Strategic Improvement Plan

Transcription

1 Planning Year Implementation September 2011-June 2014 Lea Hill Elementary Strategic Improvement Plan Strategic Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on insert school board approval date here. 1 P a g e

2 September 2011-June 2014 Auburn School District Strategic Improvement Plan District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and 10. District Improvement Goal 2: Dropout Rate and On-time Graduation Schools will reduce dropout rates and meet additional Adequate Yearly Progress indicators as determined by K-8 attendance and high school on-time graduation rates. District Improvement Goal 3: Parents/Guardians and Community Partnerships The district and schools will continue to develop partnerships to support student academic achievement and success. District Improvement Goal 4: Policies and Resource Management The district will focus on improving student academic achievement and narrowing the achievement gaps in its policy decisions and resource allocation Stated District Objectives-Student Achievement and Accountability Superintendent implements district strategic improvement plan to establish professional learning communities, become a standards-based district, produce power standards, develop common formative assessments, monitor student achievement, and provide intervention for continuous improvement for 10% more students at or above standards in reading and math. Superintendent increases high school graduation rates to 95% and increasing high school aggregate credits earned and decreasing failing grades in 9th grade. Superintendent increases learning enrichment and achievement beyond standards for all students including less represented population. School: LEA HILL ELEMENTARY Date of SIP Team District Improvement Goal Review: APRIL 2011 SIP Team Members: Ed Herda, Principal Joann Spear, 2 nd Grade Jill Journey, Resource- Room Kim Foss, 5 th Grade Devan Sweeney, 3 rd Grade Melissa Slatt, 4 th Grade Connie Say-O Donnell, 1 st Grade Heather Chandler, Parent Representative 2 P a g e

3 Requirements for School Improvement Plan WAC Each school in the district shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors. At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan. The checklist below contains the required elements for School Improvement Plans under WAC School Improvement Plans are subject to review by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). 1. Evidence and date of annual school board approval. 2. Evidence staff certification requirements were met. (Highly Qualified) 3. Evidence the plan is based on self-review and participation of required participants (staff, students, families, parents, and community members). 4. Brief summary of use of data to establish improvement. 5. How continuous improvement in student achievement of state learning goals and essential academic learning requirements (EALRs) is promoted. 6. Recognition of non-academic student learning, what and how. (School Climate, bullying, counselors, community resources, partnerships, student leadership; interpersonal relationship skills) 7. Plan addresses characteristics of successful schools. 8. Plan addresses educational equity (gender, race, ethnicity, culture, language, and physical/mental ability). 9. Plan addresses use of technology to facilitate instruction. 10. Plan addresses parent, family, and community involvement. Failure to make AYP for two consecutive years will result in identification for school improvement beginning with Step 1. The consequences associated with each step are detailed at: 3 P a g e

4 School Improvement Team Signatures Date Submitted: Date of School Board Approval: Name Title/Position Signature Ed Herda Heather Chandler Emily Kickner Anne Chatman Connie Say-O Donnell Joann Spear Devan Sweeney Melissa Slatt Kim Foss Jill Journey Principal Parent Rep. Student Community Member First Grade Teacher Second Grade Teacher Third Grade Teacher Fourth Grade Teacher Fifth Grade Teacher Resource Room Teacher Staff Each team must include staff, students, families, parents, and community members. (WAC ) 4 P a g e

5 Signatures for Approval Department of Student Learning Rod Luke Cindi Blansfield Heidi Harris Julie DeBolt Assistant Superintendent of Student Learning Director of Secondary Education Director of Elementary Education Coordinator of Assessment and NCLB Department of School Programs Louanne Decker Gordon O Dell Assistant Superintendent of School Programs Executive Director of Student Services Superintendent Kip Herren Superintendent School Board Lisa Connors School Board Carol Helgerson School Board Janice Nelson School Board Craig Schumaker Ray Vefik School Board School Board 5 P a g e

