Quincy Public Schools Program Improvement Plan. Literacy Program. Roberta L. DiTullio Coordinator of Literacy and Title I

Transcription

1 Literacy Program Roberta L. DiTullio Coordinator of Literacy and Title I

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Mission Statements a. Quincy Public Schools b. Literacy Program II. Program Leader s Message III. Program Description a. Program Design b. Measures of Student Achievement c. Curriculum and Instruction IV. Program Assessment a. Reflection of goals (previous year) b. Analysis of MCAS (Spring results) and other Assessments V. District Improvement Plan Alignment a. System Organizational Chart b. Program Name Organizational Chart and Staffing c. System Team Alignment Chart d. DIP Standard/Team Alignment Chart e. Team Information Team Name(s) Chairperson Purpose, Standard, Key Question, Indicators, and Benchmarks Goals, Action Steps, Source of Evidence and Team/Person Responsible Related Professional Development Membership and Meeting Dates VI. Appendix a. MAP District Summary Report b. Sample Grade 3 Close Reading lesson 2

3 Mission Statement Our mission is to provide a safe and nurturing learning environment for children to achieve their individual maximum potential. Our desire is to develop students who persevere in their studies, take responsibility for their choices, and are honest in their character. We seek to equip the students with the necessary skills to thrive as productive workers and committed citizens, and to meet the challenge of change in a global community. We strive to help children explore and discover their gifts and talents, and to value and respect each other's uniqueness. In order to accomplish our mission, staff, parents and students must work in a collaboration of effort and trust with open communication. Our success will be measured by our students who exemplify a life-long love of learning. 3

4 Literacy Program Mission Statement The Literacy Program was developed to identify and support students who struggle to acquire foundational literacy skills. Literacy students are selected by the Integrated Learning Team (ILT) based on test assessment results and overall reading performance. Literacy teachers provide intervention, utilizing scientifically based researchreviewed programs (SBRR), to struggling readers in grades Kindergarten through grade four. The focus of this intervention is to develop and support students working knowledge of concepts of print, the alphabetic principle, academic and content specific vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies, and essential elements of the English writing system. Student success rate is monitored through formative and summative assessments. These foundational skills are a crucial component of a comprehensive literacy program and are designed to develop proficient readers with the ability to read, comprehend, and respond to texts across all disciplines. The Literacy Team maintains current practice through active participation in professional development and further extends their knowledge by providing learning opportunities to QPS staff system-wide. 4

5 Literacy Coordinator s Message Reading ability is a critical component to a child s overall academic development. Foundational reading skills are established during early learning years. As the student advances in grade level, so too advances the reading performance expectation. Today s college and career ready learner is required to effectively communicate in terms of: listening, speaking, reading, and writing in relation to varying academic domains, genres, and settings. Success in advanced learning hinges upon the stability of accomplished early reading foundation. Current research notes a positive correlation between early reading intervention and reading development. Therefore, it is imperative that students in need of additional reading support be identified at the earliest of formative years. members, in collaboration with the Integrated Learning Team members (ILT), must analyze data through a holistic approach and create a balanced literacy plan tailored to meet specific student needs. The members provide students with necessary explicit instruction in the areas of: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Student success rate is monitored regularly through informal and formal assessment opportunities, formative and summative in nature. Supporting struggling readers at early stages of development will better position students to attain high functioning reading independence and further promote academic success leading to lifelong learning. Roberta L. DiTullio 5

6 a. Program Design Program Description The students serviced by the Literacy Program are those students that are determined to be at various risk levels for reading achievement. These students are identified as at risk by their performance scores on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Next, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), MAP for Primary Grades (MPG), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and Marie Clay s Observation Survey. The Integrated Learning Team (ILT) analyzes assessment data and overall performance level. Students are then tiered in a three leveled system indicating the degree of support required. Tier One Tier Two Tier Three Currently presents at no risk for low reading achievement and requires no supplemental instruction. The student will be provided classroom instruction in an SBRR core program so as to continue grade level reading development. Currently presents at some risk for low reading achievement and may require some supplemental instruction to be successful in the core program. Currently presents at risk for low reading achievement and requires intensive instruction in SBRR reading interventions designed to accelerate student growth. Literacy teachers provide reading support to students presenting as Tier Three, unless the students receive reading support by another academic service provider. In addition, literacy teachers provide reading support to as many Tier Two students as the schedule permits. Data analysis has revealed that many literacy students also make up our schools subgroup populations. Quincy s EL population continues to increase. Therefore, primary languages other than English have become large in number and rich in diversity. In addition to the influx of EL students, many schools have highly transient populations and have seen increases in the number of students serviced from low socioeconomic status groups. The Literacy Program supports student need by: Identifying reading ability and performance level Analyzing assessment data so as to provide appropriate intervention Implementing prescribed intervention programs and strategies Monitoring student progress Adapting instruction based on formative and summative assessment findings The Literacy Program supports school need by: Organizing and analyzing assessment data Facilitating Integrated Learning Team meetings Providing reading counsel and professional development as needed 6

