ScottsElementary School Improvement Plan-READING Sept. 10, 2010
School Name: Scotts Elementary / Year: 2010-11 / Current NCLB Status: Met 13/13 Targets / Current ABC Status: No RecognitionP / PLAN: Identify the gap and the approach
Overall SMART Goal (Two year projection):
We will increase students’ Reading Composite in Grades 3-5 from 62.1% to 71.6% as measured by the 2011 End of Grade Test.
Data Analysis. Answer the question below using any data and/or information you have about your performance.
In order to meet your Overall Goal, what is the most important area that needs improving and why? (If you have data that helped you answer this question, please copy and paste it into this box.)
End of Year Data (June, 2010):
- Kindergarten-98.1% proficient on DRA level
- 1st Grade-72% proficient on DRA level
- 2nd Grade-69% proficient on 4th Quarter PA
- 3rd Grade-49.2% proficient on EOG
- 4th Grade-67.1% proficient on EOG
- 5th Grade-59.3% proficient on EOG
- What worked and how do you know?
- All grade levels data increased on 3rd Quarter CFA (low, medium, and high groups)(2009-2010 Year):
- All enrichment/remediation group data made growth on 3rd Quarter CFA, except for 5th grade highgroup
- What didn’t work and how do you know?
-2nd Grade from 75% to 69% proficient from 2nd to 3rd PA
-3rd Grade from 59.2% to 49.2% proficient from last year
-5th Grade from 62.9% to 59.3% proficient from last year
-Classroom instruction and enrichment/remediation worked for most students but not all students
-No grade level met their target goal / 3. Do you need any additional assistance as you look at your results and start planning for Cycle 2? ___Yes _X__No
From whom do you need assistance?
Target SMART Goal (One year projection based on the answer to question 2 above.):
We will increase students' Reading Composite in Grades 3-5 from 62.1% to 71.6% as measured by the 2011
End of Grade Test.
What will you do during cycle 1 (Identify key approach or strategy you will implement during cycle 1 to move toward achieving your target goal.)?
We will continue to implement a remediation/enrichment block each day to focus on specific gaps to enrich
students as they move forward with their learning. We will utilize our training from Foundations Of Reading to help us improve our remediation time.
D / DO: Develop and Implement Deployment Plan
Step # / Cycle 1 List the specific steps your team will complete during the first cycle. / Person(s) responsible for completion of the step. / Measure/Indicator
(How will you know if the step is completed correctly?) / Start Date / End Date
#1 / Administration and ECteacher will complete
the EC schedule / EC Schedule completed Administration/EC Teachers / New EC Schedule in place for 2010-2011 school year / 07/2010 / 08/2010
#2 / Goal Team will ask TPAfor some assistance if
there is not enoughschool money available
to order AR materials / Holt / TPA Agenda / 08/24/10 / 09/10/10
#3 / Teachers will determine remediation/enrichment
groups based on Baseline Assessment
gaps / Courson / List of groups / 09/01/10 / 09/10/10
#4 / Teachers will decidewho will teach eachgroup / Holt / List of teachers assigned
to groups / 09/01/10 / 09/10/10
#5 / Implementintervention withteachers as primaryinstructors along withTA collaboration / Brown (IF) / Remediation/Enrichment schedule / 09/13/10 / 11/01/10
#6 / Begin to implementintervention withteachers as primary
instructors along withTA collaboration / Brown (IF) / Remediation/Enrichment schedule / 09/13/10 / 11/01/10
#7 / Intervention team willcover classes for the twoEC teachers and the
ESL teacher so that theymay attend PLCS oncea month / Holt, Bowman, Wyatt / PLC agenda / 09/14/10 / 11/02/10
#8 / A member of the GoalTeam will attend an ARseminar/training / Holt, Grose / Registration Form / 09/16/10 / 09/20/16
#9 / AR Incentive Programkick-off / Hall/Brown / K-2, 3-5 Assembly / 09/16/10 / 10/01/10
#10 / Teachers record studentenrollment (h,m,l) inremediation groups / Brown / Remediation/Enrichment data chart / 09/13/10 / 06/03/11
