

o RightStart Math aligned with Minnesota Math Standards

o Video-text Math (6th grade to address Minnesota Math Standards in algebra and geometry)

o Zacarro math

o IXL

Reading/Literacy strategies include:

o Guided Reading

o Close Reading

o Daily 5 / CAFÉ`

o Reading A-Z

o RAZ for Kids

o Traits Writing

o Words Their Way

o Montessori literacy materials aligned with Minnesota ELA Standards

13



School Plans2013-14

How was Root Cause Analysis used to determine instructional strategies or practices?

Dr. Mary Jenatscheck worked with the NDMA staff for 2 days in August to complete a CNA and Root Cause Analysis (Fishbone). The two main areas of identified need based on student data were math and reading. The root causes of low performance in math and in reading were determined to be:

Reading:

o Inconsistent focus on comprehension through close reading

o Comprehension and higher level thinking (inquiry) has not been stressed deeply and consistently enough

Math:

o Inconsistent implementation of academic / accountable math talk

o Math instruction is not fully aligned to the Minnesota Math Standards

Strategies of Focus:

o Close Reading; Daily 5 & CAFÉ; Literature Circles; comprehension constructors; speed bumps; informational text features;

o Academic/Accountable Math Talk

3. Define the SIP implementation work being carried-out by instruction-focused learning teams (sometimes called professional learning communities). How is the research being used to support the implementation work (e.g., defining critical features of implementation, identifying student subgroups expected to make greatest gains, etc.)? The important work of implementation is consistently under review at the PLCs. PLCs meet for 90 minutes each week. The PLC questions focus on fidelity of implementation of our SIP goals in reading and in math. The questions are:E2/SPED/Title PLC :

Academic Math Talk and Conceptual/Abstract UnderstandingStandards addressed:1. What are the major tasks that address the conceptual/abstract understanding required of the benchmark/standard?

Select the conceptual/abstract understandings of the standards/benchmarks.

14



School Plans2013-14

Identify & discuss the actual math problems which encompass the big ideas or essential understandings of the benchmark/standard.•

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions related to understanding the math problems? Select possible ways students may respond/solve the math equation/problem. Select possible misperceptions students may experience in solving the math equation/problem.

•3. How will academic math talk be embedded in the lesson?

Select a variety of guiding (high level) questions appropriate for the learners. Identify and discuss ways in which students will be clustered for greatest instructional impact. Select engagement strategies to ensure highest level of learner engagement throughout the mathematical dialogue.

•4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding?

Select possible ways learners will demonstrate/communicate their understanding.

Children’s House/E1/SPED PLC Questions:Standards Addressed:ELA Standards: Literacy Questions to support Close Reading Strategies

1. What are the major questions involved in close reading? List & discuss standards addressing close reading strategies Identify & discuss various reading passages appropriate for specific close reading practice at multiple grade levels.

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions to the close reading strategies? List & discuss possible ways students may respond when using close reading strategies. List & discuss possible misperceptions students may have regarding close reading strategies.

3. How will close reading be embedded in content areas such as math, science and social studies? List & discuss procedures used to clearly set expectations for using close reading strategies in all cross-content areas. List & discuss procedures for embedding close reading strategies across all disciplines. List & discuss possible questions appropriate for close reading using expository / informational text. List & discuss questions which are content specific.

•4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding while using close reading strategies?

List & discuss ways students will demonstrate/communicate their understanding. Collect, share and discuss student responses which reveal evidence of close reading.

15



School Plans2013-14

4. How will the learning team leadership (principal and learning team facilitators) bi-monthly meetings be used to support the ongoing implementation of selected instructional strategies/practices?NDMA’s TLT has systematically used Northern Star as a progress monitoring tool during the weekly meetings. Classroom walk throughs are conducted consistently by all members of the TLT. The completed walk-through form is then scanned and stored electronically by the Needs Assessment Recorder (Tara) and a hard copy is provided for the instructor. The observer will also follow-up with a face-to-face post-walk-through conference. When an implementation issue is observed it is addressed quickly with the instructor. Research-based instructional strategies are modeled by one of the TLT members if needed. Scheduled and impromptu observations also occur frequently.

5. How is the district (LEA) providing support and assistance to implement the evidence-based instructional strategies/practices? How will the district intervene if strategies/practices are not implemented with fidelity or are not providing significant increases in student achievement? The LEA has supported the implementation of research-based strategies in reading and math by providing updated technology and computers for students and staff. There are thin clients in each classroom which enable the students to access electronic math and literacy resources (i.e. IXL and RAZ for kids). The LEA has also supported math and literacy goals and implementation with the purchase of RightStart math materials as well as the subscriptions to IXL, Reading A-Z and RAZ for Kids.

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARYThe leadership implementation team should:

summarize the evidence gathered during the comprehensive needs assessment, prioritize student needs, and identify evidence-based instructional strategies/practices to address root cause of low student academic performance and/or gaps.

The evidence should be linked to student achievement on state accountability tests which are aligned to Minnesota Academic Standards.

Use tables below to summarize the achievement data, implementation data, and other related information to determine instructional strengths and challenges that have emerged. By answering the questions following the tables, the team will be able to reflect on prioritized needs and potential solutions to challenges.

Instructional Strengths: After evaluating the effect of current implemented instructional strategies or practices, list the instructional strategies/practices showing the greatest effect on mathematics learning, reading learning, or graduation. Please summarize at least two data sources (e.g. Benchmarks) to show impact on student achievement. Provide current fidelity of implementation data (e.g. Progress Monitoring) to show level of implementation. Use the ‘Next Right Steps’ column to document your team’s answer to: What evidence supports continuing or moving to a new instructional strategy or practice? Add rows as needed.

Instructional Strengths Student Achievement Data Fidelity of Implementation Data Next Right StepsList Instructional strengths below List student achievement data below List fidelity of implementation data below List next right steps belowHigh will to teach well Scores in reading and math Continue to support and nurture high

16



School Plans2013-14


(overall) have increased slightlyData from:

• AIMSweb (M & R)• NWEA (M & R)• MCA III (M & R)

will and optimism through open communication, transparency and frequent reflections/evaluations.

Optimism and ‘can do’ attitude Morale is positive Reflections, evaluations & bi-annual face-to-face mtngs w/ supt.

Continue to support and nurture high will and optimism through open communication, transparency and frequent reflections/evaluations.

JEPD will target identified needs JEPD will reflect student data JEPD schedule and evals Continue to develop germane JEPD based upon student data and teacher feedback.

Full 90 min uninterrupted PLC blocks

PLC discussion will focus on student achievement dataData from:

• AIMSweb (M & R)• NWEA (M & R)• MCA III (M & R)

• PLC agendas • PLC summary notes

Continue to provide support and resources to enhance the full implementation of the 90 minute PLC process. Member (s) from the TLT will attend PLCs as a top priority.