7 b. Measures of Student Achievement Literacy Program achievement is based on student growth and outcomes. The goal is to maintain Tier I students throughout the year as well as increase the number of students in Tiers I and II, while decreasing the Tier III population. Our systems of measurement include: DIBELS Next, MAP, MPG, DRA, Lexia Core 5, and Marie Clay s Observation Survey in conjunction with classroom performance documentation and MCAS results. c. Curriculum and Instruction The Literacy Program utilizes scientifically based reading interventions and techniques that are designed to increase student progress. Literacy providers make purposeful decisions as to which programs and techniques best target student need. They further develop a balanced approach to reading instruction in an effort to close the achievement gap among student grade level peers. Each program and technique targets a specific deficit based on the 5 components of effective reading instruction. The available interventions have been researched and evaluated by the Florida Center for Reading Research out of Florida State University. These programs and techniques are certified by the Literacy Office of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Interventions are aligned with Massachusetts Common Core standards and qualify as research-based programs according to the requirements set forth by the National Reading Panel. Literacy providers are required to have a solid understanding of each intervention, and remain current in training. Providers deliver appropriate instruction with fidelity corresponding to student need. Literacy teachers are responsible for the administration and analysis of assessments within each program and technique, and to further extend assessment findings with staff and students alike. 7

8 Intervention Menu Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension Early Reading Inventory Early Reading Inventory Great Leaps Elements of Reading Project Read Story Form Marilyn Adams: Phonemic Awareness Project Read Phonology Read Naturally Vocabulary Nancy Boyles: Close Reading Project Read Report Form Lexia Core 5 LIPS Quick Reads Guided Reading Keys to Literacy Lively Letters Lexia Core 5 Lexia Core 5 Lexia Core 5 Lexia Core 5 LIPS Lively Letters Guided Reading Guided Reading Orton- Gillingham Handwriting without Tears Guided Reading Nancy Boyles: Close Reading 8

9 Percentage of students k-5 Quincy Public Schools Program Assessment a. Reflection of Goals ( ) Goal 1: During the school year, the will support the district goal of developing proficient students, through the building of foundational skills in grades K - 3 so that students read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. Included in this work will be a targeted focus on grade three intervention, instruction, and progress towards benchmark. This will be evident by a decrease in the number of Tier Three students by 5% at each grade (K-3) Dibels Grade 3 50 Intensive support (Tier 3) Strategic Support (Tier 2) Core support (Tier 1) 25 27% 25% 48% 29% 28% 43% 29% 22% 50% 0 Fall Winter Spring Goal 1 The standard of measure for the successful achievement for Goal 1 is the DIBELS Next assessment. At the Fall benchmarking window 27% of the students in Grade 3 were identified as at serious risk for failure to meet grade level expected scores (Tier 3). Additionally, 48% of the students in Grade 3 were identified as meeting grade level expected scores (Tier 1). The target focus for Goal 1 was Grade 3. Although the Grade 3 Tier 3 population increased by 2%, Tier 1 also increased by 2%, according to spring results. The goal for the school year was to decrease the number of Tier 3 students (those in need of intensive support) by 5% at each grade based on spring 2016 benchmark data. The number of students, K-3 in Tier 3 decreased by 7% total. More specifically, K remained relatively the same in Tier 3, with a spring showing of 44%. Although, Grade 1 showed a dramatic increase in Tier 1, with 33% in the fall and 51% in the spring. Grade 1 also demonstrated a significant decrease in Tier 3 students, as the spring data revealed an enormous drop from 45% to 22%. The DIBELS data also demonstrated strong growth in Grade 2. The fall of 2015 showed 28% of second graders at Tier 3. The Spring Grade 2 data noted an 8% decrease in Tier 3 students. Grade 2 Tier 1 population made considerable gains as well. The fall data reflected a Tier 1 population of 46%, with a 7% increase of Tier 1 in spring. 9