6 Executive Summary Auburn School District Mission In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners. Auburn School District Vision The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making. Sample School Mission Lea Hill exists to ensure individual academic success. Sample School Vision Lea Hill is a learning team of staff, students, parents, and community that is driven by individual student achievement. Background Information WAC Requirements for School Improvement Plan Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors and At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall gmean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan. School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WLPTII, Credit Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE. Write narrative statements for your SIP team s background (when did you begin this process, how often did you meet, what you will find in this document). We began the fully revised SIP process in the spring of 2010 with the selection of team members. We were able to have one member of each first fifth grade team be part of fully revised SIP. A veteran specialist was asked to serve as the specialist representative. A parent was asked to join the team as well. We met about twice a month throughout most of the school year, not including our once a month, all-day SIP trainings at the district office. We also used staff meeting time and about five of our twenty-one hours to keep the staff informed, conduct data carousels, etc. In this document you will learn about the process we went through and see the final product of our team s hard work and efforts; our specific student achievement goals for the next three years, and most importantly - our specific plans to improve our instruction by building shared knowledge. 6 P a g e

7 Highly Qualified Staff One hundred percent of Lea Hill teachers are highly qualified, as per the NCLB definition and the Auburn School District Department of Human Resources. Demographic data In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s demographics. Lea Hill Elementary is a small, diverse school, with a rich history of community support dating back to Our enrollment as of May 2011 was about 345 K-5 students. This does not include our Headstart program or our three ECE classrooms. Roughly half of our student body qualifies for free and reduced lunch. Our mobility rate is 26% and has been steadily rising each of the last few years. About 15% of our students qualify for our ELL program. We have students from several different countries with a wide range of languages and cultural beliefs, something we view as a strength for our school. About 12% of our K-5 students qualify for some type of IEP; this number does not include our ECE students. Our challenges are similar to Hazelwood and AJ, with a limited budget and small staff - continue to meet AYP and beyond. Our greatest challenge remains our mobility rate. We re confident we can address the needs of our students who join us in kindergarten and remain with us through fifth grade. We re learning how to more effectively meet the needs of students who join us along the way, often with large gaps in their learning and/or language challenges. It comes down to our ability to achieve catch-up growth as rapidly as possible with targeted interventions. Through our SIP, we will strive to put systems in place to make this happen for our students. Student Demographics Enrollment October 2009 Student Count 332 May 2010 Student Count 362 Gender (October 2009) Male % Female % Race/Ethnicity (October 2009) Asian % Asian/Pacific Islander % Black % Hispanic % White % Special Programs Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2010) % Special Education (May 2010) % Transitional Bilingual (May 2010) % 7 P a g e

8 Migrant (May 2010) 0 0.0% Section 504 (May 2010) 3 0.8% Foster Care (May 2010) 6 1.7% Other Information (more info) Unexcused Absence Rate ( ) % Discipline and Attendance Analysis In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s discipline and attendance For our attendance data carousel, our staff reviewed data showing students who have missed 10% or more of possible school days at Lea Hill. Celebrations: Overall, the number of LH students on this list is low. Celebration: The majority of intermediate students on this list still managed to achieve DIBELS benchmark status. Celebration: Counselor s efforts this year to meet with individual students and families regarding attendance concerns (absences and tardies). Challenges: ECE and K have the highest number of students on the 10% list. Challenge: Primary students on this list are not meeting benchmark DIBELS standards as frequently. Challenge: Future attendance data carousels need to include more detailed data. Challenge: Intermediate students appear to need more individual incentives to motivate them to improve their attendance. For our discipline carousel, our staff reviewed data showing students who have had discipline issues at Lea Hill. Celebrations: Lea Hill has had only five (5) suspensions this year. Celebrations: Think Times seem to work for first time offenders especially in the primary grades. Challenge: Some individual students are repeatedly referred to noon room. This does not seem to be an effective deterrent for these students. We need to find alternative, more effective consequences for these individual students. Challenge: For future discipline data carousel, individual classrooms need to track Think Times. 8 P a g e

