Spencer School Improvement Plan 2008-2011

Middletown Public Schools Spencer School Improvement Plan 2008-2011 January 22, 2009 1 School Improvement and Data Team Planning Committee Members Amy Clarke: Principal Susan Dickes: Special Education Teacher Ginny Grasso: EIST Gretchen McInvale: Kindergarten Teacher Elizabeth Sitz: Grade 1 Teacher Matt Fuggi: Grade 2 Teacher Chris Gates-Wnuk: Grade 3 Teacher Mary Ann Notarangelo: Grade 4 Teacher Deborah Sharp: Grade 5 Teacher Jay Keiser: Board of Education Member Morad Haouchine: Parent Craig Creller: Math Supervisor Ann Perzan: Director of Special Education Introduction and Overview Spencer School’s 2008-11 School Improvement Plan is aligned to the 2008 – 2011 District Improvement Plan. It reflects the extensive research and development that forms the foundation of the District Improvement Plan and the intensive implementation of the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI). This School Improvement Plan also integrates the findings of the 2007 Cambridge Report findings, the Antecedents of Excellence identified by Lawrence Elementary School (last year’s Demonstration School), and the professional development and in-service training provided to all certified staff in Data Driven Decision Making and to some staff in Common Formative Assessment and Effective Teaching Strategies. SMART Goals: In drafting its SMART goals the school leadership team looked at student performance data. Spencer’s scores over the past three years have been fairly stagnant with a slight downward trend in whole school performance in reading. Within this context it is important to note that there was variance in performance at specific grade levels. Grade 3 has increased performance in students scoring proficient and above in math and reading. Grade 4 has shown downward trends in math and reading with a significant dip in reading last year. Grade 5 has shown a downward trend in math with small increases in reading. Writing scores with the exception of a dip in grade 4 last year have remained consistently high with nearly 90% of students at or above proficiency. The achievement gap for our economically disadvantaged subgroup mirrors this trend. These trends when coupled with increases in the AYP targets have resulted in failure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in whole school reading as well as in reading and math for our economically disadvantaged subgroup. There was slight improvement in performance in reading for this subgroup from 2005-06 to 2006-07 leading to a Safe Harbor designation. However, performance from 2006-07 to 2007-08 showed no growth resulting in a loss of Safe Harbor designation. Furthermore, when analyzing Matched Data it was noted that there is a downward trend with more students moving from goal and proficient to proficient, basic, and below basic. 2 Percent of Students in Each Performance Level Reading Students Included: All Reading Percent by Level Group Spencer Grade 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Year 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Number Tested 57 54 68 60 49 51 54 59 55 Below Basic 19.3 24.1 8.8 18.3 14.3 27.5 20.4 16.9 12.7 Basic 12.3 5.6 19.1 8.3 14.3 13.7 13.0 10.2 12.7 Proficient 17.5 18.5 20.6 5.0 24.5 19.6 9.3 13.6 10.9 Goal 38.6 38.9 30.9 60.0 32.7 29.4 44.4 45.8 47.3 Advanced 12.3 13.0 20.6 8.3 14.3 9.8 13.0 13.6 16.4 % At/Above Proficiency 68.4 70.4 72.1 73.3 71.4 58.8 66.7 72.9 74.5 % At/Above Goal 50.9 51.9 51.5 68.3 46.9 39.2 57.4 59.3 63.6 Percent of Students in Each Performance Level Mathematics Students Included: All Mathematics Percent by Level Group Spencer Grade 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Year 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Number Tested 57 54 68 60 49 51 54 59 55 Below Basic 15.8 11.1 7.4 6.7 2.0 13.7 11.1 6.8 5.5 Basic 12.3 16.7 14.7 6.7 18.4 9.8 5.6 6.8 12.7 Proficient 21.1 29.6 32.4 26.7 22.4 27.5 14.8 22.0 34.5 Goal 42.1 37.0 26.5 48.3 42.9 31.4 38.9 52.5 27.3 Advanced 8.8 5.6 19.1 11.7 14.3 17.6 29.6 11.9 20.0 % At/Above Proficiency 71.9 72.2 77.9 86.7 79.6 76.5 83.3 86.4 81.8 % At/Above Goal 50.9 42.6 45.6 60.0 57.1 49.0 68.5 64.4 47.3 3 Percent of Students in Each Performance Level Reading Students Included: All Reading Percent by Level Group F/R Meals Grade 3 4 5 Full Price 3 4 5 Year 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Number Tested 20 20 49 31 35 Below Basic 40.0 30.0 6.1 19.4 2.9 Basic 10.0 25.0 18.4 16.1 5.7 Proficient 30.0 10.0 20.4 12.9 11.4 Goal 20.0 30.0 28.6 35.5 57.1 Advanced 0.0 5.0 26.5 16.1 22.9 % At/Above Proficiency 50.0 45.0 75.5 64.5 91.4 % At/Above Goal 20.0 35.0 55.1 51.6 80.0 Percent of Students in Each Performance Level Mathematics Students Included: All Mathematics Percent by Level Group F/R Meals Grade 3 4 5 Full Price 3 4 5 Year 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Number Tested 20 20 49 31 35 Below Basic 20.0 10.0 6.1 9.7 2.9 Basic 15.0 25.0 8.2 6.5 5.7 Proficient 30.0 40.0 32.7 25.8 31.4 Goal 25.0 15.0 30.6 35.5 34.3 Advanced 10.0 10.0 22.4 22.6 25.7 % At/Above Proficiency 65.0 65.0 85.7 83.9 91.4 % At/Above Goal 35.0 25.0 53.1 58.1 60.0 4 S.M.A.R.T. Goals 1. On the CMT in Reading the average grade level gain in the number of students at or above proficiency over a 3 year period will increase by at least 15 percentage points. 