10 2,751 students Fall ,728 students Spring 2016 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Kindergarten Kindergarten (n=706) (n=704) Grade Grade (n=682) (n=673) Grade Grade (n=710) (n=701) Grade Grade (n=653) (n=650) Total 1, ,000 Total 1, % 22% 36% 48% 23% 29% Upon further review of the data displayed above, the has identified grade 3 as a continued area of concern. Although Tier 1 increased by 1%, Tier 2 decreased by 4%, and Tier 3 increased by 2%. The is concerned with the lack of movement from Tier 3 to Tier 1 in grades K and 3, and will make early foundational skill, including phonemic awareness and phonics part of our focus during the school year. The continues to strive towards reducing the percentage of Tier 3 students and increasing the percentage of students in Tier 1, therefore reducing the achievement gap. The Team continues to provide students throughout the year with a tiered model of instruction, differentiated core instruction (Tier 1) and additional support from interventionists and special educators using research based programs. The continues to recognize the importance of this goal and although we feel we have yet to achieve our target of a 5% decrease in Tier 3 per grade, we will continue to work on a modified version, with a balanced focus in early foundational skill including phonemic awareness and phonics, along with a concentration in comprehension so as to prepare for next generation assessments. Goal 2: During the school year, the will continue our goal of incorporating the use of technology during literacy intervention sessions by monitoring technology currently in place, tracking student progress through online resources, and the creation and monitoring of a technology and implementation plan. During the school year, the did greatly increase the use of technology within the literacy intervention design. Throughout the year, each of the 22 Literacy Specialists was given an additional i-pad to use during the literacy intervention block, in an attempt to further differentiate and customize small group instruction based on student need. In addition to apps such as OG cards and wet-dry-try, additional licenses to the following online programs were purchased for any student participating in literacy services: 10

11 Lexia Core 5: Lexia addresses all strands of reading in grades Pre-K-5 and can be implemented for all instructional tiers. As part of the program, students receive both student-driven and teacher-directed personalized learning through fun and engaging online activities to build foundational reading skills. Based on student progress and success, the program prescribes the instructional intensity needed in order to increase each student s likelihood of reaching end-of-year, grade-level benchmarks. Student reports have now become a part of the overall progress monitoring process. use this data as an indication of day to day progress in an independent setting. Lexia also addresses the development of oral language, reading, spelling and writing skills in learners of all ability levels including students who speak English as a second language. Finally, Lexia allows free access for students at home, as well as during the day. The response to Lexia Core 5 continues to be positive. recognize the importance of an on-line component to literacy intervention, and view this particular program as a valuable resource. Additional Lexia Core 5 licenses have been purchased for Special Education Students, and English Learners, as the program components greatly benefit both sub-groups. Read Naturally Live: Read Naturally Live accelerates reading achievement by combining the researchproven strategies of teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring. A student works at his or her own pace in an appropriate level of material. Text and audio guide the student through the steps. The student masters a story by reading along with audio and then practicing the story until he or she can read it fluently and with comprehension. The program automatically tracks student progress. Read Naturally Live has become a staple component of the literacy program in several elementary schools throughout the system. The continues to make great strides in increasing their use of technology. The team has targeted particular programs that correspond to students needs. They invest in a fidelity to the technological aspect of intervention while maintaining a balance with regard to teacher directed, explicit instruction. Literacy Specialists have used the time of this extended goal to further investigate and expand upon the use of each program, by utilizing lesson plans and extended resources linked to online units. Specialists also incorporate student reports when assessing overall student growth. The Literacy Specialists have shared their program findings with fellow colleagues representing the classroom setting, Special Education, and English Learner in the spirit of collaboration. Therefore, The has successfully achieved Goal 2. Goal 3: During the school year, the will assist in the implementation, proctoring, and analysis of the grade three pilot of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment. In the fall of 2015, The participated in MAP site based and online professional development. Specialists utilized the online proctor training and then administered the MAP Reading Comprehension pilot to Grade 3 students. The also assisted math teachers in administering the MAP Math pilot. The then participated in professional development relating to MAP test results and how to gain meaning from yielded data. As December approached, Literacy Specialists reviewed the online proctor training prior to winter administration. The MAP assessment became a component of the winter benchmarking period in both areas of math and reading. Data gained from this online assessment was used in conjunction with the typical standards of measure including DIBELS for ILT purposes. Once again, in April proctors prepared for administration and then facilitated the online assessment. The spring MAP results became an additional data set representing student growth in the area of reading comprehension and math. Goal 3, MAP pilot year, was a success. Literacy familiarized themselves with the proctor process and secured an understanding with regard to MAP reports and data analysis. MAP provided valuable information directly related to student performance in the area of reading comprehension. These findings assisted Literacy and Classroom with lesson planning and classroom instruction. 11