Instructional strategies are more aligned to Minnesota Academic Standards

Data from:• AIMSweb (M & R)• NWEA (M & R)• MCA III (M & R)

• Frequent and consistent walk-throughs in all classrooms

• Walk-through documentation (in 3-ring binder in NDMA office)

• Scanned and stored on office drive

Continue to provide support and resources to enhance the full implementation of the Minnesota Academic Standards including scheduled time during the school day to work on alignment.

Vertical and horizontal alignment is progressing and nearing completion

Data from:• AIMSweb (M & R)• NWEA (M & R)

Year Long Learning Progression documents in Teacher Drive

Continue to provide support and resources to enhance the full implementation of the Year Long

17



School Plans2013-14


• MCA III (M & R) Learning Progressions including scheduled time during the school day to work on Learning Progressions.

Instructional strategies are more focused on student need

Data from:• AIMSweb (M & R)• NWEA (M & R)• MCA III (M & R)

• Frequent and consistent walk-throughs in all classrooms

• Walk-through documentation (in 3-ring binder in NDMA office)

• Scanned and stored on office drive

Continue to provide support and feedback (through walk throughs) and student achievement data as the focus of the professional dialogue.

Instructional Challenges: List other instructional challenges not addressed with the implementation of the instructional strengths listed above; they may be past challenges that remain or have grown over the past year as well as new challenges to student learning. Please summarize at least two data sources (e.g. Benchmarks) that shows these are challenges. List the root causes identified for each instructional challenge. Provide one to three evidence-based instructional strategies/practices being considered to address the instructional challenge that is aligned to the identified root cause. Add rows as needed.

Instructional Challenges Data Analyzed/Reviewed Root Causes Possible Instructional SolutionsList instructional challenges below List data analyzed/reviewed below List root causes below List possible instructional solutions belowMath instruction (Montessori) doesn’t fully align with Mn Math Standards

Alignment documents

Data from:• AIMSweb (M)• NWEA (M)• MCA III (M)

Math instruction is not fully aligned to the Minnesota Math Standards

Continue to provide support and resources to enhance the full implementation of the Minnesota Academic Standards including scheduled time during the school day to work on alignment.

Video-text Interactive Math instruction is new

Data from:• AIMSweb (M)• NWEA (M)• MCA III (M)

Math instruction at the 5th and 6th grade levels does not meet Mn Math Standards deeply enough

JEPD will be provided to ensure full implementation (with high fidelity) of the Video-text Interactive Math Curriculum. The JEPD sessions are already scheduled on the NDMA JEPD schedule. All teachers will be in

18



School Plans2013-14

Instructional Challenges: List other instructional challenges not addressed with the implementation of the instructional strengths listed above; they may be past challenges that remain or have grown over the past year as well as new challenges to student learning. Please summarize at least two data sources (e.g. Benchmarks) that shows these are challenges. List the root causes identified for each instructional challenge. Provide one to three evidence-based instructional strategies/practices being considered to address the instructional challenge that is aligned to the identified root cause. Add rows as needed.

attendance for all JEPD sessions a.m. and p.m. Teaching Partners will be invited (but not required to attend) to the a.m. Great Practice Strategies (GPS) sessions. The goal of the Video-text Interactive Math JEPD sessions is to increase math competence and confidence for all staff.

Depth / rigor of literacy instruction does not fully correlate with rigor on MCA III

Data from:• AIMSweb (R)• NWEA (R)• MCA III (R)

Comprehension and higher level thinking (inquiry) has not been stressed deeply and consistently enough

JEPD will be provided to ensure all teachers are adequately equipped to provide research-based instructional strategies in comprehension and fluency. Close reading strategies will be embedded in all instruction. Close reading strategies encompass explicit instruction in all areas of literacy including:

• Orthographic ~ correct spelling (letter order)

• Semantic ~ the field of linguistics concerned with the study of meaning in language.

• Syntactic ~ the proper order of the words in the sentence

• Lexical ~ of or pertaining to the words or vocabularyof a language

19

http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/linguisticsterm.htm



School Plans2013-14

The data should be shared with all stakeholders for feedback and reflections on capacity to implement identified instructional strategies/practices. Once sharing has taken place, the team will work with the school staff to prioritize needs and determine the focus of SIP Action Plan instructional strategies or practices.

20



School Plans2013-14


Using the information on instructional strengths and challenges in the previous two tables, answer the following questions.

6. What priority needs do the data suggest? Include rationale/process for prioritizing needs. Consider:

Is student performance in one content area weaker than another? Math proficiency is higher than reading except in grades 5 & 6

Math % Proficiency

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3rd grade 72.2 54.2 25 36 48

4th grade 42.1 50 20.8 32 39.1

5th grade 50 17.4 13 26.1 18.2

6th grade 41.2 50 13 18.2 25

Reading % Proficiency

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3rd grade 88.20% 62.50% 54.20% 52.00% 44.00%

4th grade 52.60% 60.00% 62.50% 44.00% 34.80%

5th grade 75.00% 47.80% 56.50% 56.50% 45.50%

6th grade 70.60% 57.10% 39.10% 68.20% 50.00%

NDMA Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mathematics 51.50% 42.00% 18.10% 28.40% 33.30% 59.05%Reading 70.80% 56.80% 53.20% 54.70% 43.30% 71.65%

21



School Plans2013-14


State Trends: All Accountability Tests, All Grades, All Students Enrolled October 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mathematics 61.8% 63.7% 66.1% 57.3% 62.7% 61.6% Reading 71.9% 73.1% 73.5% 75.1% 76.4% 58.7%

**The state data trends have been included to allow comparison, especially if a district/school is trying to match the state.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 MATH 51.50% 42.00% 18.10% 28.40% 33.30% READING 70.80% 56.80% 53.20% 54.70% 43.30%

Is the school gap for a subgroup significantly larger for one group than another? The subgroup for NDMA is ‘Free/Reduced priced lunch’. The scores of the F/R group are higher than our non-identified groups.

Is the size of a subgroup significantly larger than another?53% Free/reduced 47% non-identified

Does the school have greater capacity to implement one instructional strategy/practice?The faculty at NDMA has a framework for math with RightStart and Video Text Interactive Math. The JEPD schedule includes regular sessions in math instruction to ensure the rigor and intensity is sustained. There is more work to be done in the area of literacy. The teachers in CH & E1 will use Daily5/CAFÉ as the basic framework for literacy instruction. Daily 5 & CAFÉ` will be the focus of ongoing JEPD for E1 and E2 teachers. The ELA Standards provide the ‘what’ to teach at the minimum level of mastery for all instruction in reading and math at NDMA.