#11 / Person(s) who attendedAR seminar will providestaff development / List of attendees / Staff Development Session / 09/21/10 / 09/30/10
#12 / Students take end ofquarter STAR assessment. / Estes / Class data is submitted
to Reading Goal Team:
Classroom START data / 10/04/10 / 11/01/10
#13 / Students who meet ARincentive will berecognized / Grose / AR prizes / 10/29/10 / 06/03/11
#14 / Teachers record PA,DRA, and STAR data on
data sheet / Courson / Intervention Data Sheet / 11/01/10 / 11/05/10
#15 / Goal Team collects intervention data sheets
2010-11-09 2010-11-09 / Brown, Goal Team Chairs / Intervention Data Sheet / 11/09/10 / 11/09/10
#16 / Analyze fidelity datasheet comparingstudents who arereceiving remediation(low group) toenrichment (middle andhigh groups) / Holt / Comparison Data Chart
and Fidelity Sheets / 11/09/10 / 11/16/10
#17 / Goal Team will shareinfo with staff and makechanges based on dataanalysis / Courson / 2nd cycle SIP / 11/09/10 / 11/16/10
Implementation Plan Quality Check:
What resources/budget needs do you have for the first cycle?
$179.00 for Goal Team members to attend AR seminar.
$3,500.00 to purchase AR tests and books.
If you identified budget needs, what budget code will you use to meet the budget needs for this cycle?
State money budget code 61
If funding is not available, identify the steps from the implementation plan that will address the funding gap.
What professional development, if any, will be offered in cycle 1 to support the staff in implementing the approach?
Goal Team member will train staff on what was learned at AR seminar/training.
Determine the measures/data that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the first cycle approach by answering the following questions:
A. List theinformation or measures the team will use to determine if the approach was implemented/completed? (Completion Data)
Data collection spreadsheet showing students that are in Enrichment and Remediation groups. / B. List the informationor measures the team will use to determine if the approach wasn’t implemented correctly? (Fidelity of implementation.)
Fidelity checklist / C. List the information or measuresthe team will use to determine what worked and what didn’t work? (Impact data)
CFA comparison data and PA/DRA data
S / Study – Analysis of data after implementing an approach
At the end of cycle 1, answer the following questions based on the data collected from the identified measures in boxes A, B, and C above:
- What worked and how do you know?
- What didn’t work and how do you know?
From whom do you need assistance?
Reflect on the answers in box 1 and 2 above for cycle 1 and check which option best describes what you will do in your plan for cycle 2 (double click the box and select “check” to check the box)?
Target goal has been met and is changed to a new target goal.
Target goal not met but current plan is effective so we will continue current plan and repeat it for the next cycle. / Target goal not met so we will continue current plan. We will make improvements to the plan based on what didn’t work as identified in #2 above.
Target goal not met and information indicates that we need to abandon the current plan and identify a new approach.
A / Act – Revise or continue with implementation plan based on data analysis.
4. What is your next step for cycle 2 (Identify key approach or strategy)? If you are continuing with the approach from cycle 1, restate it here. If you are changing your approach for cycle 2, state it here.
Step # / Cycle 2List the specific steps your team will complete during the second cycle. / Person(s) responsible for completion of the step. / Measure/Indicator
(How will you know if the step is completed correctly?) / Start Date / End Date
#1
Implementation Plan Quality Check:
What resources/budget needs do you have for cycle 2?
If you identified budget needs, what budget code will you use to meet the budget needs for this cycle?
If funding is not available, list the steps from the implementation plan that will address the funding gap.
What professional development, if any, will be offered in cycle 2 to support the staff in implementing the approach?