2. On the CMT in Math the average grade-level gain in the number of students scoring at or above proficiency over a three year period will increase by at least 14 percentage points. 3. On the CMT in math and reading the average grade level achievement gap for the Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup will decrease by at least 30%. S.M.A.R.T. goals were not written to address the district goals in the area of reducing suspensions. Suspensions at Spencer school have consistently remained at near zero rates. The Cambridge Report identifies Students’ Personal Character Development as an area where the school exceeds minimum requirements and notes that the current positive behavior supports are effective in promoting positive school behavior. Additionally, Spencer School enjoys strong parental involvement and support. The School Data Team will continue to monitor and build upon the Spencer C.A.R.E.S. support plan and to collect data on the impact of student behavior on achievement, student attendance, and positive student engagement. In the event that this data demonstrates the need for further attention, a S.M.A.R.T. goal will be included in subsequent revisions of this document. 5 The following is a table detailing the three-year growth targets for the three SMART goals Spencer School Improvement Plan: 2008-2011 Data Chart for SMART-Goal Baselines (2008) and Targets (2011) Goals 1 & 2: On CMT a 15 percentage point gain in reading and a 14 percentage point gain in math in student proficiency CMT: Grades 3-8 Reading Math 2008 Performance 77% 86% 2011 Target 92% 100% Goal 3: On CMT a 30 percent reduction in achievement gap for economically disadvantaged student subgroup CMT: Grades 3-5 2008 Average Gap 2011 Target Reading 29% 20% Math 22% 15% The following projects the percentage point rates of improvement for students at Spencer as they proceed through their elementary grades. CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GROWTH TARGETS by GRADE by SUBJECT PERCENT AT/ABOVE PROFICIENT for Grades 3-5 cohorts, 2009-11 Reading Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Math Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 2008 Actual 72 59 75 2008 Actual 2009 77 77 68 2009 84 84 83 2010 83 82 82 2010 90 90 90 2011 87* 86* 87* 2011 95* 95* 95* Gain/2008 15 16 10 Gain/2008 17 18 13 78 77 82 6 The specific actions and indicators outlined on this page are many recent and long-standing research-based efforts and practices to support student learning and improved teaching.   Spencer School, Family, & Community Partnership Spencer participation in Parent Leadership programs: o Parent Leadership Training Institutes o Parents Supporting Educational Excellence o People Empowering People Effective/Positive Behavioral Support plan (C.A.R.E.S.) Academic Enrichment Academy (three-week, grades 3-5 summer program for students needing literacy support) TestPrepFun – a web-based, interactive CMT practice program for all grades 3-8 Common trimester assessments using State Benchmark Assessments Youth Services Bureau – Scholars Academy Standards-based elementary report card Community and University Support for Education (CAUSE) – a Wesleyan University/Middletown Schools collaboration providing a college level humanities course for high school students and professional development grants for Middletown teachers Middletown Public Schools Cultural Council – a district sponsored program ensuring rich and equitable fine arts exposure and experiences for all Middletown Public Schools students A well-articulated and carefully planned professional development program for first and second year teachers. This involves two-day summer orientation and a minimum of four indistrict workshops beyond those required of all professional staff. A comprehensive, user-friendly, and interactive student achievement data website (link 19) that provides educators with a wealth of current and longitudinal information about students and that allows them to provide additional achievement information. The district-developed Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI) website http://www.middletownschools.org/page.cfm?p=5871 Partnerships with a variety of community groups that provide student support systems including Kids Korner before and after school provided by the YMCA, Wesleyan student run after school center at Traverse Square, Senior Citizen Volunteers program, Xavier School volunteers, Mentor program, and Future Teachers from Woodrow Wilson Middle School Arts & Culture Storytelling Grant Buddy Program matching older students and younger students in cooperative learning activities Reading Counts and annual reading incentive initiatives Nutrition and Physical Activity Grant, standards based pilot program                 The following pages provide detailed information about Spencer School’s action plans. 