9 Assessment Decisions In this section write a statement of the use of assessment in your building s decision making process and protocol. Our staff uses numerous assessments for our Lea Hill students. Some examples are MSP, DIBELS, MAPS, AR, Read Well, Early Mind Matters, Larson s Math, grade level subject assessments and classroom assessments. We use our PLC and staff development time to review the data from these assessments. Data Analysis- DIBELS In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s DIBELS data. Using DIBELs as part of our reading data carousel, the information revealed our strength as the percentage of on-target Lea Hill students to meet end of year benchmark increased their DIBELs benchmark scores from fall 2009 to spring 2010 for all K-5 students. A challenge exposed that he percentage of ELL students meeting DIBEL (ORF) benchmark remained the same from fall 2009 to spring 2010 for 4 th and 5 th. Data Analysis- MAPS In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s MAPs Data. When crafting our SMART goals, we used our MAPS data as part of our reading and math data carousels, but did not rely on it as our main source of information. Intermediate grades give students MAP tests to determine student s instructional level and to measure academic growth from trimester to trimester in the areas of mathematics and reading. MAPs tests are a short test which allows us to receiving detailed data, accurate information about our student s progress. Our next step is to use the dynamic reporting suite that simplifies data analysis and gives classroom teachers tools to apply test scores directly to instruction. In addition, our intermediate team, principal, and reading specialists will set aside time to vertically collaborate and communicate instructional priorities for our students. Data Analysis- WLPTII In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s WLPTII data. Based on the 2009/2010 WLPT II test results, I believe that the biggest challenge in the ELL Program at Lea Hill is in the area of reading and listing comprehension. These subtests showed the biggest disparity between the Mean Scale Score and Maximum-Scale Score possible at all grade levels, with the exception of kindergarten. The school s ELL student s greatest strength during the same period was in the Speaking subtest. The disparity between the mean score scale and maximum-scale score possible was the least. The only exception was in the first grade. When one takes into account only the Mean Scale Score, the picture is not as consistent. Then only the 9 P a g e

10 kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade show their greater strength to be speaking. Using this criterion, the strength of the first and second grades is in writing and the third grade is in listening. The challenge is not as clear. In kindergarten and fourth grade the challenge would be reading; in third grade, writing; second grade, listening; first and fifth, speaking. Data Analysis- Credit Attainment, Honors/AP Enrollment In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s Honors/AP data. Not Applicable Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s CEE Perceptual Survey data. Celebrations: Perceptions of communication between the district, school and home have increased for staff and families. Parents: December 2010, 91% of Lea Hill families feel informed about what is going on at school, compared to 85% in December Staff: December 2010, 69% of Lea Hill staff feel there is effective, 2-way communication between the district and our school, compared to 34% in December 2008 Challenges: Staff and Parent CEC Survey data reflects need for increased awareness of cultures of the community we teach. Parent: In December 2010, 60% of parents perceptions feel My child learns about the cultures of our community at his or her school, compared to 80% in December Staff: In December 2010, 21% of staff perceptions feel The curriculum we teach reflects the cultures of the community we serve. compared to 41% in December Achievement In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s AYP achievement- which cells met AYP and which were trigger cells. We continue to meet AYP at Lea Hill. However we monitor cells closely as they approach the trigger number. Our small enrollment has kept our cell sizes low, however our cell sizes continue to slowly increase in the following groups Black, Special Education, Limited English, and Low Income. To continue to meet proficiency, we also will have to make improvements in our reading MSP scores to achieve 88.1% this spring in the All group. We believe implementing our DIBELS Data Wall allows us to effectively monitor EVERY student at Lea Hill in the area of reading. 10 P a g e

11 Met Proficiency Goal Met Participation Goal Student Group Reading Math Reading Math All Yes Yes Yes Yes American Indian N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required Asian/Pacific Islander N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required Black N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required Hispanic N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required White Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited English N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required Special Education N<Required N<Required N<Required N<Required Low Income Yes Yes MSP/HSPE Reading In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s MSP/HSPE Reading trends. Celebrations: Lea Hill 5 th graders scored 10% higher than the state on informational text. Over a five year span of MSP (spring 2006 to spring 2010), third grade reading 64% to 81.5%. Grade five reading MSP increased 7.4% from to 09-10, highest in five years. Challenges: Lea Hill 4 th graders scored 10% lower than the state on informational text. Grade four reading MSP dropped 17.1% from to On MSP third and fourth graders were below district average for informational text (third grade LH 68.6%, district 69.2%) (fourth grade LH 54.9%, district 66.5%) MSP/HSPE Math In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s MSP/HSPE Math trends. Celebrations: Lea Hill 3 rd and 5 th grade classes exceed the district and the state in number sense/algebraic sense strand on the 2010 MSP. o 3 rd LH: 64% district: 57.5% state: 54% o 5 th LH 59% district: 53% state: 52% Challenges: The Lea Hill 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th grade classes scored below the district and the state average in problem solving/reasoning on the 2010 MSP. o 3 rd LH: 52% district: 55% state 55% o 4 th LH: 47% district: 50% state 52% 11 P a g e

