Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2011-2012
Albemarle County Public Schools School Improvement Plan
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Division Goals and School Board Priorities
Goal 1
Prepare all students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.
Priority 1.1
Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.
Goal 2
Eliminate the Achievement Gap.
Priority 2.1 Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.
Goal 3 Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and administrators.
Priority 3.1
Improve the organization's capacity to build and maintain a high-quality workforce.
Goal 4
Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.
Priority 4.1 Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.
Priority 4.2 Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.
Goal 5
Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s
vision, mission, and goals.
Priority 5.1 Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.
Priority 5.2 Implement the Division's Student Information System (SIS) and Parent Portal.
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
General Information
School Name: Hollymead Elementary School
Principal Name: Clare Keiser
Members of School
Improvement Team:
Glenn Bernhardt
Tom Briedis-Ruiz
Becky Brown
Jack Carroll
Jacqui Cecalupo
Kelly Davenport
Clare Keiser
Lisa King
Beth Kohler
Ann Lancaster
Debbie Mayo
Warren Meehan
Amy Morris
Beth Russell
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
School Improvement Plan – SIP Goal 1
2011-2012
Strategic Goal(s): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Goal 1: Prepare all Students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.
X Goal 2: Eliminate the Achievement Gap.
Goal 3: Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and
administrators.
Goal 4: Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.
Goal 5: Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s
vision, mission, and goals.
PL
AN
Board Priority(ies): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Priority 1.1: Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.
X Priority 2.1: Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.
Priority 4.1: Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.
Priority 4.2: Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.
Priority 5.1: Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.
SIP Goal:
To provide differentiated and quality instruction to maximize student achievement.
SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound):
During the 2011-2012 school year, teachers will plan and implement lessons that show evidence of differentiated instruction, use of high-yield
instructional strategies, engaging qualities, and lifelong learner standards with a primary focus in math and reading.
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Supporting Data / Gap Evidence:
Learning Walk Two Year Trend Data
2009-2010 – 355 Learning Walks 2010-2011 – 367 Learning Walks
Level of Engagement
2009-2010
2010-2011
Off-Task 1 0
On-Task 49 26
Engaged 50 74
Predominant Level of Thinking
2009-2010
2010-2011
Low 30 12
Middle 60 69
High 10 19
Instructional Strategies
2009-2010
2010-2011
Activating Prior Knowledge 14 17
Generating and Testing Hypotheses 3 7
Homework and Practice 15 3
Nonlinguistic Representations 14 18
Questioning/Inquiry 27 24
Reinforcing Effort/ Providing Recognition 14 7
Similarities & Differences/ metaphors/analogies 8 15
Summarizing/ Note-taking 5 9
Engaging Qualities
2009-2010 2010-2011
Personal Response 48 69
Clear/Modeled Expectations 75 97
Emotional/ Intellectual Safety 33 30
Learning with Others 38 48
Sense of Audience 5 9
Choice 16 34
Novelty and Variety 28 25
Authenticity 21 31
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Reading and Math SOL Scores Three-Year Trends Reading
Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade
2010-2011 86.7 89 92.6
2009-2010 87.8 93 95
2008-2009 90.6 93.2 93.8
Math
Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade
2010-2011 91.8 91.7 91.5
2009-2010 93.8 93.4 93.6
2008-2009 92.6 90.7 93.4
Anticipated Obstacles: numbers of students with specific intervention and/or enrichment needs; variance in understanding of how and when to
differentiate instruction based on content, process, and or product., variance in student current-state performance levels, student mobility rate
Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Learning Walk data, student performance levels in math and reading, numbers of
students receiving intervention for math and/or reading.