7 Action Plan I to Implement Strategic Work for School Improvement High Level Adult Work (Tier II): Instruction will be aligned to the state standards, District curriculum, Grade Level Expectations, and pacing and assessment guide recommendations as evidenced by lesson plans in literacy and math. Grade level teams will use all assessment data (i.e. District and State benchmarks, Developmental Reading Assessment, Common Formative Assessments) to make informed decisions for planning and implementing instruction. Indicator: If instruction is planned in alignment with the district curriculum, grade level expectations, pacing and assessment guides and implemented with fidelity, and if the school community meets regularly to discuss student performance and collaborates for the purpose of developing effective teaching strategies then achievement for all students will increase and the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged will narrow. Priority Student Outcomes: 1. On the CMT in Reading the average grade level gain in the number of students at or above proficiency over a 3-year period will increase by at least 15 percentage points. 2. On the CMT in Math the average grade-level gain in the number of students scoring at or above proficiency over a three year period will increase by at least 14 percentage points. 3. On the CMT in math and reading the average grade level achievement gap for the Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup will decrease by at least 30 %. 8 Action Plan Strategies: Strategy 1: Teachers will clearly communicate conceptual and skill objectives to students using child friendly language in such a way that students will be able to articulate what it is they should know and be able to do. Strategy 2: Implement Reader Response Journals in grades 2-5 Strategy 3: Increase instructional time for low performing students in every grade by scheduling in-school and after-school interventions. Strategy 4: Implement research-based practices in improving students’ academic vocabulary in grades K-5 (Marzano, Building Background Knowledge, 2004, Building Academic Vocabulary, Teachers’ Manual, 2005) Strategy 5: Implement research-based practices in the area of Effective Teaching Strategies in grades K-5 (Marzano, Classroom Instruction That Works, 2001 and The Art and Science of Teaching, 2007 9 Strategy 1: Teachers will clearly communicate conceptual and skill objectives to students using child friendly language in such a way that students will be able to articulate what it is they should know and be able to do.  Year one (2008-09) action plan Teachers will explicitly communicate and display conceptual and skill objectives using child friendly language for lessons in all core subjects. For example: I can use a ruler to measure to ¼ inch. I can look at the picture to guess what the story is about. I can use a Venn Diagram to compare two stories. I can use a pie chart to organize information.  timeline results indicators costs January Students will be able to articulate what it is none 2009 they will know or be able to do as a result of June 2009 instruction or learning activities as evidenced in administrative and/or collegial walk-throughs. Objectives will be posted in child friendly language and/or pictures on bulletin boards, in centers, on rubrics and contracts. Increased student performance on DRA, CFAs, and Benchmark assessments. person(s) responsible Teachers, Principal and EIST Year two (2009-10) and year three (2010-2011) Review and revised as indicated by results action plan timeline results indicators costs Evaluate, revise, extend and/or September Students will be able to articulate what it is none continue based on results indicators. 2009 – they will know or be able to do as a result of June 2011 instruction or learning activities as evidenced in administrative and/or collegial walk-throughs. Objectives will be posted in child friendly language and/or pictures on bulletin boards, in centers, on rubrics and contracts. person(s) responsible Teachers, Principal and EIST 10 Strategy 2: Implementation of Reader Response Journals in grades 2-5.  Year one (2008-09) action plan timeline results indicators Teachers will provide direct explicit instruction; guided practice opportunities, corrective feedback, and independent practice in using research based reading comprehension strategies to respond to open-ended questions similar to those posed on CMT. They will provide multiple opportunities for practice in whole and small group instructional formats. The emphasis will be on use of non-fiction text, use of academic vocabulary, and CMT format. Students will respond at least 3X per week. action plan Teachers will provide individual written and face to face teacher feedback to individual student responses minimally 1X per week, with opportunities for correction and revision based on feedback. January 2009 – June 2009 Lesson plans that evidence instruction and practice as indicated in action plan Costs 2 Reading Response Journals Student use of these strategies, teacher feedback per and student revision reflected in entries in student @ Reading Response Journals. $2.00 each x 370 Increased student performance on CFAs, students = Benchmark Assessments, DRA, and DRP $1480 person(s) responsible EIST, Principal, Classroom Teachers, Students timeline results indicators January 2009 June 2009 Consistent practice provided to