12 The procedure of the online assessment experience served to prepare students for next generation online assessments. In , Grade Two Students will participate in a primary version of MAP, known as MPG, MAP for Primary Grades. b. Analysis of Assessments Instructional Tiers Based on Dibels Next Scores 4,008 students Fall of 2014-Spring ,939 students Fall 2014 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Spring 2015 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Kindergarten Kindergarten Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total % 21% 35% 49% 22% 29% 3,868 students Fall 2015-Spring ,815 students Fall 2015 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Spring 2016 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Kindergarten Kindergarten Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total % 21% 33% 48% 22% 30% 12

13 The district analysis of the fall benchmarking assessment identified 43% of the students in Tier One, with 49% of the students being identified as Tier One in the spring, an increase of 6%. 21% of the students were identified as Tier Two in the fall with an increase to 22% in the spring. 35% of the students scored in Tier Three in the fall. This number decreased significantly to 29% in the spring. In general, results of this data indicate a significant decrease out of Tier Three and conversely significant increases in Tier One students throughout the course of the year. Therefore, the Team feels confident that the current model of literacy intervention is achieving the desired outcome of developing proficient students. The district analysis of the fall benchmarking assessment identifies 45% of the students in Tier One, with 48% of the students being identified as Tier One in the spring, an increase of 3%. 21% of the students were identified as Tier Two in the fall with an increase to 22% in the spring. 33% of the students scored Tier Three in the fall. This figure dropped to 30% in the spring. Overall, the Tier One population increased, while the Tier Three decreased. This current design for intervention support is successful in producing gains in reading proficiency. Therefore, the will continue to implement the current intervention model. 13

14 District Improvement Plan Alignment a. System Organizational Chart 14

15 District Improvement Plan Alignment b. Literacy Organizational Chart and Staffing Roberta L. DiTullio Coordinator of Literacy & Title I TITLE I PROGRAM LITERACY PROGRAM Atherton Hough Literacy Teacher Beechwood Knoll Literacy Teacher Bernazzani Literacy Teacher Lincoln Hancock Literacy Teacher (5) Marshall School Literacy (4) Merrymount School Literacy Teacher (2) Montclair School Literacy Teacher Parker School Literacy Teacher (3) Snug Harbor School Literacy Teacher Squantum School Literacy Teacher Wollaston School Literacy Teacher 15

16 II. Organization Chart Literacy Staff List School Atherton Hough Teacher Kathleen Synnott FTE 1.0 Funding QPS Beechwood Knoll Kathleen DeMayo 1.0 QPS Bernazzani Eileen Maver 1.0 QPS Clifford Marshall Ann Donovan 1.0 QPS Kelly Antonellis 1.0 QPS Jennifer Russell 1.0 QPS Jennifer Masterson 1.0 QPS Lincoln Hancock Colleen Dufresne Title I Mary Kay White.5.5 Title I Sarah Magnuson.5.5 Title I Maria Coughlin-Lok 1.0 QPS Catherine McLaughlin 1.0 Title I Merrymount Ellen Wallace 1.0 QPS Kathleen Higgins.5 QPS Montclair Judith Iredale 1.0 QPS Susan Ramponi 1.0 QPS Parker Elizabeth Bates 1.0 QPS Wendy Cardia 1.0 QPS Katherine Andersen.5.5 Title I Snug Harbor Ann Collins 1.0 QPS Squantum Johanna O Connor 1.0 QPS Wollaston Janet Baglione 1.0 QPS 16