Is student performance in one content area weaker than another? • Students meeting benchmark target- increases as the year progresses

• Words per minute read increased for all but 2 students

• 11 kindergarteners “topped out” (all points possible) on 3 of the 4 AIMs Math assessments

• 1 kindergartener “topped out” on all 4 Math assessments

• Lexile levels grew for most students anywhere from 1- 455 points

• scores go down on most assessments from winter to spring

• rate of growth for NDMA students does not meet the national growth rate

• scores go down from winter to spring

22



School Plans2013-14


Overall performanceOur data show significant need for growth in both reading and math. However, math scores are somewhat higher than the reading scores.

AIMsWeb Benchmarking- R-CBM: (conducted in September, January and May)Fall- 85/172 students met norm target

Winter- 75/172 students met norm target

Spring- 73/178 students met norm target

AIMsWeb Benchmarking- M-CAP: (conducted in September, January and May)Fall- 50/172 students met norm target



AIMsWeb Benchmarking- M-COMP: (conducted in September, January and May)Fall- 41/172 students met norm target



NWEA- MAP: (Reading grades K-6-conducted in February and May)

Winter testing- 89 students at or above national norms = 55 % proficiency

Kindergarten- 22 students at or above national norms

National norm RIT/NDMA mean RIT= 151/155.6

1st grade- 15 students at or above national norms

23



School Plans2013-14


National norm RIT/NDMA mean RIT= 170.7/173.6

2nd grade- 8 students at or above national norms

National norm RIT/NDMA mean RIT= 183.6/177.6

3rd grade- 14 students at or above national norms

National norm RIT/NDMA mean RIT= 194.6/ 195.2

4th grade- 11 students at or above national norms






Students meeting benchmark target- increases as the year progresses

7. What evidence-based instructional strategies or practices will be selected for mathematics, reading, and/or graduation based on prioritized needs? How was Root Cause Analysis used to determine instructional strategies or practices?Response:What evidence-based instructional strategies or practices will be selected for mathematics, reading, and/or graduation based on prioritized needs? Evidence-based instructional strategies for reading:

• Guided Reading • Daily 5 & CAFÉ`• Flex Grouping• Buddy Reading

24



School Plans2013-14

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY• Close Reading• Montessori reading correctly• Reading A-Z• RAZ for Kids• 6 + 1 Writing Traits

Evidence-based instructional strategies for math:o RightStart Matho VideoText Interactive Matho Montessori Matho IXLo Zaccaro Matho Tall Tale Math

How was Root Cause Analysis (RCA) used to determine instructional strategies or practices?Root Cause Analysis data were used to determine instructional strategies/practices. Through the RCA the staff determined that more instructional intentionality is needed in both literacy and math instruction at NDMA. Additional JEPD was also cited as a need in both literacy and math, particularly in VideoText Interactive Math, RightStart math, Close Reading Strategies, Daily 5 & CAFÉ and 6 + 1 Writing Traits.

8. Define the SIP implementation work being carried-out by instruction focused learning teams (PLCs). How is the research being used to support the implementation work (i.e., defining critical features of implementation, identifying student subgroups expected to make greatest gains, etc.)? The SIP implementation work being carried-out by the PLCs. PLCs have increased to 90 uninterrupted minutes per week. PLCs will are scheduled on Wednesday a.m. for both E1 + CH and E2. SPED and Title 1 staff will be included in PLCs each week based on the grade levels of the students they serve. PLCs will focus on critical questions around the implementation of the Minnesota Academic Standards. The questions include:

Literacy:ELA Standards: Literacy Questions to support Close Reading StrategiesStandards addressed:

1. What are the major questions involved in close reading? Select standards addressing close reading strategies Select various reading passages appropriate for specific close reading practice at multiple

grade levels.2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions to the close reading strategies?

Select possible ways students may respond when using close reading strategies. Select possible misperceptions students may have regarding close reading strategies.

25



School Plans2013-14


3. How will close reading be embedded in content areas such as math, science and social studies? Select procedures used to clearly set expectations for using close reading strategies in all

cross-content areas. Select procedures for embedding close reading strategies across all disciplines. Select possible questions appropriate for close reading using expository / informational

text. Select questions which are content specific.

4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding while using close reading strategies? Select ways students will demonstrate/communicate their understanding. Collect, share and discuss student responses which reveal evidence of close reading.

Mathematics:Standards addressed:1. What are the major tasks which address the conceptual/abstract understanding

required of the benchmark/standard?• Select the conceptual/abstract understandings of the standards/benchmarks.• Select the actual math problems which encompass the big ideas or essential understandings

of the benchmark/standard.2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions students my experience in solving math

problems? Select possible ways students may respond/solve the math equation/problem. Select possible misperceptions students may have in solving the math equation/problem

3. How will academic math talk be embedded in the lesson?• Select a variety of guiding (high level) questions appropriate for the learners• Identify and discuss ways in which students will be clustered for greatest instructional

impact.• Select engagement strategies to ensure highest level of learner engagement throughout the

mathematical dialogue.4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding?• Select possible ways learners will demonstrate/communicate their understanding.• Select learner responses which will reveal evidence of conceptual understanding?

How is the research being used to support the implementation work (i.e., defining critical features of implementation, identifying student subgroups expected to make greatest gains, etc.)?Response:NDMA will continue to seek the support of our Regional Center of Excellence (RCOE) to assist in effective implementation. Dr. Mary Jenatscheck is our advocate. Mary will be on site at NDMA one day per week to observe, coach and support leaders, teachers and support staff. Dr. Jenatscheck will also contribute expertise in our JEPD opportunities.Stages of Implementation:

• Exploration & Adoption• Program Installation

26



School Plans2013-14

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY• Initial Implementation• Full Operation• Innovation / Refinement• Sustainability

References

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., and Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/publications/Monograph/

NDMA is currently in the initial implementation stage.

5. How will the learning team leadership (principal and learning team facilitators) monthly meetings be used to support the ongoing implementation of selected instructional strategies/practices? The Transformational Leadership Team (TLT) will support the work of the PLCs consistently throughout the school year. The TLT will review PLC agendas and summary notes each week for both PLCs. The SIP goals will be the focus of our PLC discussions which will include consistent review of student achievement data to drive instructional decisions. Using those data consistently will ensure the focus remains on student achievement.

6. How is the district (LEA) providing support and assistance to implement the evidence-based instructional strategies/practices? How will the district intervene if strategies/practices are not implemented with fidelity or are not providing significant increases in student achievement? How is the district (LEA) providing support and assistance to implement the evidence-based instructional strategies/practicesThe district (LEA) provides support and assistance to implement the evidence-based instructional strategies/practices through ongoing JEPD and monitors depth of implementation with frequent and consistent walk throughs. The feedback / feed forward loop will be maintained with fidelity. Walk through observations and suggestions will be shared with teachers promptly. Records of all walk throughs will be maintained in the NDMA central office in a 3-ring binder as well as on the Office Drive on the server. How will the district intervene if strategies/practices are not implemented with fidelity or are not providing significant increases in student achievement?The district (LEA) will promptly intervene if strategies/practices are not implemented with fidelity or are not providing significant increases in student achievement. This corrective feedback will be provided with grace and courtesy in a professional setting.