students as evidenced in student journals, and lesson plans Journals with scored responses with specific feedback Improved performance evident in student responses based on teacher feedback Costs In-house PD @ no cost person(s) responsible Teachers, EIST, Principal 11 action plan Organize, enlarge, and enrich availability and use of nonfiction text at all grade levels by taking inventory of current stock in classrooms, library, and reading resource room, creating an organizational system that is easily accessed by teachers, determining areas of need, and purchasing text to supplement existing stock. timeline results indicators By June 2009 Existing nonfiction text organized by subject and level in Reading Room Nonfiction classroom libraries organized by Subject and level Students reading non-fiction text in small and whole group as evidenced by lesson plans, response journals, reading logs and administrative walk-throughs Costs Use of current library, PTA, and reading budget funds to purchase nonfiction text. person(s) responsible EIST, Teachers, Principal  Year two (2009-10) and Year three (2010-11) Reviewed and revised based on results action plan Timeline results indicators Evaluate, extend, revise and/or continue to provide direct explicit instruction; guided practice opportunities, corrective feedback, and independent practice using research based reading comprehension strategies in responding to open-ended questions similar to those posed on CMT and provide multiple opportunities for practice in whole and small group instructional formats. The emphasis will be on non-fiction text, use of academic vocabulary, and CMT format at least 3X per week. September Lesson plans that evidence instruction and 2009 – practice as indicated in action plan June 2011 Student use of these strategies, teacher feedback and student revision reflected in entries in Reading Response Journals. Costs 2 Reading Response Journals per student @ $2.00 each x 370 students = $1480 person(s) responsible EIST, Principal, Classroom Teachers, Students Increased student performance on CFAs, Benchmark Assessments, DRA, and DRP 12 action plan Evaluate, extend, revise and/or continue to provide individual written and face to face teacher feedback to student responses minimally 1X per week, with opportunities for correction in writing as well as in face to face individual, small group and whole group sessions. (Whole group, guided reading, cooperative learning, overhead using models and student work, peer revision, and 1-1 sessions) action plan Timeline results indicators Costs person(s) responsible September Consistent feedback provided to students as 2010– evidence in student journals, lesson plans, June 2011 and EIST and administrative walk-through. Improved performance in student responses based on teacher feedback In-house PD @ no cost Teachers, EIST, Principal Timeline results indicators Costs Use of current library, PTA, and reading budget funds to purchase nonfiction text. Evaluate, extend, revise, and/or continue September Student reading logs will show evidence of to organize, enlarge, and enrich 2009 – an increase in the frequency students are availability and use of nonfiction text at June 2010 reading non-fiction text all grade levels. Students reading non-fiction text in small and whole group as evidenced by lesson plans, response journals, and administrative walk-throughs person(s) responsible EIST, Teachers, Principal 13 Strategy 3: Increase instructional time for low performing students by scheduling in-school and after-school interventions. Year one (2008-09) action plan Provide after school and beyond school year instructional opportunities for low performing and targeted subgroup students in reading, math and study strategies timeline 1 time Weekly for December 2008February 2009 Scholars’ Academy January 2009 – May 2009 results indicators After school and summer school schedules and student attendance rosters Costs Transportation: $80 a day each week 9 weeks = $720 3 Teachers @ $26.78 per hour X 15 hours = $1205.10 (school stipend) - District cost of Test Prep Fun licenses No cost – partnership with Middletown Youth Services person(s) responsible Selected Teachers, EIST, Principal Improved student benchmark performance for identified students 14 action plan Provide small group reading instruction minimally 4 x a week for low performing and targeted subgroup students These sessions will be built into the literacy block by the teacher. Utilize special education teachers, ESL teachers/tutors and other qualified staff, using an intervention model to provide extra small group instruction in selected classes. EIST will provide targeted instruction to selected students based on assessment. Instruction will be delivered using general curriculum and supplemental materials and strategies that are supported by scientifically based research. timeline January – June 2009 results indicators Lowest performing students will receive additional small group instruction as evidenced by teacher schedules, lesson plans and administrative review with teachers Costs Use of CALI subs as available based on data team and grade level meeting schedules at no additional cost use