Determine the measures/data that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the Cycle 2 approach by answering the following questions
A. List theinformation or measures the team will use to determine if the approach was implemented/completed? (Completion Data) / B. List the informationor measures the team will use to determine if the approach wasn’t implemented correctly? (Fidelity of implementation.) / C. List the information or measuresthe team will use to determine what worked and what didn’t work? (Impact Data)
S / Study – Analysis of data after implementing an approach
Insert any data here to support the responses below:
1.What worked and how do you know? / 2.What didn’t work and how do you know? / 3. Do you need any additional assistance as you look at your results and start planning for Cycle 2? ___Yes ___No
From whom do you need assistance?
A / Act – Continue with the Target Goal or revise the Target Goal for next year.
Reflect on the data analysis for the year so far and check the option below that best describes your direction for the 2010-11 SIP?
Overall goal has been met and School Improvement Plan focus will change for next year.
Or…
Target goal has been met and is changed to a new target goal.
Target goal not met but current plan is effective so we will continue current plan and repeat it for the 2010-11 SIP to take our work to sustaining..
.Target goal not met, so we will continue current plan for 2010-11. We will make improvements to the plan based on what didn’t work through this year.
6/23/10
School Name: Sharon Elementary
Math SIP / Year: 2010-11 / Current NCLB Status: / Current ABC Status: School of Progress
P / PLAN: Identify the gap and the approach
Overall SMART Goal (Two year projection):
By 2012, Sharon Elementary will increase 3-5 students' math proficiency by 12.3% from 77.7% to 90% as measure by the EOG tests in May 2012 and K-2 students' math proficiency by 10% from 85% to 95% as measured by fourth quarter Predictive Assessments in May 2012.
Insert (or attach) data table to support the selection of the above stated overall SMART Goal:
DRA and PA #3 Data:
Grade / RtI students / Non-RtI students
K / 19 / 11.9
1 / 6.4 / 5.4
2 / -3.2 / -1.9
3 / - / -
4 / +6 / +6
5 / 0 / -5
RtI Fidelity Data:
Observable: / YES / NO
Lesson/Objective is observable and on target for grade level / 100%
Instruction is delivered in small, flexible groups / 98% / 2%
Student(s) are engaged in reading, writing, speaking, skill performance, hands-on etc. (Not Listening) / 100%
Teacher’s questions are appropriate for the targeted skill area OR questions are higher level and require student(s) to analyze, process and apply information / 98% / 2%
Teacher provides timely feedback to the student(s) explaining what they are doing that is correct and what they are doing that is incorrect / 95% / 5%
Some type of High Yield Instructional Strategy or research-based strategy is being utilized (Not just paper/pencil) / 95% / 5%
EOG Data:
3rd Grade Subgroups: / Actual Percentage
All / 359 (4)
AIG / -NA-
EC / 338 (2)
LEP (5) / 340 (3)
AA (1) / 341 (3)
Multi (2) / 341 (3)
Asian / 347 (3)
Hispanic / 340 (3)
White / 344 (3)
Female / 343 (3)
Male / 346 (3)
% of students Level 1 / 0%
% of students Level 2 / 24%
% of students Level 3 / 61%
% of students Level 4 / 15%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 338 (2)
Non-Remediated average / 339 (3)
4th Grade Subgroups: / Previous Year / Current Year / Growth
All / 346 / 353 / +7
AIG (1) / 356 / 358 / +2
EC (9) / 340 / 348 / +8
LEP (2) / 337 / 345 / +8
AA / -NA-
Multi (2) / 352 / 357 / +5
White / 346 / 353 / +7
Female / 345 / 352 / +7
Male / 347 / 353 / +6
% of students Level 1 / 0% / 2% / +2%
% of students Level 2 / 24% / 13% / -11%
% of students Level 3 / 54% / 53% / -1%
% of students Level 4 / 22% / 32% / +10%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 341 / 347 / +6
Non-Remediated average / 350 / 356 / +6
5th Grade Subgroups: / Previous Year / Current Year / Growth
All / 352 / 351 / -1
AIG / 367 / 367
EC / 348 / 349 / +1
LEP / -NA-
AA / -NA-
Multi (2) / 350 / 348 / -2
Hispanic / 355 / 353 / -2
White / 340 / 351 / +11
Female / 353 / 347 / -6
Male / 352 / 358 / +6
% of students Level 1 / 2% / 0% / -2%
% of students Level 2 / 15% / 19% / +4%
% of students Level 3 / 54% / 63% / +9%
% of students Level 4 / 26% / 19% / -7%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 347 / 349 / +2
Non-Remediated average / 358 / 358
EC Math EOG Data:
Prior Year / Current Year / Growth
3rd grade / 338 (2)
4th grade / 340 (2) / 348 (3) / +8
5th grade / 348 (2) / 349 (2) / +1
Data Analysis. Answer the data analysis questions.