12 o 5 th LH: 50% district: 52% state 52% MSP/HSPE Science In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s MSP/HSPE Science trends. Based on our MSP scores, 5 th grade Lea Hill students scored slightly above the district and state averages in the area of science. There was a decline in the 2005 school year in which Lea Hill scored below both the district and state averages. From students scored were consistent with the district and state averages. There was a decline in 5 th grade student s science scores in 2009 and Grade Level Reading Math Writing Science 3rd Grade 81.5% 67.9% 4th Grade 69.8% 52.8% 56.6% 5th Grade 75.8% 56.1% 32.3 MSP/HSPE Writing In this section write strength and challenges narrative statements for your school s MSP/HSPE Writing trends. Based on our WASL and MSP scores in writing beginning in the school year, the 4 th grade students at Lea Hill scored above the state average; this upward trend continued into the year Our scores declined in the school year, but did stay above the district and state averages until Since 2004, Lea Hill Students writing scored have declined. Beginning in 2006, our writing scores have been consistent with the state and district averages. Grade Level Reading Math Writing Science 3rd Grade 81.5% 67.9% 4th Grade 69.8% 52.8% 56.6% 5th Grade 75.8% 56.1% P a g e

13 Prioritized Challenges In this section, prioritize the challenges identified in the Executive Summary that will drive the direction for your study teams. Your SMART GOALS and Action Steps must address the Prioritized Challenge Narratives from this section. 1. Reading 2. Math 3. CEE Survey Data (Multicultural Awareness) Our prioritized challenges are listed above. They were selected based on our data carousels, recommendations from the fully revised SIP trainers, and the requirement to demonstrate adequate yearly progress in re ading and math. From discussions with other principals and teams, it was our understanding that most ASD elementary schools were choosing similar areas to focus on. Certainly, improving writing and science instruction will continue to be addressed over t he next three years. We will use staff meetings, PLC Mondays, and parts of our building twenty -one hours to ensure we are not neglecting these important subjects. There is also the possibility that we meet or exceed one or more of our SMART goals early -on within this three year SIP cycle. This achievement would allow the Lea Hill staff to adjust our focus and craft a SMART goal in the area of writing and/or science. 13 P a g e

14 Study Teams (Each study team should consider parent/community involvement, cultural competency and integration of technology as potential strategies in each goal area e.g. How can parent involvement, cultural competence and technology assist the school in meeting its reading goal?) Literacy Goal Group: Fully Revised SIP Team Reading Goal Group Research Materials: Write a summary of the best practice and research gathered by your study team that addresses your prioritized challenges. The work of your study team should be reflected in the action steps in your SIP Plan. Based on district and SIP trainings with Debbie Helm and Rick Wormeli we chose to focus on Vocabulary development as the area of focus for our reading goal. We will use the research done by Robert Marzano to help lead us toward a stronger vocabulary program. Research shows that building background vocabulary knowledge and directly teaching academic vocabulary can increase percentile rankings on standardized tests by 33% overall. The first step is to choose the words by grade level that will be taught and then the staff will be trained in Marzano s method of directly teaching vocabulary so that this will be a building wide program that will scaffold from Kindergarten to 5 th grade. Writing Goal Group Research Materials: N/A Write a summary of the best practice and research gathered by your study team that addresses your prioritized challenges. The work of your study team should be reflected in the action steps in your SIP Plan. Oral Communication Goal Group Research Materials: N/A Write a summary of the best practice and research gathered by your study team that addresses your prioritized challenges. The work of your study team should be reflected in the action steps in your SIP Plan. Math Goal Group: Fully Revised SIP Team Math Goal Group Research Materials: Write a summary of the best practice and research gathered by your study team that addresses your prioritized challenges. The work of your study team should be reflected in the action steps in your SIP Plan. Based upon our math data carousel, SIP training, and resulting prioritized challenges, we identified problem-solving as a SMART goal focus. Our staff will examine and implement best-practice instructional strategies for problem solving. Also as part of our math SMART goals, we will create common assessments to reinforce and assess problem solving skills and collaboratively analyze results. According to the Best Practice New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America s Schools by Steven Zemelman, et al., the teaching of mathematical power (the true understanding of mathematical concepts and procedures) requires providing experiences that stimulate students curiosity and build confidence in investigating, problem solving, and communication. Also stated in the book, all mathematical teaching and learning should encompass problem solving. The qualities mentioned in this book were embodied in the major reports by the NCTM, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Our staff will use Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning by Jan Chappuis. This book organizes research-based recommendations about assessment practices which the staff will incorporate into problem solving math instruction to improve student achievement. 14 P a g e