intervention model in selected classes using existing staff and available funds person(s) responsible Teachers Principal EIST Improved student benchmark and CMT performance for identified students Year two (2009-10) and year three (2010 – 2011) Reviewed and revised based on results action plan timeline results indicators Evaluate, revise and/or continue to provide after school and beyond school year instructional opportunities for low performing and targeted subgroup students in reading, math and study strategies 1 time Weekly for October May Yearly through 2011 After school and summer school schedules and student attendance rosters costs Transportation: $80 a day each week for 25 weeks = $2000 3 Teachers @ Improved student benchmark and CMT $26.78 per hour 38 performance for participating students hours = $3053 District cost of person(s) responsible Selected Teachers, EIST, Principal 15 Test Prep Fun licenses Scholars’ Academy January – May yearly through 2011 No cost – partnership with Middletown Youth Services action plan Evaluate, extend, revise and/or continue to provide small group reading instruction minimally 4 x a week for low performing and targeted subgroup students. timeline results indicators costs Use of CALI subs as available based on data team and grade level meeting schedules at no additional cost -Use intervention model in selected classes using existing staff and available funds September Lowest performing students will receive 2010 – additional small group instruction as June 2011 evidenced by teacher schedules, lesson plans and administrative review with teachers Improved student benchmark and CMT performance for identified students person(s) responsible Teachers Principal EIST 16 Strategy 4: Implement research-based practices in improving students’ academic vocabulary in grades K-5 (Marzano, Building Background Knowledge, 2004, Building Academic Vocabulary, Teachers’ Manual, 2005)  Year one (2008-09) action plan timeline results indicators costs Grade level and data teams will work collaboratively to identify critical vocabulary in core subject areas and will develop a pacing guide aligned to GLEs and curriculum for direct vocabulary instruction, following the 6-step process outlined in Building Academic Vocabulary.  January June 2009 Consistent direct instruction of academic vocabulary by classroom teachers as reflected in lesson plans, data team minutes, and principal walk-throughs. Improved student performance on DRP and Writing Assessments 5 copies purchased yearly for new staff of Building Academic Vocabulary by Marzano and Pickering 2005 @ $25.95 = $129.75 per year District and building level PD at no cost to school person(s) responsib le Teachers, Principal, EIST Year two (2009-10) and year three (2010-11) Reviewed and revised based on results indicators action plan timeline results indicators Evaluate, extend, revise and/or continue January - Consistent direct instruction of academic implementation of academic vocabulary June 2009 vocabulary by classroom teachers as reflected in initiative, by embedding academic lesson plans, data team minutes, and principal vocabulary into core subjects and walk-throughs. providing PD for new teachers and teachers needing refresher training Improved student performance on DRP on both district and CMT Writing Assessments costs 5 copies purchased yearly for new staff of Building Academic Vocabulary by Marzano and Pickering 2005 @ $25.95 = $129.75 per year District and building level PD at no cost to school Strategy 5: Implement research-based practices in the area of Effective Teaching Strategies in grades K-5 (Marzano, Classroom Instruction That Works and The Art and Science of Teaching) 17  Year one (2008-09) action plan Spencer certified staff will read Classroom Instruction that Works (2001), and participate in monthly discussions during faculty/Data Team meetings focusing on 1 strategy per month (total of 10 including nonfiction writing). Following the monthly discussions 100% of teachers will utilize the strategies that have been studied. timeline January 2009 – December 2009 results indicators Lesson Plans will reflect the use specific Effective Teaching Strategies identified for instruction and use of strategies will be evidenced in Data Team Minutes Staff Meeting/PD Agendas costs None: District has provided copy of text for all classroom teachers and support staff person(s) responsible Principal and certified staff  Year two and three(2009-11) Reviewed and revised based on results action plan timeline results indicators All certified staff continues to implement strategies from January Lesson Plans will reflect the use 2010 – specific Effective Teaching Strategies Classroom Instruction that Works (2001) until all 10 strategies have June 1011 identified for instruction and use of been studied. Teachers will then strategies will be evidenced in Data read The Art and Science of Team Minutes Teaching (2007), participate in focused monthly discussions during Staff Meeting/PD Agendas faculty and grade level meetings. costs 25 X $19.40 = $485 for purchasing of The Art and Science of Teaching. person(s) responsible Principal and certified staff New staff will read both texts. 18