27



School Plans2013-14

2a ___ Priority School___ Focus School___ Continuous Improvement School

1 School Action Plan [Copy School Action Plan template to address separate goals (math, reading, and/or graduation). Each template should provide detail for only

one selected instructional strategy or practice. Instructions for completing each section provided on following pages.]

2b Priority SchoolMMR: 0.86 > 31.61 -> 60.58%

3a ____ Math __x__ Reading____ Graduation (if applicable)

3b SMART Goal: The percentage of students in grades 3 – 6 at NDMA enrolled

by October 1, 2013 who are proficient on the Reading MCA (All accountability tests) will increase from 43.30% in 2013 to 53% in 2014.

The percentage of all students who qualify for free/reduced priced meals in grades 3 – 6 at NDMA enrolled by October 1 who are proficient on the Reading MCA (all accountability tests) will increase from 46.9% in 2013 to 57% 2014.

2c Focus SchoolFR: ____ %

4a INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY OR PRACTICE: Close Reading / Comprehension4b INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE MANAGER: Dr. Lora E. Dagel / Joan Sax Bendix

5 ACTION STEPS(What actions are needed to implement

Instructional Strategy or Practice with fidelity?)

6PERSONSRESPONSIBLE

7 RESOURCES

8 BENCHMARKS

9 TIMELINES

10 PROGRESS MONITORING

11 EVIDENCE

Plan:•Plan to use JEPD session on Tuesday after school and at GPS (Great Practice Strategies) sessions on Tuesday a.m. to continue to focus on Close Reading strategies.

Dr. Mary Jenatscheck RCOEDr. Lora Dagel CIS/ICDave Conrad Supt./BOM/CFLS/FCLDr. Bob Cannon, principalJoan Bendix DIC/ICRosine

Scheduled time on JEPD calendar

Regularly scheduled 90 minute PLCs

Updated JEPD Schedule

Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs

JEPD Agendas & Reflections

PLCs meet weekly for 90 minutes 7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2

Observations / walk throughsClose reading strategies embedded in all content areasStudent artifactsAnecdotal evidence

28



School Plans2013-14




Hermodson-Olsen MIC

••Do:• Schedule JEPD on Close Reading or Math Academic / Accountable talk or (AMT) or Video Text Math VTM ; RightStart (RS) or Year Long Learning Progressions: (YLLP); Words Their Way (WTW)Tuesday a.m. (GPS): p.m. JEPD9/10 VTM YLLP9/17 Montessori conversations9/24 VTM WTW10/1 YLLP YLLP10/8 Writing Process Traits10/15 WTW WTW10/22 CR CR w/ Interactive Read aloud10/29 YLLP10/29 pm Tchng Part only N Heart & RS11/5 Daily 5 CR & WTW11/12 ------- CR comp strategies11/19 YLLP N Hrt & RS

Dr. Mary Jenatscheck RCOEDr. Lora Dagel CIS/ICDave Conrad Supt./BOM/CFLS/FCLDr. Bob Cannon, principalJoan Bendix DIC/ICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC



Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs

JEPD reflections

JEPD 1 hour sessions occur on alternate Tuesday afternoons. Teachers and teaching partners attend.


•Provide strategic support for consistent implementation of close reading.The TLT consistently performs walk throughs to ensure fidelity of implementation of SIP goals: Close Reading and Academic/Accountable

Dr. Mary Jenatscheck RCOEDr. Lora Dagel CIS/ICDave Conrad


June 2013-June 2014

JEPD Agendas & Reflections

PLCs meet weekly for 90


29



School Plans2013-14




Math Talk Supt./BOM/CFLS/FCLDr. Bob Cannon, principalJoan Bendix DIC/ICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

Weekly PLCs Weekly PLCs

minutes 7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2

•Study:

• What is the evidence of impact?• Teachers provide evidence each

week at PLCs in several forms including:

• Anecdotal accounts (verbal)• Student artifacts (student work)• Quantified data from OLPA;

NWEA and AIMS

• Identify any possible holes in instructional practice using the Year Long Learning Progressions (YLLP) and vertical conversations at GPS & JEPD sessions.




Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs


9:30 – 11:00 = E2

AssessmentsAIMSNWEAMCA


Each PLC will focus on 4 specific questions each week to ensure fidelity to our SIP goals. Questions follow:

Teachers:Cynthia Flynn

PLCs meet weekly for 90 minutes


June 2013-June 2014


Observations / walk throughsClose reading strategies embedded

30

Author, 01/03/-1,

What is the evidence? How do we know it’s working?



School Plans2013-14




Reading:ELA Standards: Literacy Questions to support Close Reading StrategiesStandards addressed:

1. What are the major questions involved in close reading? Select standards

addressing close reading strategies

Select various reading passages appropriate for specific close reading practice at multiple grade levels.

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions to the close reading strategies? Select possible

ways students may respond when using close reading

CHHeather Vaillancourt E1Anna Anderson E1E1 (new hire) E1Ori Johnson E2Theresa Larson E2Betty Jodzio E2SPEDTari NiemeyerLynn BrownDiane BruemmerTitle 1Donna Herdigen

7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2

Weekly PLCs Weekly PLCs

minutes 7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2


in all content areasStudent artifactsAnecdotal evidence

31



School Plans2013-14




strategies. Select possible

misperceptions students may have regarding close reading strategies.

3. How will close reading be embedded in content areas such as math, science and social studies? Select procedures

used to clearly set expectations for using close reading strategies in all cross-content areas.

Select procedures for embedding close reading strategies across all disciplines.

Select possible questions appropriate for close reading using expository /

32



School Plans2013-14




informational text. Select questions

which are content specific.

4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding while using close reading strategies? Select ways

students will demonstrate/ communicate their understanding.

Collect, share and discuss student responses which reveal evidence of close reading.

• Share anecdotal records of close reading strategies to demonstrate implementation

Teachers:Cynthia Flynn CHHeather Vaillancourt E1Anna Anderson E1E1 (new hire) E1



Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs


9:30 – 11:00 = E2


33

Author, 01/03/-1,

w

Author, 01/03/-1,

What’s the study?



School Plans2013-14




Ori Johnson E2Theresa Larson E2Betty Jodzio E2SPEDTari NiemeyerLynn BrownDiane BruemmerTitle 1Donna Herdegen


Act:• Model Close Reading and Accountable/ Academic Math Talk @ PLCs

Dr. Mary Jenatscheck RCOEDr. Lora Dagel CIS/ICDave Conrad Supt./BOM/CFLS/FCLDr. Bob Cannon, principalJoan Bendix DIC/IC



Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs


9:30 – 11:00 = E2

34



School Plans2013-14




Rosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

Revise teaching strategies around Close Reading and Accountable / Academic math Talk to more intentionally address the needs of each student based on feedback from PLC and JEPD discussion.