ST
UD
Y
KPI (Quantitative - Using a
number or percentage)
Indicating Progress Towards
SIP Goal:
Q1 KPI Data
Q2 KPI Data
Q3 KPI Data
Q4/EOY KPI Data
1. Learning Walk Data focused on
the predominant level of thinking,
strategies impacting student
learning, engaging qualities, level
Based on 58 Learning
Walks through October
28, 2011
Based on 166 Learning
Walks through January 20,
2011
Based on 204 Learning
Walks through March 30,
2012
Based on 332 Learning
Walks through June 8,
2012
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
of engagement and Lifelong
Learner Standards. Predominant Level of
Thinking:
Low – 34%
Middle – 57%
High – 9%
Strategies Impacting
Student Learning:
Activating Prior
Knowledge – 18%
Generating/Testing
Hypotheses – 4%
Homework and Practice –
7%
Nonlinguistic
Representations – 7%
Questioning/ Inquiry –
29%
Reinforcing Effort/
Providing Recognition –
7%
Similarities/Differences –
25%
Summarizing/Note-taking
– 4%
Engaging Qualities:
Personal Response – 52%
Clear/Modeled
Expectations – 62%
Emotional/Intellectual
Safety – 34%
Affiliation – 41%
Affirmation – 2%
Choice – 10%
Novelty/Variety – 5%
Authenticity – 21%
Predominant Level of
Thinking:
Low – 29%
Middle – 61%
High – 10%
Strategies Impacting
Student Learning:
Activating Prior
Knowledge – 16%
Generating/Testing
Hypotheses – 3%
Homework and Practice –
9%
Nonlinguistic
Representations – 11%
Questioning/ Inquiry –
28%
Reinforcing Effort/
Providing Recognition –
10%
Similarities/Differences –
16%
Summarizing/Note-taking
– 7%
Engaging Qualities:
Personal Response – 55%
Clear/Modeled
Expectations – 75%
Emotional/Intellectual
Safety – 30%
Affiliation – 42%
Affirmation – 4%
Choice – 22%
Novelty/Variety – 11%
Authenticity – 26%
Predominant Level of
Thinking:
Low – 26%
Middle – 64%
High – 10%
Strategies Impacting
Student Learning:
Activating Prior
Knowledge – 15%
Generating/Testing
Hypotheses – 4%
Homework and Practice –
8%
Nonlinguistic
Representations – 10%
Questioning/ Inquiry –
28%
Reinforcing Effort/
Providing Recognition –
11%
Similarities/Differences –
16%
Summarizing/Note-taking
– 8%
Engaging Qualities:
Personal Response – 57%
Clear/Modeled
Expectations – 77%
Emotional/Intellectual
Safety – 30%
Affiliation – 46%
Affirmation – 4%
Choice – 21%
Novelty/Variety – 12%
Authenticity – 25%
Predominant Level of
Thinking:
Low – 18%
Middle – 68%
High – 14%
Strategies Impacting
Student Learning:
Activating Prior
Knowledge – 16%
Generating/Testing
Hypotheses – 4%
Homework and Practice –
6%
Nonlinguistic
Representations – 12%
Questioning/ Inquiry –
23%
Reinforcing Effort/
Providing Recognition –
11%
Similarities/Differences –
16%
Summarizing/Note-taking
– 12%
Engaging Qualities:
Personal Response – 62%
Clear/Modeled
Expectations – 73%
Emotional/Intellectual
Safety – 33%
Affiliation – 47%
Affirmation – 5%
Choice – 23%
Novelty/Variety – 13%
Authenticity – 29%
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Level of Engagement:
Engaged – 47%
On-task – 53%
Off-task – 0%
Lifelong Learner
Standards (refer to
standards for description):
1 – 0%
2 – 12%
3 – 16%
4 – 12%
5 – 48%
6 – 7%
7 – 34%
8 – 5%
9 – 2%
10 – 0%
11 – 0%
12 – 14%
Level of Engagement:
Engaged – 57%
On-task – 43%
Off-task – 0%
Lifelong Learner
Standards (refer to
standards for description):
1 – 0%
2 – 7%
3 – 14%
4 – 8%
5 – 40%
6 – 11%
7 – 28%
8 – 10%
9 – 4%
10 – 0%
11 – 4%
12 – 11%
Level of Engagement:
Engaged – 62%
On-task – 38%
Off-task – 0%
Lifelong Learner
Standards (refer to
standards for description):
1 – 1%
2 – 7%
3 – 13%
4 – 8%
5 – 36%
6 – 11%
7 – 27%
8 – 10%
9 – 3%
10 – 1%
11 – 4%
12 – 10%
Level of Engagement:
Engaged – 72%
On-task – 28%
Off-task – 0%
Lifelong Learner
Standards (refer to
standards for description):
1 – 2%
2 – 6%
3 – 13%
4 – 6%
5 – 32%
6 – 14%
7 – 23%
8 – 10%
9 – 3%
10 – 2%
11 – 3%
12 – 11%
2. Performance level in math and
reading as indicated on report
cards.
Math
On Grade Level – 94.4%
Above Grade Level – 1%
Below Grade Level –4.5%
Reading
On Grade Level – 72.3
Above Grade Level - 18.6
Below Grade Level - 9.1
Math
On Grade Level – 86%
Above Grade Level – 8%
Below Grade Level – 6%
Reading
On Grade Level – 69%
Above Grade Level – 20%
Below Grade Level – 11%
Math
On Grade Level – 81%
Above Grade Level – 17%
Below Grade Level – 2%
Reading
On Grade Level – 71%
Above Grade Level – 20%
Below Grade Level – 9%
This information was not
available at the time of this
report and will be updated
when it is available.
3. Number of students receiving Tier
II and Tier III intervention in
math and/or reading.