17 District Improvement Plan Alignment c. System Team Alignment Chart 17

18 III. District/Program Improvement Alignment District Improvement Plan Alignment d. DIP Standard/Team Alignment Chart Superintendent of Schools Assistant Superintendent of Schools Standard 3 Assessment and Program Evaluation Assessment Team CTE Advisory Team School Assessment Teams (18) Special Education Team Gifted & Talented Team ELL Team 18

19 District Improvement Plan Alignment e. Team Information Team: Chairperson: Asst: Purpose: DIP Standard: Key Question: Roberta DiTullio Janet Baglione, Colleen Dufresne To provide both professional development opportunities and planning guidelines as facilitators for intervention programs in the Early Literacy Program. Standard 3~ Assessment and Program Evaluation Are assessment results and local benchmarks used to make decisions, and improve student performance? Indicators Indicator 1: District assessment policies and practices are characterized by the continuous collection, analysis, and use of student assessment results by district and school. Indicator 3: District and school leaders implement assessment systems to measure the attainment of goals, progress, and effectiveness. Assessment reports are focused on student achievement and are communicated to all appropriate staff. Indicator 4: The district and school leadership regularly uses benchmarks and assessment tools, including MCAS, to measure student progress, and the effectiveness of instructional and support programs. The results are analyzed and disseminated in a timely manner to appropriate staff. Indicator 5: The district and school leadership annually assess the effectiveness of its programs and service delivery systems. Benchmarks The district has a coordinated assessment program with clear policies, procedures and timetables coordinated with MCAS. The district compiles, analyzes, and distributes student assessment results. Administrators and teachers are well informed about the content and purpose of the assessment programs. Building administrators demonstrate that they have the skills to analyze aggregate and individual test results to improve curricula instructional practices and to develop targeted support and remedial programs. 19

20 Superintendent of Schools Assistant Superintendent of Schools Standard 2 Curriculum & Instruction Curriculum Team Principal s Team Educational Technology Team Vertical Team (7) Cabinet Council Teams Community Service Pre-Kindergarten Team Career and Technical Education Team 20

21 DIP Standard: Key Question: Standard 2~ Curriculum and Instruction Are all aspects of the curriculum to the state Frameworks? Are instructional practices developed and implemented toward attaining high levels of student achievement? Indicators Indicator 2: The district s curricula in all disciplines are aligned horizontally and vertically. Benchmarks Curriculum has been reviewed and revised as needed to address changes in state frameworks and/or fill gaps identified through analysis of MCAS and other standardized student performance assessments, subsequent to each test administration. 21

22 District Improvement Plan Program/ Department Goal Statements Goal #1 During the school year, early literacy students will improve their phonemic awareness and phonics skills as evidenced by an overall decrease in the number of Tier 3 students by 3% at each grade level K-3, as indicated by the DIBELS NEXT.. Step Action/Strategies/Timeline Sources of Evidence Team/person a. The district will migrate students into their school year database, and enter student special codes to allow for disaggregated data. DIBELS, MPG, and MAP rosters Robert Cavallo b. In September, Literacy will assess students, and analyze DIBELS Next reports, MPG and MAP data reports by aggregated and disaggregated scores. c. In September, members of the, along with Sped., and Speech will participate in a four - full day LIPS training provided by Commonwealth Learning. d. In September, members will facilitate building ILT meetings and group Literacy Students according to need. e. Literacy will continue to implement learned Orton-Gillingham strategies and complete the required observations linked to OG certification. f. In November, Literacy, EL, Sped., and Kindergarten Classroom will participate in Lively Letters training (part I). Printed DIBELS, MPG, and MAP data reports Contract with QPS and the Commonwealth Learning, sign- in sheets, notes from training DIBELS, MPG, and MAP data, Informal meeting notes OG lesson plans, created materials, evaluation notes Contract with QPS and Reading with TLC, sign-in sheets, notes from training E. Perkins Roberta DiTullio Commonwealth Learning ILT members Commonwealth Learning EL, Sped., and Kindergarten Classroom g. In November, Grade One Classroom will participate in Handwriting without Tears training. Contract with QPS and Handwriting without Tears, sign-in sheets, notes from training E. Perkins Grade One Classroom 22