9:30 – 11:00 = E2


Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs


9:30 – 11:00 = E2

• Use Close Reading Strategies in all content areas including:

• Specific use of close reading strategies in Math word problems using Academic / Accountable Math Talk.

Teachers:Cynthia Flynn CHHeather Vaillancourt E1Anna Anderson E1E1 (new hire) E1Ori Johnson E2


9:30 – 11:00 = E2


Weekly PLCs

June 2013-June 2014

Weekly PLCs


9:30 – 11:00 = E2

35



School Plans2013-14




Theresa Larson E2Betty Jodzio E2SPEDTari NiemeyerLynn BrownDiane BruemmerTitle 1Donna Herdigen

Use above as template to copy and paste rows into Action Plan as needed.

12 School Action Plan Review (Check each box if template addresses the following questions):□ Who will coach the strategy/practice, support conditions for instructional change and monitor learning progress (include both name and assigned roles)? □ What will be the role of local common assessments aligned to academic standards/benchmarks? □ How often will this review cycle occur throughout the school year (must be more specific than “ongoing”)? □ How will you know this strategy/practice works? What progress monitoring tools will you use to measure fidelity of implementation?□ How will the school’s data system or process collect and report implementation data and student achievement data periodically to inform teacher instructional practices?

36



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:

1 School Action Plan(s) (Copy School Action Plan template as needed for each instructional strategy or practice.)All Title I Priority and Focus schools must use the Action Plan template based on the ESEA Waiver Request. Continuous Improvement schools may use this Action Plan template or a similar form of their choosing. This Action Plan will also fulfill Title I School-wide requirements. The purpose of the Action Plan is to select high leverage evidence-based instructional strategies or practices linked to prioritized needs for reading, mathematics, and/or graduation which may be specific to a struggling student subgroup in the school. The leadership implementation team is responsible for writing meaningful and relevant action plans that are actionable and aligned with processes, people and measures to address increasing student learning and/or achievement gaps. Consider the following:

Use multiple data sources to determine and prioritize student needs. Begin by examining what currently implemented evidence-based instructional strategies/practices are

effective and should be refined/sustained as part of the school improvement process. It is highly recommended that the number of instructional strategies or practices identified for

implementation be at least three and no more than five to focus improvement efforts and ensure effective implementation.

Note: Each selected instructional strategy or practice requires a separate ongoing Action Plan be developed by the leadership implementation team.

2a ___ Priority School ___ Focus School ___ Continuous Improvement School (Check school classification.)What is the Title I school classification for writing the action plan? Identify classification in this section. Priority and Focus schools must submit a school plan by June 1, 2013 for MDE review. A Regional Center implementation specialist will be assigned to work with Priority and Focus schools.▪ Priority Schools- The five percent lowest performing schools in the state. These schools will be identified in one

of two ways: 1) status as a SIG (School Improvement Grant) School, or 2) the lowest MMRs in their grade classification group (elementary, middle school, high school, other). These schools will be required to collaborate with MDE and Regional Centers of Excellence to develop a school turnaround plan based on the federal turnaround principles. These schools will be identified once every three years.

▪ Focus Schools- The ten percent of Title I schools making the biggest contribution to the state’s achievement gap and high schools with graduation rates of less than 60 percent. These schools will be identified in one of two ways: 1) the lowest Focus Ratings in their grade classification group (elementary, middle school, high school, other), or 2) graduation rates of less than 60 percent. These schools will work with their district to develop a school improvement plan that directly addresses poor performance either within a subgroup, or in graduation

37



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:

rates. These schools will be identified once every three years.▪ Continuous Improvement Schools- All Title I schools with MMRs in the bottom 25 percent (not identified as

Priority or Focus schools) will be identified in the Fall of 2012. A Continuous Improvement School Plan will be developed and the district (Charter LEA) will have oversight and responsibility for support and technical assistance. When identification occurs, timelines will be determined for developing Continuous Improvement school plans.

2b Priority School (including SIG) -- Multiple Measurements Rating (Provide MMR) 0.86 > 31.61% -> 60.58

▪ Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR) - Minnesota’s new measurement of school performance. The MMR measures proficiency, student growth, achievement gap reduction, and graduation rates (if applicable). Schools earn points in each category. The percentage of possible points that a school earns is the school’s MMR. (In summary, the MMR is generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible.)

▪ Priority Schools (including SIG) will develop a detailed action plan on how they will address the specific root causes of the school’s identification, whether it is based on a lack of student growth, an achievement gap with a specific subgroup, overall student proficiency, low graduation rates, or a combination of these issues. Use the MDE website, Data Center/Data Reports and Analytics for further information.

2c Focus School -- Focus Rating (Provide FR)

Focus Rating (FR) - Minnesota’s new measurement for identifying Focus Schools. In addition to an MMR, every school gets a Focus Rating (FR). The Focus Rating measures proficiency and growth of minority students and students receiving special services (EL, Special Ed, Free and Reduced Price Lunch). The Focus Rating combines Achievement Gap Reduction and Focused Proficiency.

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:Focus Schools will develop a detailed action plan for addressing the specific root causes of the school’s identification, whether it is based on subgroups with low levels of proficiency, subgroups with low levels of growth or both of these issues. Use the MDE website, Data Center/Data Reports and Analytics for further information.

3a ____ Math __x__ Reading ____ Graduation (Check area that SMART goal and strategy/practice will address.)

All Priority, Focus and Continuous Improvement schools must have at least one reading and one math goal. Graduation must be addressed if this was an area of school identification. Use separate template for reading, math and/or graduation.

3b Strategic/Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-based and Timely (SMART) Goal (Provide a SMART Goal.)

38



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:SMART Goals- Once priority needs and potential instructional strategies/practices have been identified, it is time for the leadership implementation team to draft goals that set the course for the School-wide program. Goal statements are broad indicators of intention; they must be connected to specific objectives, strategies, practices, and action steps to become effective targets that truly guide improvement. A well-written action plan goal is strategic/specific, measurable, attainable, results-based, time-bound and, most importantly, focused on increasing achievement for all students in the school.

4a Instructional Strategy or Practice

Select an Instructional Strategy or Practice to address the root cause of student challenges related to SMART goal. Begin by examining current instructional strategies and practices that can be continued or eliminated. Review in-depth data analysis and the comprehensive needs analysis to determine focus of instructional change/improvement needed to support struggling student subgroups. Identify potential evidence-based instructional strategies and/or practices that have shown significant increases in student achievement for identified struggling student subgroups. For each potential strategy/practice list the critical components needed to implement the instructional strategy/practice with fidelity. Assess the school’s capacity and readiness to implement each potential instructional strategy/practice as well as developing a hypothesis about the potential impact. Using this information, select an evidence-based instructional strategy/practice with the greatest impact on the root cause of student learning. Whatever instructional strategy or practice is selected must be responsive to the school’s specific needs, context, and culture.