1. What are the key strengths and data to support it?
Growth of Remediated vs. Non-remediated:
All Kindergarten and 1st grade students in RtI made growth.
Kindergarten (19 vs. 11.9) and 1st grade (6.4 vs. 5.4) remediated students made more growth than the non-remediated students.
4th grade made 6 points growth in RtI and non-RtI students.
Grade / RtI students / Non-RtI students
K / 19 / 11.9
1 / 6.4 / 5.4
4 / +6 / +6
RtI Fidelity:
All areas of RtI fidelity are 95% or higher.
Observable: / YES / NO
Lesson/Objective is observable and on target for grade level / 100%
Instruction is delivered in small, flexible groups / 98% / 2%
Student(s) are engaged in reading, writing, speaking, skill performance, hands-on etc. (Not Listening) / 100%
Teacher’s questions are appropriate for the targeted skill area OR questions are higher level and require student(s) to analyze, process and apply information / 98% / 2%
Teacher provides timely feedback to the student(s) explaining what they are doing that is correct and what they are doing that is incorrect / 95% / 5%
Some type of High Yield Instructional Strategy or research-based strategy is being utilized (Not just paper/pencil) / 95% / 5%
EOG Data:
All areas in 3rd grade EOG data are averaged at a Level 3 or 4. No Level 1 students.
3rd Grade Subgroups: / Actual Percentage
All / 359 (4)
AIG / -NA-
EC / 338 (3)
LEP (5) / 340 (3)
AA (1) / 341 (3)
Multi (2) / 341 (3)
Asian / 347 (3)
Hispanic / 340 (3)
White / 344 (3)
Female / 343 (3)
Male / 346 (3)
% of students Level 1 / 0%
% of students Level 2 / 24%
% of students Level 3 / 61%
% of students Level 4 / 15%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 338 (3)
Non-Remediated average / 339 (3)
Students in 4th grade ALL group grew an average of 7 points. Level 2 students decreased by 11%. Level 4 students increased 10%.
4th Grade Subgroups: / Previous Year / Current Year / Growth
All / 346 / 353 / +7
AIG (1) / 356 / 358 / +2
EC (9) / 340 / 348 / +8
LEP (2) / 337 / 345 / +8
AA / -NA-
Multi (2) / 352 / 357 / +5
White / 346 / 353 / +7
Female / 345 / 352 / +7
Male / 347 / 353 / +6
% of students Level 1 / 0% / 2% / +2%
% of students Level 2 / 24% / 13% / -11%
% of students Level 3 / 54% / 53% / -1%
% of students Level 4 / 22% / 32% / +10%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 341 / 347 / +6
Non-Remediated average / 350 / 356 / +6
5th grade white group went up 11 points. Percent of students scoring a Level 3 went up 9%. Male math scores went up 6 points.
5th Grade Subgroups: / Previous Year / Current Year / Growth
All / 352 / 351 / -1
AIG / 367 / 367
EC / 348 / 349 / +1
LEP / -NA-
AA / -NA-
Multi (2) / 350 / 348 / -2
Hispanic / 355 / 353 / -2
White / 340 / 351 / +11
Female / 353 / 347 / -6
Male / 352 / 358 / +6
% of students Level 1 / 2% / 0% / -2%
% of students Level 2 / 15% / 19% / +4%
% of students Level 3 / 54% / 63% / +9%
% of students Level 4 / 26% / 19% / -7%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 347 / 349 / +2
Non-Remediated / 358 / 358
/
- What are the key opportunities for Improvement and the data to support it?