15 Improvement Goals Using components from your Executive Summary, write a rationale including the research, resources, and achievement gap analysis that determined your SMART Goals. Our rationale for determining the following SMART goals was based upon the work of our goal groups described in detail on page 15. For our CEE survey SMART goal, the data on page 11 supports our rationale. We will use the following website; Multicultural Education and the Internet, 2 nd Edition, by Paul C. Gorski, as our (initial) primary source of research to guide our SMART Goal 3 sub-committee over the next three years. We learned about this source from one of our trainers. SMART Goal 1: The overall average of students in third through fifth grades meeting standard on the reading MSP will increase by 10% each year between 2011 and Lea Hill MSP Results for Reading Third = 81.5%, Fourth = 69.8%, Fifth = 75.8% (Overall Average = 75.7%) SMART Goal 2: The overall average of students in third through fifth grades meeting standard on the reading MSP will increase by 10% each year between 2011 and Lea Hill MSP Results for MATH Third = 67.9%, Fourth =52.8%, Fifth = 56.1% (Overall Average = 58.93%) SMART Goal 3: Staff and Parent CEC Survey data reflects need for increased awareness of cultures of the community we teach. Parent: In December 2010, 60% of parents perceptions feel My child learns about the cultures of our community at his or her school, compared to 80% in December Staff: In December 2010, 21%, of staff perceptions feel The curriculum we teach reflects the cultures of the community we serve. compared to 41% in December P a g e

16 Needs Assessment Data Documents In this section please place all supporting documents you used to write your SMART GOALS and ACTION STEPS. These documents may include but are not limited to: o DIBELS Dashboard o MAP Data Dashboard o WLPTII results o Credit Attainment Dashboards (N/A) o Honors/AP Dashboards (N/A) o CEE Spider chart o SAT/ACT results (N/A) o Discipline Dashboards o Demographic charts o AYP Results o MSP/HSPE Results and trend charts o Other data 16 P a g e

17 SMART Goal 1 Subject Area: READING School Name: Target Population- based on demographic, discipline and attendance data analysis: Our Reality-based on assessment data analysis: Lea Hill All K-5 students (with special emphasis on tracking the progress of our 3 rd 5 th ELL students) The percentage of ELL students meeting DIBELS ORF (oral reading fluency) benchmark remained the same from fall 2009 to spring 2010 for 4 th and 5 th. Our SMART Goal-based on target population and your reality: The average percent of students in third through fifth grade meeting standard on the reading MSP will increase by 5% each year from 75.7% in 2010 to 95.7% in LEA HILL MSP RESULTS FOR READING Third Grade = 81.5%, Fourth Grade = 69.8%, Fifth Grade= 75.8% (overall average = 75.7%) Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Sequential- what comes first? ALL TEACHERS WILL TEACH, REINFORCE AND ASSESS ESSENTIAL ACADEMIC VOCABULARY IN LANGUAGE ARTS Who will monitor? Who will implement? Administrator SIP Support Team Reading Sub- Committee All Certificated Staff Instructional Para- Educators Detailed milestones/markers of progress towards evidence *SIP Support Team Will Create An Explaining The Formation/Goals Of The SIP Sub-Committees (Spring 2011). *Reading Sub-Committee Established At A Spring 2011 Staff Meeting. *Reading Sub-Committee Will Build Shared Knowledge Regarding Best- Practice Vocabulary Lists (Spring 2011). Examples include: PLC, Building 21, CEE data, Power Standards *Staff Meeting Time *Vertical PLC Time *PLC Time *Marzano Teacher's Manual Evidence of SMART Goal Attainment Student evidence Staff evidence Evidence of impact Implementation: *Work Shared At Staff Meetings *PLC Meeting Minutes *Participation In PD *Evidence Of Strategies Observed In Classroom Visits Impact: * Results Of Common Formative Assessments * MAPS Data * DIBELs * STAR Reading * MSP 17 P a g e