4b Instructional Change Manager Select an Instructional Change Manager with content expertise related to selected, evidence-based instructional strategy or practice. This person will be responsible for the overall guidance of the implementation process to ensure fidelity of implementation as well as use of ‘best practices’ for content area.

5 Actions (Determine actions you will take to plan and implement the strategy/practice.)

Action steps establish boundaries for results. The PDSA Cycle details the implementation of the selected strategy/practice and helps the school define the work of school improvement.

PDSA Improvement Cycle- The stages of Plan, Do Study, Act are essential to continuous improvement success and are the basis for a four-step improvement process:

(1) Plan: Take Stock and Choose the Right Focus/Instructional Strategy or Practice. Determine professional development needs, instruction focused learning team support and one-to-one coaching for implementation. Consider alignment of other initiatives and resources such as time and funding. Ensure school staff has a clear vision of expected instructional changes as well as an understanding about sources, types and uses of data.

(2) Do: Take Collective Action. Determine who will do the instructional strategy/practice and how it will be implemented. Communicate selected instructional strategy/practice actions and persons responsible to staff, parents and community

39



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:partners. Provide best practice coaching. Ensure data systems are in place for measuring implementation and reporting student outcomes. Review and document initial implementation strengths and challenges.

(3) Study: Monitor and Adjust. Benchmarks are used to assess student learning. Progress monitoring is used to ensure full fidelity of implementation. Determine training and re-training needs based on coaching, feedback loops, and progress monitoring.

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:(4) Act: Reflect, Celebrate and Re-engage; Maintain Momentum. Analyze data to make decisions about full implementation Purpose, Processes and Outcomes. Determine funds and resources to continue support for sustaining effective evidence-based strategies/practices.

Reflect and re-engage in multiple internal cycles as needed within the larger Action Plan to adjust the implementation of the instructional strategy/practice. If embedded cycles need to repeat, please copy the row with the appropriate section description to allow easy monitoring of the Action Plan cycles.

Plan for Family Engagement related to strategy/practice– A cohesive action plan will incorporate related activities or connections with the family to involve their support for implementation of the strategy/practice. Include appropriate steps in the PDSA Cycle so families/community partners are intentionally included as part of the improvement plan.

Plan for a Quick Win cycle- “Quick wins” can accelerate strategy/practice implementation. Turnaround schools often make one or a few visible improvements (“quick wins”) early in the improvement process to generate buy-in and gain momentum. Quick wins are very focused accomplishments within the first weeks and may include strategic climate/behavioral and/or academic supports.

The length of the PDSA is determined by strategically evaluating whether the school has maximized the impact of the instructional strategy/practice on student learning after progress monitoring shows a reasonable period of full implementation has occurred.

6 Persons Responsible (Identify Action Plan leaders by name and role.)Carefully select Person(s) Responsible from the leadership implementation team who has the expertise to add value and can support each action step with guidance from the Instructional Change Manager for the strategy/practice.

7 Resources (Identify support/time/funds to implement selected instructional strategy/practice.)

Determine funding requirements and available funds needed to complete each action step to implement and sustain the evidence-based instructional strategy/practice as intended. Total resources should reflect the required 20% Title I Building Setaside.

40



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:▪ Priority and Focus Schools will be required to reassess the use of Title I, II and III funds to address the specific components of their School-wide plan. Consider coordination of funds to optimize the use of time, staff, supplies, materials and technology.

▪ Priority Schools, to achieve turnaround, will be required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I funds for state-approved school improvement activities. These funds must be earmarked in a Priority School’s turnaround plan to ensure that resources are being directed to the specific aspects of a school’s plan.

▪ Focus Schools, to close achievement gaps and improve graduation rates, will be required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I funds for state-approved school improvement activities. These funds must be earmarked to ensure that resources are being directed to the specific aspects of a Focus School’s plan.

8 Benchmarks (Identify Benchmark assessments.)

Benchmarks, aligned to state standards, are identified to assess proficiency and growth in student learning as well as student progress toward graduation. Benchmark assessment data are frequently and systematically collected across a grade level, content area, or school system at several predetermined times throughout the school year. They may have a variety of titles, such as unit tests, short-cycle assessments or system-wide quarterly common assessments. Benchmark assessments can provide a great deal of information by content standard/benchmark for instruction focused learning teams to analyze and use for adjusting instruction. The regular feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of instruction should be an integral part of feedback loops for the leadership implementation team so they can adjust the Action Plan to reflect evolving school needs.

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:9 Timelines (Establish timelines for PDSA action steps.)

Targets or timelines have been established by the leadership implementation team to assist in determining progress with PDSA action steps.The timelines should be sufficient for completing the action while also reflecting the urgency to move forward in the improvement process.

10 Progress Monitoring (Track progress of Instructional Strategy or Practice implementation)

Document changes in teacher practice related to critical components needed for success of implementation of selected instructional strategy/practice. Data collection may include teacher observation, learning team minutes, coaching logs and classroom formative assessment processes.

11 Evidence (Continue or move to a new PDSA cycle.)

41



School Plans2013-14

SCHOOL ACTION PLAN INSTRUCTIONS:Document evidence of: 1) changes in instruction or learning or 2) completion of each action step. Benchmark data should address root causes of student learning challenges as well as progress toward the Action Plan’s SMART goal. Progress monitoring data in early steps will focus on fidelity of implementation while later steps will attend to full implementation. Evidence for some steps will focus on documenting the completion of different products or processes to be completed as part of the action step, rather than specific Benchmark or Progress Monitoring information. Use the evidence to determine next action steps in one of the four different sections of the PDSA process as appropriate.

12 School Action Plan Review (Check each box if template addressed the questions in this section.)

The purpose of questions under section 12 is to assure the “who, how and what questions” have been addressed within the School Action Plan template for each selected evidence-based strategy/practice.