23 h. During meetings throughout each benchmarking period, members will review student data through a case study analysis. i. The will facilitate ILT meetings, reassess students progress at winter benchmark, make instructional accommodations, and intervention changes. j. In January, Literacy, EL, Sped, and Kindergarten Classroom will participate in Lively Letters PD (part II) Team notes, case studies DIBELS,MAP, MPG data reports, and informal notes Contract with QPS and Reading with TLC, sign-in sheets, notes from training k. In May and June 2017, will DIBELS, MPG, and collect the results of spring DIBELS, MPG, and MAP data reports MAP data and assess goals 1 and 2, ILT members EL, Sped, and Kindergarten Classroom 23

24 Goal #2 During the school year, the will support the district goal in the area of reading comprehension through the implementation of Guided Reading and Close Reading Strategies, as evidenced by an increase of 10 points on the RIT scale as indicated by the district level results on MPG and MAP. Steps Actions/ Strategies/Timeline Sources of evidence Teams/ Persons a. In August 2016, Literacy and Classroom will participate in Close Reading workshop. b. The district will migrate students into their MPG and MAP database. c. In September 2016, the will administer MPG and MAP online benchmark assessments. d. In September 2016, the will analyze data, share findings at building ILT meetings, and group students according to need, noting comprehension concerns. e. In September and October, Grade Three Literacy and Classroom will participate in Close Reading cohort. f. October through January, Literacy will model and engage students in Guided Reading and Close Reading strategies. g. October through January, Literacy students will engage in on-line differentiated instruction independently utilizing the Lexia Core 5 technology. h. October through January, Literacy will progress monitor students in the area of comprehension through the use of informal and formal assessments utilizing both verbal and written responses. i. November 2016, Grade Four Literacy and Grades Four and Five Classroom will participate in Close Reading cohort. j. Winter 2017, Grade Two and Grade One Literacy and Classroom will participate in Close Reading cohort. k. In January 2017, the will administer MPG and MAP online benchmark assessments. Contract with QPS and Nancy Boyles, sign-in sheets, notes from training MPG and MAP rosters Printed MPG and MAP data results DIBELS, MPG, and MAP data Informal meeting notes Contract with QPS and Nancy Boyles, sign-in sheets, notes from training Lesson Plans Lexia Student Reports Informal observational notes based on dialogue and Student written responses Contract with QPS and Nancy Boyles, sign-in sheets, notes from training Contract with QPS and Nancy Boyles, sign-in sheets, notes from training Printed MPG and MAP data results Erin Perkins Roberta DiTullio Nancy Boyles Classroom Curriculum and Management Team Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles 24

25 l. In January 2017, the will analyze data, share findings at building ILT meetings, and group students according to need, noting comprehension concerns, and make necessary adjustments to established groups. m. January through June, Literacy will model and engage students in Guided Reading and Close Reading strategies. n. January through June, Literacy students will engage in on-line differentiated instruction independently utilizing the Lexia Core 5 technology. o. January through June, Literacy will progress monitor students in the area of comprehension through the use of informal and formal assessments utilizing both verbal and written responses. p. In May 2017, the will administer MPG and MAP online benchmark assessments and analyze year-end results. DIBELS, MPG, and MAP data Informal meeting notes Lesson Plans, Informal observational notes based on dialogue and Student written responses Lexia Student Reports Informal observational notes based on dialogue and Student written responses Printed MPG and MAP data results 25

