SCHOOLWIDE SUMMARY INFORMATION - ESEA§1114
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFFICE OF TITLE I
2016-2017 TITLE I SCHOOLWIDE PLAN*
Forest Street School
*This plan is only for Title I schoolwide programs that are not identified as a Priority or Focus Schools.
DISTRICT INFORMATION / SCHOOL INFORMATION
District: Orange Township school / School: FOREST STREET SCHOOL
Chief School Administrator: RONALD C. LEE /
Address: 651 FOREST STREET
Chief School Administrator’s E-mail: /Grade Levels: Pre-K-7
Title I Contact: FAY S. POLFKA / Principal: YANCISCA COOKETitle I Contact E-mail: / Principal’s E-mail:
Title I Contact Phone Number: 973-677-4000
/ Principal’s Phone Number: 973-677-4120Principal’s Certification
The following certification must be made by the principal of the school. Please Note: A signed Principal’s Certification must be scanned and included as part of the submission of the Schoolwide Plan.
q I certify that I have been included in consultations related to the priority needs of my school and participated in the completion of the Schoolwide Plan. As an active member of the planning committee, I provided input for the school’s Comprehensive Needs Assessment and the selection of priority problems. I concur with the information presented herein, including the identification of programs and activities that are funded by Title I, Part A.
______
Principal’s Name (Print) Principal’s Signature Date
Critical Overview Elements
· The School held ______12______(number) of stakeholder engagement meetings.
· State/local funds to support the school were $ 183,384 , which comprised 100 % of the school’s budget in 2014-2015.
· State/local funds to support the school will be $ 3,151,869 , which will comprise 100 % of the school’s budget in 2015-2016.
· Title I funded programs/interventions/strategies/activities in 2016-2017 include the following:
Item / Related to Priority Problem # / Related to Reform Strategy / Budget Line Item (s) / ApproximateCost
Math 180 stipends / $4,970.00
Parent Academy / $2,140.00
Learning.com K-8 Easy Tech product / $3,500.00
Spelling City / $711.00
School wide Salary per school / $88,367
Readorium for grades 3-5 / $2,281.40
37
SCHOOLWIDE COMPONENT: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ESEA §1114(b)(2)(B)(ii)
ESEA §1114(b)(2)(B)(ii): “The comprehensive plan shall be . . . - developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the community to be served and individuals who will carry out such plan, including teachers, principals, and administrators (including administrators of programs described in other parts of this title), and, if appropriate, pupil services personnel, technical assistance providers, school staff, and, if the plan relates to a secondary school, students from such school;”
Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee
Select committee members to develop the Schoolwide Plan. Parents/Families and Community Members cannot be affiliated with the school.
Note: For purposes of continuity, some representatives from this Comprehensive Needs Assessment stakeholder committee should be included in the stakeholder/schoolwide planning committee. Identify the stakeholders who participated in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment and/or development of the plan. Signatures should be kept on file in the school office. Print a copy of this page to obtain signatures. Please Note: A scanned copy of the Stakeholder Engagement form, with all appropriate signatures, must be included as part of the submission of the Schoolwide Plan. *Add lines as necessary.
Name / Stakeholder Group / Participated in Comprehensive Needs Assessment / Participated in Plan Development / Participated in Program Evaluation / SignatureYancisca Cooke / Administrator / YES / YES / YES
Brian Canares / 5-7 SS Teacher / YES / YES / YES
Jacob Warta / K-7 P.E. Teacher / YES / YES / YES
William Donnelly / ESL Instructor / YES / YES / YES
Kimberly Donnerstag / 4th Grade ELA/SS / YES / YES / YES
Saranda Lipovica / 2nd Grade Instructor / YES / YES / YES
Daneen Collins Grayson / Guidance / YES / YES / YES
Francesca Romain / Kdg. Instructor / YES / YES / YES
Crystal Battle / Kdg. Paraprofessional / YES / YES / YES
Neurones Plaisimond / Technology Coordinator / YES / YES / YES
Rev. Irving Childress / Community Leader / YES / YES / YES
Shella Mesidor / Special Education / YES / YES / YES
Amanda Sampong / Parent / YES / YES / YES
Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee Meetings
Purpose:
The Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee organizes and oversees the Comprehensive Needs Assessment process; leads the development of the schoolwide plan; and conducts or oversees the program’s annual evaluation.
Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee meetings should be held at least quarterly throughout the school year. List below the dates of the meetings during which the Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee discussed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Schoolwide Plan development, and the Program Evaluation. Agenda and minutes of these meetings must be kept on file in the school and, upon request, provided to the NJDOE.