42



School Plans2013-14

ENSURING TITLE I SCHOOL-WIDE COMPONENTS (ONLY FOR SCHOOLS CHOOSING SCHOOL-WIDE PLAN OPTION)

As stated in the general instructions on page 1, this template may also serve as the Title I School-wide plan for schools classified as Priority, Focus or Continuous Improvement schools. The plan template has readily addressed the following Title I School-wide Components:

• Identify reform strategies, aligned with the needs assessment, that are research-based and provide opportunities for all children to meet the State’s proficient or advanced levels of academic achievement

• Offer high-quality, ongoing professional development• Identify measures to include teachers in decisions regarding the use of academic assessments

All Title I School-wide Components could be addressed in the School Action Plan Template. To ensure that all Components are proficiently addressed, please respond to the following questions.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED STAFF

1. Do all teachers and paraprofessionals meet the highly qualified (HQ) requirements?Yes

2. Are all teachers assigned to the areas in which they are certified to teach? Yes

3. How does the district plan and establish policy that recruits, assigns and retains HQ staff based on student learning needs? NDMA specifically addresses student learning needs in the interview process. NDMA also keeps student learning needs as the central focus with all JEPD and evaluations. See attached documentation: Interview questions (APPENDIX G); Staff Dialogue Questions (APPENDIX H); Teacher Evaluation Rubric (APPENDIX B) and a Para-professional Evaluation rubric (APPENDIX M)

1. What types of parent engagement will best support priority learning needs?The NDMA 2013-2014 school calendar includes six Family Learning Discoveries events. During these scheduled events families will be offered a snack and beverage, parenting tips, math strategies, literacy strategies and ‘at school/at home’ activities for math and

43



School Plans2013-14

literacy.The Family Learning Discoveries Event dates: (subject to change)

• Oct 1 Nurtured Heart (Parent Academy) Kids’ Academy: math games• Nov. 14 Close Reading Strategies (Parent Academy) Kids’ Academy: Reader’s

Theater• Jan 13 Math Interactive VideoText w/ Author Tom Clark Kids’ Academy: math games• Feb 28 Family Reading Night (PJ’s and blankets and ‘reading ‘round the room’) w

featured guest reader, Brian Lauer• April 8 Math Games• May 22 Family Celebration! Literacy & Music Showcase

2. How will parent feedback inform parent/community involvement in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the school plan? Parents/community members are integrally involved in monitoring the SIP. Regular SIP updates are provided to the board every trimester. SIP updates are also included in the weekly update for staff and the monthly email blasts send to all parents.

TIMELY AND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS HAVING DIFFICULTY MASTERING THE STANDARDS

1. What evidence indicates the school is providing equal access to standards-based instruction for all students?All teachers have the ELA and Math standards posted in their classrooms. The SPED teachers are in the process of scheduling training for Standards-based IEPs. The weekly 90 minute PLCs are focused on the ELA and math standards and address the following questions:

ELA Standards: Literacy Questions to support Close Reading Strategies

44



School Plans2013-14

1. What are the major questions involved in close reading?

List & discuss standards addressing close reading strategies Identify & discuss various reading passages appropriate for specific close reading practice

at multiple grade levels.

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions to the close reading strategies? List & discuss possible ways students may respond when using close reading strategies. List & discuss possible misperceptions students may have regarding close reading

strategies.

3. How will close reading be embedded in content areas such as math, science and social studies? List & discuss procedures used to clearly set expectations for using close reading

strategies in all cross-content areas. List & discuss procedures for embedding close reading strategies across all disciplines. List & discuss possible questions appropriate for close reading using expository /

informational text. List & discuss questions which are content specific.

4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding while using close reading strategies? List & discuss ways students will demonstrate/communicate their understanding. Collect, share and discuss student responses which reveal evidence of close reading.

Mathematics StandardsMathematics Questions to support:

Academic Math Talk and Conceptual/Abstract Understanding

Standards addressed:

1. What are the major tasks that address the conceptual/abstract understanding

45



School Plans2013-14

required of the benchmark/standard?• List & discuss the conceptual/abstract understandings of the standards/benchmarks.• Identify & discuss the actual math problems which encompass the big ideas or essential

understandings of the benchmark/standard.

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions related to understanding the math problems?

List & discuss possible ways students may respond/solve the math equation/problem. List & discuss possible misperceptions students may experience in solving the math

equation/problem.

3. How will academic math talk be embedded in the lesson?• List & discuss a variety of guiding (high level) questions appropriate for the learners.• Identify and discuss ways in which students will be clustered for greatest instructional

impact.• List & discuss engagement strategies to ensure highest level of learner engagement

throughout the mathematical dialogue.

4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding?• List & discuss possible ways learners will demonstrate/communicate their understanding.• List & discuss learner responses which will reveal evidence of conceptual/abstract

understanding.

2. How does the school choose strategies/practices and additional assistance/learning time for students not meeting Minnesota performance standards for proficiency?Student data are reviewed regularly at the weekly 90 minute PLCs. Students who are not meeting the Minnesota performance standards for proficiency are immediately scheduled for intensive interventions in either reading or math. The interventions will be chosen based on each student’s area of need. Interventions will be facilitated by one or more of the following staff members:

Classroom teacher

46



School Plans2013-14

Classroom teaching partner (s) Title 1 teachers or teaching partner SPED teacher (s) SPED teaching partners

PRESCHOOL TRANSITION STRATEGIES (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONLY)

1. What kinds of collaborations and strategies are evident between the elementary school and feeder preschool programs (i.e. Head Start, Even Start, etc.) to transition pre-school students, especially those considered “at-risk”? NDMA has a pre-school ‘feeder program’ on-site. The Pre-k students in the Children’s House are gifted with the opportunity of hearing the rich literacy and math academic vocabulary shared with the kindergarten students each morning.

2. How does the K-3 District Literacy Plan and the B-12 Blueprint for Literacy inform feeder pre-school program alignment to reading achievement? The NDMA K-3 Literacy Plan and the B-12 Blueprint for Literacy inform all instructional decisions in our Children’s House. The focus of solidly constructed literacy instruction at NDMA is on the standards and also tightly aligned to NDMA’s literacy plan and the Blueprint for Literacy. The instructional focus in our pre-school is early identification and early intervention.

COORDINATE AND INTEGRATE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

1. Is the school coordinating resources to implement and sustain evidence-based strategies and practices as intended? Yes! NDMA Leadership Team (TLT) has made strategic plans to coordinate all observations and walk-throughs to monitor integrity of implementation.

2. Has the leadership implementation team reassessed the use of their Title I, II and III funds to address the specific components of their Title I School-wide plan? (Consider coordination of funds to optimize the use of data systems, time, staff, supplies, materials and technology.) Yes! Title I II III funds are coordinated as much as possible. Assessment data are used for all Title grants. SMART goals are also shared in all grants.

47



School Plans2013-14

2a __ Priority School___ Focus School___ Continuous Improvement School



2b Priority School

MMR: 0.86 > 31.61 -> 60.58%

3a __x__ Math ____ Reading____ Graduation (if applicable)

3b SMART Goal: The percentage of all students grade 3 – 6 enrolled at NDMA by

October 1, 2013 who are proficient on the MCA Math (all accountability tests) will increase from 33.3% to 43.0% by the spring of 2014.

The percentage of all students who qualify for free/reduced priced meals in grades 3 – 6 enrolled at NDMA by October 1, 2013 who are proficient on the MCA Math (all accountability tests) will increase from 30.6% proficient to 41% by the spring of 2014.