18 *Reading Sub-Committee Will Present To Staff Their Input And Vertical Articulation. *Each Grade Level Team Will Identify And Develop Essential Academic Vocabulary. (Spring 2011). * Reading Sub-Committee Will Guide Whole-Staff PD Regarding Marzano; Building Academic Vocabulary ( School Year). Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and P a g e

19 SMART Goal 2 Subject Area: MATH School Name: Target Population- based on demographic, discipline and attendance data analysis: Our Reality-based on assessment data analysis: Lea Hill Elementary All K-5 students with emphasis on tracking scores in 3 rd -5 th Challenges: The Lea Hill 3 RD, 4 TH and 5 TH grade classes scored below the district AND THE STATE AVERAGE IN PROBLEM SOLVING/REASONING ON THE 2010 MSP. o 3 RD LH: 52% DISTRICT: 55% STATE 55% o 4 TH LH: 47% DISTRICT: 50% STATE 52% o 5 TH LH: 50% DISTRICT: 52% STATE 52% Our SMART Goal-based on target population and your reality: THE OVERALL AVERAGE OF STUDENTS IN THIRD THROUGH FIFTH GRADES MEETING STANDARD ON THE Math MSP WILL INCREASE BY 10% EACH YEAR FROM 58.9% in 2010 to 98.9% in LEA HILL MSP RESULTS FOR MATH THIRD = 67.9%, FOURTH =52.8%, FIFTH = 56.1% (OVERALL AVERAGE = 58.9%) Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor? Who will implement? Detailed milestones/markers of progress towards evidence Examples include: PLC, Building 21 Evidence of SMART Goal Attainment Student evidence Staff evidence Evidence of impact Develop and implement a grade level and vertical instructional calendar for teaching math standards ECE-5 *Principal *SIP Leadership Team *SIP Math subcommittee *All Math Instructional Staff *SIP Support Team Will Create An Explaining The Formation/Goals Of The SIP Sub-Committees (Spring 2011). *Math Sub-Committee Established At A Spring 2011 Staff Meeting. *Grade Level Teams Will Submit Math Instructional Calendar To SIP Math Sub- PLC Mondays Staff Meetings Building 21 Hours Implementation: PLC Agenda And Minutes Grade Level Calendar Draft Vertical Calendar Draft Observable Classroom Math Instruction (Peer/Administrator) Impact: Classroom Based Assessments STAR Math Maps MSP 19 P a g e