Date / Location / Topic / Agenda on File / Minutes on FileYes / No / Yes / No
September 9, 2015 / Media Center / Comprehensive Needs Assessment / Yes / Yes
October 7, 2015 / Media Center / Schoolwide Plan Development / Yes / Yes
November 4, 2015 / Media Center / Program Evaluation / Yes / Yes
December 2, 2015 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
January 6, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
February 3, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
March 1, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
March 9, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
April 6, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
May 5, 2016 / Media Center / Yes / Yes
*Add rows as necessary.
37
SCHOOLWIDE COMPONENT: EVALUATION ESEA §1114(b)(2)(B)(iii)
24 CFR § 200.26(c): Core Elements of a Schoolwide Program (Evaluation). A school operating a schoolwide program must—(1) Annually evaluate the implementation of, and results achieved by, the schoolwide program, using data from the State's annual assessments and other indicators of academic achievement; (2) Determine whether the schoolwide program has been effective in increasing the achievement of students in meeting the State's academic standards, particularly for those students who had been furthest from achieving the standards; and (3) Revise the plan, as necessary, based on the results of the evaluation, to ensure continuous improvement of students in the schoolwide program.
Evaluation of 2015-2016 Schoolwide Program *
(For schools approved to operate a schoolwide program in 2015-2016, or earlier)
1. Did the school implement the program as planned?
The academic program at Forest Street School was implemented as planned. Continued professional development was provided in all core program areas, analyzing school wide data, analyzing assessment results, as well as best instructional practices; Read180 , Reader’s workshop, Lucy Caukins writers mode, running records , conferring practices, iRead, close reading, text dependant questioning, CLI, co-teaching , Teachscape and Math 180. Additionally, teacher schedules were developed to ensure that common planning and grade level collaboration occurred with the implementation of double planning periods for grades K-7 to provide instructional staff with an adequate amount of planning time per week. Finally, the MicroSociety Program was implemented for all Kindergarten thru seventh grade students extending the school day for one hour.
2. What were the strengths of the implementation process?
Instructional staff welcomed the opportunities to participate in building base and district level professional developments, as evident in feedback forms, lesson plans, formal and informal observations.
MicroSociety, which is a student facilitated extended day program with a focus on the development and operation of a society. The program is inclusive of the establishment of businesses, a government, and a judicial system. There was an increase in student attendance with the Kindergarten through Seventh grade students.
3. What implementation challenges and barriers did the school encounter? A barrier during the implementation process was:
· Read 180 and Math 180 access
· Parental support and participation in Parent/Teacher Organization
· Establishing and maintaining community partnerships
· Not enough leveled readers
· Time and money to provide additional professional development
· Staff commitment to MicroSociety
· Inconsistencies between ELA grade level expectations
4. What were the apparent strengths and weaknesses of each step during the program(s) implementation?
The strength in the implementation of the program was the instructional staff’s comfort level with Professional development focuses, their ability to collaborate on data, instruction, student concerns and school events. The weaknesses were the inconsistencies collaboratively developed school’s vision and mission statement which focuses on developing the whole child.
5. How did the school obtain the necessary buy-in from all stakeholders to implement the programs?
A survey was presented to each stakeholder (pre/post) where the opportunity was provided for them to openly share their thoughts and recommendations in regards to our school programs. This method of data collection allowed all stakeholders to actively engage in the development of our school programs. In addition, collegial walkthroughs, professional development, peer to peer conferencing and ongoing feedback have continued.
6. What were the perceptions of the staff? What tool(s) did the school use to measure the staff’s perceptions?
(staff survey highs and lows) PD evaluation forms
Staff perceptions of the program continue to be positive and geared towards student success and achievement. As per our professional development surveys the following have been requested as targeted PD for the 2015-2016 school year:
· Development of content knowledge
· Analyzing and using data
· Differentiated Instruction
· Co-teaching Model (Spec. Ed., ESL and Gen Ed.)
· Readers and writers workshop
7. What were the perceptions of the community? What tool(s) did the school use to measure the community’s perceptions?
(parent surveys, feedback from all events)
Community perceptions continue to be positive and also geared towards student success, achievement, and strengthening of the home-school connection. There has been a higher level of interest from the community as per feedback forms and contributions to school events. Additionally, having an Americor worker on staff to serve as our community liaison has allowed for more community partnerships to be established.
8. What were the methods of delivery for each program (i.e. one-on-one, group session, etc.)?
Read 180- Whole, small, individual
Math 180- Whole, small, individual
iRead- individual
Readorium- individual
MicroSociety-Whole group, and small group
Readers workshop- Whole, individual, one on one conferring
Writers Workshop- Whole, peer, individual, one on one conferring
9. How did the school structure the interventions?
Teachers participated in CPT and articulation periods where data was reviewed from formative and summative assessments to identify student deficiencies. Individual and class “plans of action” were created inclusive of re-teach details and timelines. Opportunities for intervention took place during MicroSociety, Math 180, Read 180 and lunch tutorials, where deficiencies were addressed by teachers (varied content). In addition, coaching and recommendations were provided by master teachers and supervisors.