2c Focus SchoolFR: ____ %

4a INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY OR PRACTICE: Use academic math dialogue (math talk) and provide JEPD on higher level questioning and inquiry.

4b INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE MANAGER: Rosine Hermodson-Olsen 5 ACTION STEPS

(What actions are needed to implement Instructional Strategy or Practice with fidelity?)

6PERSONSRESPONSIBLE

7 RESOURCES

8 BENCHMARKS

9 TIMELINES

10 PROGRESS MONITORING

11 EVIDENCE

Plan:• Define Academic/Accountable Math Talk Teachers,

Cynthia Flynn (CH)E1 (new hire) (E1)Heather Vaillancourt (E1)Anna Anderson (E1)Betty Jodzio (E2)

Year-long Learning Progressions for each levelList of academic math talk vocab

Bi-annual review of Year-long Learning Progressions revisions

September 2013-June 2014

Observations & frequent walk-throughs

PLCs meet weekly for 90 minutes

PLC agendas & Summary Notes

48



School Plans2013-14




Theresa Larson (E2)Ori Johnson (E2)TLT: Dave Conrad, Supt, BOM, CFLS, FCLDr. Bob Cannon, PrincipalDr. Lora Dagel, CISJoan BendixDICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2

• JEPD for Academic /Accountable Math Talk

Teachers, Cynthia Flynn (CH)E1 (new hire) (E1)Heather Vaillancourt (E1)Anna Anderson (E1)Betty Jodzio (E2)Theresa Larson (E2)Ori Johnson (E2)TLT: Dave Conrad, Supt, BOM, CFLS, FCLDr. Bob Cannon,

Dollars to support JEPD (in SIG)Facilitators





9:30 – 11:00


49



School Plans2013-14




PrincipalDr. Lora Dagel, CISJoan BendixDICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

= E2

• JEPD for higher level questioning and inquiry







9:30 – 11:00 = E2


Do:• Schedule JEPD on Close Reading or Math Academic / Accountable talk or (AMT) or Video Text Math VTM ; RightStart (RS) or Year Long Learning Progressions: (YLLP); Words Their Way (WTW)Tuesday a.m. (GPS): p.m. JEPD9/10 VTM YLLP

Teachers, Cynthia Flynn (CH)E1 (new hire) (E1)Heather Vaillancourt (E1)Anna Anderson (E1)Betty Jodzio (E2)







50



School Plans2013-14




9/17 Montessori conversations9/24 VTM WTW10/1 YLLP YLLP10/8 Writing Process Traits10/15 WTW WTW10/22 CR CR w/ Interactive Read aloud10/29 YLLP10/29 pm Tchng Part only N Heart & RS11/5 Daily 5 CR & WTW11/12 ------- CR comp strategies11/19 YLLP N Hrt & RS

Theresa Larson (E2)Ori Johnson (E2)TLT: Dave Conrad, Supt, BOM, CFLS, FCLDr. Bob Cannon, PrincipalDr. Lora Dagel, CISJoan BendixDICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

minutes 7:30 – 9:00 = CH & E1

9:30 – 11:00 = E2

•Provide strategic support for consistent implementation of Academic/Accountable Math TalkThe TLT consistently performs walk throughs to ensure fidelity of implementation of SIP goal: Academic/Accountable Math Talk







9:30 – 11:00 = E2


•

51



School Plans2013-14




Study:• Review & analyze math data and student artifacts at weekly 90 minute PLCs using the following four questions to guide the discussion:Math:

Mathematics:Standards addressed:1. What are the major

tasks which address the conceptual/abstract understanding required of the benchmark/standard?

• Select the conceptual/abstract understandings of the standards/benchmarks.

• Select the actual math problems which encompass the big ideas or essential understandings of the benchmark/standard.

2. What are likely student responses and misperceptions students my experience in solving math problems?

Teachers, Cynthia Flynn (CH)E1 (new hire) (E1)Heather Vaillancourt (E1)Anna Anderson (E1)Betty Jodzio (E2)Theresa Larson (E2)Ori Johnson (E2)TLT: Dave Conrad, Supt, BOM, CFLS, FCLDr. Bob Cannon, PrincipalDr. Lora Dagel, CISJoan BendixDICRosine Hermodson-Olsen MIC

Student workData from:NWEAAIMSMCAIII



9:30 – 11:00 = E2

Data from NWEA, AIMS

52



School Plans2013-14




Select possible ways students may respond/solve the math equation/problem.

Select possible misperceptions students may have in solving the math equation/problem

3. How will academic math talk be embedded in the lesson?

• Select a variety of guiding (high level) questions appropriate for the learners

• Identify and discuss ways in which students will be clustered for greatest instructional impact.

• Select engagement strategies to ensure highest level of learner engagement throughout the mathematical dialogue.

4. What evidence will demonstrate student understanding?

53



School Plans2013-14




• Select possible ways learners will demonstrate/communicate their understanding.

• Select learner responses which will reveal evidence of conceptual understanding?

• Identify any possible holes in instructional practice in mathematics using the Year Long Learning Progressions (YLLP) and vertical conversations at GPS & JEPD sessions.







9:30 – 11:00 = E2

Review of Year-long Learning Progressions revisionsStandards alignment documents

54



School Plans2013-14




•Act:• Revise teaching strategies around Accountable / Academic Math Talk to more intentionally address the needs of each student based on feedback from PLC and JEPD discussion.

Re-Model (as needed)Academic Math Talk

• Leadership Team• Teachers• Teaching partners


Teaching

Math materials (Montessori / RIghtStart / VideoText)




9:30 – 11:00 = E2

55



School Plans2013-14




Partners:Sandy Prieve CHNiccole Schwartz E1Bernadette Sharpe E2Cindy Prior E2

• Model Academic Math talk using Montessori Math Materials with close alignment to the Minnesota Math Standards

• Model Right Start Math Games with close alignment to Minn Math Standards

• Model Video Text Math strategies with close alignment to Minn Math Standards


Teaching Partners:Sandy Prieve CHNiccole Schwartz



9:30 – 11:00 = E2

56



School Plans2013-14




E1Bernadette Sharpe E2Cindy Prior E2

•Use above as template to copy and paste rows into Action Plan as needed.

12 School Action Plan Review (Check each box if template addresses the following questions):□ Who will coach the strategy/practice, support conditions for instructional change and monitor learning progress (include both name and assigned roles)? □ What will be the role of local common assessments aligned to academic standards/benchmarks? □ How often will this review cycle occur throughout the school year (must be more specific than “ongoing”)? □ How will you know this strategy/practice works? What progress monitoring tools will you use to measure fidelity of implementation?□ How will the school’s data system or process collect and report implementation data and student achievement data periodically to inform teacher instructional practices?

57



School Plans2013-14

58

test template document - new discoveries montessori...

Documents