20 Committee (Spring 2011). *SIP Math Sub-Committee Will Synthesize Information Submitted And Create A Fully Aligned (Vertical) Lea Hill Math Instructional Calendar (Spring 2011). *This Vertical Calendar Will Be Presented To The Entire Math Instructional Staff For Their Input (Prior To The Start Of The School Year). *Begin Implementation In Sept 2011 ALL TEACHERS WILL CREATE COMMON ASSESSMENTS TO REINFORCE AND ASSESS PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS AND COLLABORATIVELY ANALYZE RESULTS *Principal *SIP Leadership Team *SIP Math subcommittee *All Math Instructional Staff *SIP Support Team Will Create An Explaining The Formation/Goals Of The SIP Sub-Committees (Spring 2011). *Math Sub-Committee Established At A Spring 2011 Staff Meeting. *The ATLA Team Will Introduce The Book, Seven Strategies Of Assessment For Learning (Spring 2011). *Math Sub-Committee Will Create A Template For Analyzing Results (August 2011). * Grade Level Teams Will Develop And Share First 2 Common Assessments (Fall 2011). * Staff Meetings * PLC Time * Building 21 Hours * State Standards And District Power Standard * Maps Math RIT Scores * ASD Problem Solving Binders * STAR Math * Accelerated Math * I-Succeed Math Program * PD From Gildo Rey Building Wide Problem Solving Strategy *25 Copies Of Seven Strategies Of Assessment For Learning. Implementation: *Staff Will Have Consensus Regarding The Definition Of Common Assessment of Problem Solving. *Common Formative Assessments * Reflective Data Review Template Once Every 4-6 Weeks To Record Analysis Of Student Work Impact: * Results Of Common Formative Assessments * Analyze Results And Adjust Instruction * Other Classroom Based Assessments * MAPS Data * STAR Math Data * MSP 20 P a g e

21 * Math Sub-Committee Will Guide Ongoing Research Of Best Practice Problem Solving Instructional Strategies ( School Year) IMPLEMENT COMMON PROBLEM SOLVING INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES *Principal *SIP Leadership Team *SIP Math subcommittee *All Math Instructional Staff *Grade Level Teams Will Create And Share At Least 1 Common Assessment Every 4-6 Weeks *Math Sub-Committee Will October PD Focused On Using Assessments To Inform Instruction * Continue Analysis Of Assessment Results To Inform Instruction * Monthly During PLC Time Prior To School Year *Research Best Practices And Discuss Vertical Alignment *Begin Implementation Of Problem Solving Strategies * Ongoing Research Of Best Practice In Teaching Problem Solving Strategies And Share Knowledge Of Strategies And Resources A Minimum Once A Month Vertically *Staff Consensus Of Peer Observation Template PLC Staff Meetings Building 21hours Implementation: * Common Formative Assessment Data * PD * PLC Agenda And Minutes * Reflective Data Review Template Once Every 4-6 Weeks To Record Analysis Of Student Work * Observable Classroom Math Instruction Impact: * Results Of Common Formative Assessments * Analyze Results And Adjust Instruction * Other Classroom Based Assessments * MAPS Data * STAR Math Data * MSP Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and P a g e

22 SMART Goal 3 Subject Area: LEA HILL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT School Name: LEA HILL Target Population- based on demographic, discipline and attendance data analysis: K-5 TH STUDENTS, STAFF, PARENTS AND COMMUNITY Our Reality-based on assessment data analysis: STAFF: IN DECEMBER 2010, 21%, OF STAFF AGREED WITH THE STATEMENT THE CURRICULUM WE TEACH REFLECTS THE CULTURES OF THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE COMPARED TO 41% IN DECEMBER Our SMART Goal-based on target population and your reality: The percent of staff who respond positively to CEE item THE CURRICULUM WE TEACH REFLECTS THE CULTURES OF THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE will increase from 21 percent in 2010 to 66 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2014 Evidence of SMART Goal Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Sequential- what comes first? MONTHLY CLASS MEETINGS Who will monitor? Who will implement? Principal SIP Team All Staff Parents Lea Hill PTA Detailed milestones/markers of progress towards evidence *SIP Support Team Will Create An Explaining The Formation/Goals Of The SIP Sub-Committees (Spring 2011). *Cultural Sub-Committee Will Establish Monthly Cultural Themes And Calendar *Cultural Sub-Committee Will Guide Ongoing Research For Cultural Instructional Strategies ( School Year) Examples include: PLC, Building 21 * Staff Members *Parents * ASB * PLC Time * Community Members * Building 21 Hours * PTA Attainment Student evidence Staff evidence Evidence of impact Implementation: *Class Meeting Will Be Held Monthly And Tracked Impact: * CEE Survey Data 22 P a g e