26 Goal #3 During the school year, so as to support classroom teachers in identifying and addressing the needs of the most concerning students, the will analyze the Integrated Learning Team Meeting process and create a uniform comprehensive protocol as evidenced by the Integrated Learning Team Meeting Guide Document. Steps Actions/ Strategies/Timeline Sources of evidence Teams/ Persons a. September 2016: Literacy will facilitate Fall ILT meetings and analyze strengths and areas of concerns relating to the ILT process. Informal ILT Team reflection notes b. October 2016: Literacy will share their reflections of the most recent ILT meetings including strengths and weaknesses. c. October 2016: Literacy will collaboratively determine areas of focus and needed revisions. d. November 2016: Representative ELL, Special Education, Guidance Counselors and Elementary will meet with the Literacy to discuss revisions to the ILT process. e. November-December 2016: Create a draft document noting revisions to the ILT process. f. January 2017: Literacy will facilitate ILT team meetings using draft document and revisions to the ILT process. g. February 2017: Literacy will share their reflections of the most recent ILT meetings including strengths and weaknesses. h. February March 2017: The Literacy Team will make any necessary revisions based on feedback from the January ILT meetings and produce final document. i. April 2017: Share final document with elementary principals and elementary teaching staff for spring implementation. Sign-in sheet, Literacy Team meeting notes Sign-in sheet, Literacy Team meeting notes Sign-in sheet, Team meetings notes, list of areas in need of revision Draft ILT process document Informal ILT reflection notes Sign-in sheet, Team meeting notes Team meeting notes, final document Final document, team meeting notes 26

27 Professional Development Date Time Location Participants (Team/Grade Level) 9/7/16 8:00-2:30 Coddington Hall 9/8/16 8:00-2:30 Coddington Hall 9/15/16 8:00-2:30 Coddington Hall 9/16/16 8:00-2:30 Coddington Hall 9/21/16 8:00 2:30 Atherton Hough / Snug Harbor, Special Education, Speech, Special Education, Speech, Special Education, Speech, Special Education, Speech Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom 9/22/16 8:15-11:00 Bernazzani Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom 9/23/16 8:15-11:00 Lincoln Hancock 10/4/16 9:00-11:00 Coddington Hall Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom 10/25/16 8:15-11:00 Bernazzani Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom 10/27/16 8:00-2:30 Atherton Hough/ Snug Harbor 10/28/16 8:15-11:00 Lincoln Hancock Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom Grade 3 Literacy and Classroom LIPS LIPS LIPS LIPS Close Reading Close Reading Close Reading Topic Presenters Goal Number Commonwealth 1 Learning Review Program Improvement Plan and ILT Design Close Reading Close Reading Close Reading Commonwealth Learning Commonwealth Learning Commonwealth Learning Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles 1-3 Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles

28 11/1/16 9:00-11:00 Coddington Hall 11/22/16 12:45-3:45 Lincoln Hancock, EL, Sped., Guidance, Classroom, Pre K, K, Special Education 11/22/16 12:45-3:45 TBD Grade 4 and Grade 5 ELA and Social Studies focus teachers 12/6/16 9:00-11:00 Coddington Hall TBD TBD TBD Grade 4 and Grade 5 ELA and Social Studies focus teachers and Literacy TBD TBD TBD Grade 2 Literacy and Classroom 3/7/17 9:00-11:00 Coddington Hall ILT Revisions 3 Lively Letters Marianne Nice 1 Close Reading Erin Perkins ILT Draft Document 3 Close Reading Close Reading Nancy Boyles Nancy Boyles ILT Final Document TBD TBD TBD Grade 1 Literacy and Classroom 5/9/17 9:00-11:00 Coddington Hall Close Reading Review goals from Discuss possible goals for Nancy Boyles 1,2,3 2 28

29 29

30 Literacy Teacher Team Members School Teacher Extension Atherton Kathleen 8797 Hough Synnott Beechwood Kathleen 8781 Knoll DeMayo Bernazzani Eileen Maver 8713 Clifford Ann Donovan 8721 Marshall Kelly 8721 Antonellis Jennifer 8721 Russell Jennifer 8721 Masterson Lincoln Colleen 8715 Hancock Dufresne Mary Kay 8715 White Sarah 8715 Magnuson Maria 8715 Coughlin-Lok Catherine 8715 (Cathy) McLaughlin Merrymount Ellen Wallace 8762 Kathleen 8762 (Katie) Higgins Montclair Judith (Tina) 8708 Iredale Susan 8708 Ramponi Parker Elizabeth (Liz) 8710 Bates Wendy Cardia 8710 Katherine 8710 Andersen Snug Harbor Ann Collins 8763 Squantum Johanna 8705 O Connor Wollaston Janet Baglione

31 Literacy Team Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Times Location Friday, September 9, :30 10:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, October 4, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, November 1, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, December 6, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, January 10, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, March 7, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, April 4, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, May 9, :00 11:00 Coddington Hall Tuesday, June 13, 2017 TBD TBD 31

32 32