10. How frequently did students receive instructional interventions?
Instructional interventions were a part of the daily routine of teachers, as differentiation of instruction is a required delivery method in classrooms. Additional intensive interventions were also provided through small group and one-to-one tutoring. During zero period grades six and seven received forty-five minutes of Math 180 intervention and grade five received forty-five minutes of Read 180 intervention. During Block 4 sixth and seventh grade students received forty-five minutes of Read 180 intervention. MicroSociety served as a safety net for students in grades 5-7 who may have attended their Read 180 or Math 180 program at the scheduled time.
11. What technologies did the school use to support the program?
The use of different software and Internet-based programs, Study Island, Spelling city, Star Fall, Discovery Education, SMART Technologies, Skype, Learning.com typing program, world Book, SOLO, Read 180, Math 180, and iRead, Readorium has allowed teachers to expand learning beyond the textbook. Additionally, the use of devices –Chrome book carts, Flip Cameras, Ipads, and Smartboards has also expanded learning into the virtual world.
12. Did the technology contribute to the success of the program and, if so, how?
Technology has contributed to the success of the program as it has provided the students with additional educational experiences. It also provided an opportunity for teachers to differentiate instruction. It allows students to interact with different elements of classroom content, utilizing a different modality of learning.
*Provide a separate response for each question.
Evaluation of 2015-2016 Student Performance
State Assessments-Partially Proficient
Provide the number of students at each grade level listed below who scored partially proficient on state assessments for two years or more in English Language Arts and Mathematics, and the interventions the students received.
English Language Arts / 2014-2015 / 2015-2016 / Interventions Provided / Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency (Be specific for each intervention).Grade 4 / 45 Valid scores 60% partially proficient / Information not available / I&R Services
Differentiated Instruction
Study Island
Micro Society
Readorium / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
- Rosetta Stone implemented program.
Grade 5 / 41 valid scores 63% partially proficient / Information not available / Resource Support
I&R Services
Differentiated Instruction
Read 180
Study Island
Micro Society
Rosetta Stone
Parent Meetings
Readorium / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Read 180 increased SRI lexile level increased.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
-Rosetta stone implemented for ESL& Spanish speaking students.
-Readorium was not utilized within the home and minimal use in school.
Grade 6 / 32 valid scores 44% partially proficient / Information not available / Resource Supports
I&R Services
Parent Meetings
Differentiated Instruction
Read 180
Study Island
Micro Society / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Read 180 increased SRI lexile level increased.
MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
Grade 7 / 34 valid scores 59% Partially proficient / Information not available / Resource Support
I&R Services
Parent Meetings
Differentiated Instruction
Read 180
Study Island
Micro Society / --I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Read 180 increased SRI lexile level increased.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
Grade 8
Grade 11
Grade 12
Mathematics / 2014-2015 / 2015-2016 / Interventions Provided / Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency (Be specific for each intervention).
Grade 4 / 45 valid scores 51% Partially proficient / Information not available / ESL Support
Resource Support
I&R Services
Differentiated Instruction
Study Island
MicroSociety / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Study Island program was not utilized to its fullest potential.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
Grade 5 / 41 valid scores 61% Partially Proficient / Information not available / ESL Support
Resource Support
I&R Services
Parent Meetings
Differentiated Instruction
Study Island
MicroSociety
Game 24
Extra Math / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Study Island program was not utilized to its fullest potential.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
-Extra Math was successful when implemented consistently.
Grade 6 / 33 valid scores 66% Partially Proficient / Information not available / I&R Services
Parent Meetings
Differentiated Instruction
Study Island
MicroSociety
Math 180
Game 24
Extra Math / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Study Island program was not utilized to its fullest potential.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
- Attendance was not consistent Math 180.
-Extra Math was successful when implemented consistently.
Grade 7 / 33 valid scores 78% Partially Proficent / Information not available / I&R Services
Parent Meetings
Differentiated Instruction
Study Island
MicroSociety
Math180
Game 24
Extra Math / -I&R Services were effective when referrals where made in enough time to allow for recommended interventions to occur.
-Parent support was minimal.
-Differentiated Instruction more PD needed.
-Study Island program was not utilized to its fullest potential.
-MicroSociety provided additional learning time using non-traditional methods.
-Attendance was not consistent for Math 180.
- Extra Math was successful when implemented consistently.
Grade 8
Grade 11
Grade 12
Evaluation of 2015-2016 Student Performance