23 CULTURAL BULLETIN BOARD Principal Cultural Sub-Committee *Cultural Sub- Committee Will Create A Bulletin Board Highlighting Monthly Cultural Theme * Staff Members *Parents * ASB * PLC Time * Community Members * Building 21 Hours * PTA Implementation: *The Bulletin Board Will Be Created Impact: * CEE Survey Data ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT INCLUDE CULTURAL FACTS RELATED TO MONTHLY THEMES Principal All Staff Students Cultural Sub-Committee *Cultural Sub- Committee will Create the List of Cultural Facts Related to Monthly Themes *Announcements will be Made Weekly, Beginning In September * Staff Members *Parents * ASB * PLC Time * Community Members * Building 21 Hours * PTA Implementation: *Principal Or Students Will Have Made Announcements/Facts Weekly Impact: * CEE Survey Data Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: District Improvement Goal 3: Parents/Guardians and Community Partnerships The district and schools will continue to develop partnerships to support student academic achievement and success. 23 P a g e

24 Planning Implementation Calendar, : In this section develop a timeline for the SIP process for the next school year. School Leadership Team Meetings: Timeline for Planning Process November 5, 2009: Initial Meeting December 2, 2009: Staff Meeting SIP Introduction December 17, 2009: Data Carousel January 21, 2010: SIP Study Groups February 4, 2010: SIP Study Groups February 12, 2010: Full-Day Study Groups March 3, 2010: Staff Meeting SIP Share-Out March 4, 2010: SIP Study Groups March 18, 2010: Finalize SIP Work in Study Groups April 1, 2010: Math and Parent Involvement Groups Work on SIP April 12, 2010: Finalize SIP Document as a Whole Group District Meetings: November 23, 2009: Data Analysis and Goal Setting Facilitators: Pili Wolf and Adriane Hartness December 16, 2009: Using Data: Building Literacy in At-Risk Learners Project Originator: Martha Tiegan January 6, 2010: Using Data: Building Math Literacy in At-Risk Learners Project Originator: Greg Brunner January 11, 2010: Crafting and Monitoring the Plan Facilitators: Pili Wolf and Adriane Hartness February 5, 2010: Site Visit Data Analysis with Reading First Coach and Debbie Helm (Chinook Elementary School: Anne Locascio & Michelle McEntyre) March 22, 2010: Completing the SIP Plan Work Session Facilitators: Pili Wolf and Adriane Hartness Staff Professional Development: October ongoing: Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) October: Common Assessments February 18, 2010: Response To Intervention (RTI) February 23-25, 2010: Solution Tree National Professional Learning Communities (PLC) 24 P a g e

25 Planning Implementation Calendar SIP TIMELINE June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June MATH Create list of essential vocabulary and definitions Communication of essential vocabulary and definitions to staff Develop instructional calendar for teaching math standards K-5 Communicate instructional calendar to staff Continue development and refine common assessments Continue development and refine daily math intervention block Structure 30-minute grade level team time once a week to focus on math fluency Create math intervention and enrichment time for grades 3-5 Implement math intervention and enrichment time for grades 3-5 Develop and implement student self-assessment tools based on math standards READING June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Implement fluency practice as part of building-wide reading instruction Communicate idea of fluency strategies to staff Identify grade level critical vocabulary and create common list Communicate idea of vocabulary list to staff Identify 3 key GLAD strategies: Cognitive Content Dictionary, Sentence Patterning Chart, Cooperative Strip Paragraph Communicate chosen GLAD strategies to staff and provide training to 25 P a g e

26 untrained staff Implement Cognitive Content Dictionary schoolwide Implement Sentence Patterning Chart schoolwide Implement Cooperative Strip Paragraph school-wide Develop and refine retell strategies (Sept 2011) (Aug 2012) (Aug 2013) Communicate retell strategies to staff PARENT INVOLVEMENT June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Schedule Family Night and other school events for the school year Provide transportation to at least one Family Night at our school Hold at least one Family Night at an Auburn community location Schedule math and reading events concurrently with Parent Conferences Schedule math and reading events concurrently with school BBQ Design and schedule student performances during academic reading and math events Provide food at all schoolsponsored events Create and implement streamlined school-wide monthly newsletter Hold monthly student recognition assemblies Create student Recognition Wall of the Month Refine and communicate CHAMPS criteria Create parent letter with upcoming math standards and practice problems, etc (Aug 2011) 26 P a g e