2nd grade students did not make growth in either remediated or non-remediated groups.
5th grade made no growth in RtI and negative 5 points growth in non-RtI students.
*Not keeping student consistency or too large of a number of students in the RtI groups could have been a factor here.
Grade / RtI students / Non-RtI students
2 / -3.2 / -1.9
5 / 0 / -5
There are no OFI’s for RtI fidelity.
EOG Data:
No OFI’s in 3rd grade EOG data.
No OFI’s in 4th grade data.
Percentage of Level 4 students went down 7% on 5th grade EOG. Female scores dropped 6 points.
5th Grade Subgroups: / Previous Year / Current Year / Growth
All / 352 / 351 / -1
AIG / 367 / 367
EC / 348 / 349 / +1
LEP / -NA-
AA / -NA-
Multi (2) / 350 / 348 / -2
Hispanic / 355 / 353 / -2
White / 340 / 351 / +11
Female / 353 / 347 / -6
Male / 352 / 358 / +6
% of students Level 1 / 2% / 0% / -2%
% of students Level 2 / 15% / 19% / +4%
% of students Level 3 / 54% / 63% / +9%
% of students Level 4 / 26% / 19% / -7%
Remediated (50% of time) average / 347 / 349 / +2
Non-Remediated / 358 / 358
/
- What information/data is needed that we do not have?
- District and State Comparison data
- Need to know how EXTEND 2 data is calculated to compare growth
Target SMART Goal (One year projection based on the gap analysis in question 2 above.):
By 2011, Sharon school will increase 3-5 students' math proficiency by 7.3% from 77.7% to 85% as measured by the EOG tests in May 2011 and K-2 students' math proficiency by 5% from 85% to 90% as measured by fourth quarter Predictive Assessments in May 2011.
- What is your next step (Identify key approach or strategy you will implement during cycle 1 to achieve your target goal.)?
D / DO: Develop and Implement Deployment Plan
Step # / Cycle 1 Detailed Steps / Person(s) Responsible / Measure/Indicator / Start Date / End Date
#1 / Develop math essentials for 1st semester based on data from Curriculum Review Week and Sharon PA data. / K-5 teachers; Mr. Sheets; Melissa Withers (IF) / 100% of teachers will have essential curriculum posted in the classroom / 08/24/2010 / 09/10/2010
#2 / Collaborative Teams create CFA #1 based on first 4 ½ week essentials with a copy sent to EC and Enhancement teachers for integration as much as possible. / K-5 teachers, Melissa Withers (IF) / Grade Level created CFA #1 / 08/24/2010 / 09/03/2010
#3 / Create a weekly spiral review that touches on each of the five math goals with at least 50% being problem solving utilizing the newly purchased Elmos and projectors. / K-5 teachers; Melissa Withers (IF) / 100% of teachers will bring a copy of the weekly spiral review to Collaborative Team meetings. / 08/24/2010 / 11/19/2010
#4 / Incorporate supplemental materials (EdHelper, Coach, Test Ready, other states, and released forms of EOG) with the Envision core program to focus on higher order problem solving skills at least twice a week.
AIG and upper level students will compact out and be provided differentiated assignments as needed each week.
- EC students (struggling students) will be provided on-level instruction and pulled as needed into a small group for guided practice.
#5 / Share grade level essentialsfor each quarter and key vocabulary being taught within those essentials with EC and Enhancement teachers through email correspondence
for integration as much as possible. / K-5 teachers; EC teachers; Enhancement teachers / e-mail correspondence between regular ed. and EC/Enhancements needs to have a CC: Mr. Sheets / 08/30/2010 / 11/19/2010
#6 / Provide copy of the grade level essentials and key vocabulary
(7 Habits) being taught with parents during PTO Curriculum Night by sharing examples of essentials, having discussions, and games/centers related to the essentials / K-5 teachers; EC; Enhancements; / Curriculum Night Discussions;