Reading – 64 students
Math – 35 students Math Tier II – 32
Tier III – 1
Reading Tier II – 34
Math Tier II – 30
Tier III – 2
Reading Tier II – 41
Math Tier II – 29
Tier III – 2
Reading Tier II – 41
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Tier III – 10 Tier III – 8
Writing
Tier II – 3
Tier III – 0
Tier III – 7
Writing
Tier II – 3
Tier III – 0
Key Strategies and Qualitative
Progress Indicators
Q1 Progress on
Strategies
Q2 Progress on
Strategies
Q3 Progress on
Strategies
Q4 Progress on
Strategies & EOY
Reflections
1. Use flexible grouping strategies
Math – 65%
Reading – 70%
Science – 10%
Social Studies – 5%
Word Study – 70%
Writing – 40%
Other – 15%
Math – 73%
Reading – 73%
Science – 17%
Social Studies – 17%
Word Study – 76%
Writing – 37%
Other – 20%
Math – 76%
Reading – 78%
Science – 10%
Social Studies – 7%
Word Study – 78%
Writing – 34%
Other – 12%
Math – 79%
Reading – 82%
Science – 12%
Social Studies – 6%
Word Study – 84%
Writing – 48%
Other – 8%
DO
&
2. Evidence of project-based and/or
differentiated (process, product,
or content) lessons.
Teachers reported
always or sometimes
differentiating lessons as
follows:
Math – 68%
Reading – 70%
Science – 50%
Social Studies – 38%
Word Study – 70%
Writing – 65%
28.5% of teachers report
having already
completed one or more
project-based learning
activities at the end of
the first quarter.
Teachers reported
always or sometimes
differentiating lessons as
follows:
Math – 89%
Reading – 91%
Science – 76%
Social Studies – 76%
Word Study – 91%
Writing – 94.3%
Teachers report having
completed the following
number of project-based
learning activities through
the end of the first
semester:
0 – 22%
Teachers reported
always or sometimes
differentiating lessons as
follows:
Math – 78%
Reading – 89%
Science – 71%
Social Studies – 74%
Word Study – 89%
Writing – 82%
Teachers report having
completed the following
number of project-based
learning activities
through the end of the
third quarter:
0 – 15%
Teachers reported
always or sometimes
differentiating lessons as
follows:
Math – 73%
Reading – 93%
Science – 75%
Social Studies – 75%
Word Study – 96%
Writing – 72%
Teachers report having
completed the following
number of project-based
learning activities through
the end of the fourth
quarter:
0 – 6%
ST
UD
Y &
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
1 – 22%
2 – 15%
3 – 24%
4 – 0%
5 or more – 18%
Work samples and
artifacts were shared
during the Mid-Year
Review.
1 – 15%
2 – 27%
3 – 20%
4 – 7%
5 or more – 12%
PLC minutes, work
samples, photos, videos,
and other artifacts are
evidence of completed
projects.
1 – 6%
2 – 24%
3 – 18%
4 – 12%
5 or more – 35%
PLC minutes, work
samples, photos, videos,
and other artifacts are
evidence of completed
projects.
3. Learning Walks focused in math
or reading for core content
teachers during the first semester.
94% of Learning Walks
for regular classroom
teachers focused on math
and/or literacy
89.2% of Learning Walks
for regular classroom
teachers focused on math
and/or literacy
First semester data has
been completed.
At the end of the third
quarter, 68.1% of
learning walks for regular
classroom teachers were
focused on math and/or
literacy.
First semester data has been
completed.
At the end of the fourth
quarter, 58.7% of learning
walks were focused on
math and/or literacy.
4. Minutes demonstrating
discussion and instructional
decisions from PLC meetings.
100% of PLC minutes
indicate evidence of
discussion surrounding
curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and/or data
analysis.
100% of PLC minutes
indicate evidence of
discussion surrounding
curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and/or data
analysis.
100% of PLC minutes
indicate evidence of
discussion surrounding
curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and/or data
analysis.
91% of PLC minutes
indicate evidence of
discussion surrounding
curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and/or data
analysis.
AC
T
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
School Improvement Plan – SIP Goal 2
2011-2012
Strategic Goal(s): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Goal 1: Prepare all Students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.
X Goal 2: Eliminate the Achievement Gap.
Goal 3: Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and
administrators.
Goal 4: Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.
Goal 5: Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s
vision, mission, and goals.
PL
AN
Board Priority(ies): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Priority 1.1: Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.
X Priority 2.1: Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.
Priority 4.1: Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.
Priority 4.2: Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.
Priority 5.1: Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.
SIP Goal: All students at Hollymead will demonstrate progress in writing.
SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound): During the 2011-2012 school-year, all students at
Hollymead will demonstrate on or above grade level progress in writing as evidenced on writing samples.
Supporting Data / Gap Evidence: During the 2002-2010 school year, Hollymead began implementing Being a Writer, bringing a
systematic writing program to all grade levels. Scores on the fifth grade writing SOL test did not vary significantly in the first year of
implementation (91% pass rate) when compared with the year prior to implementation (91.1%). While room for improvement exists of all
students, those identified with Special Needs performed significantly below their grade level peers on this test (65.6%).
During the 2010-2011 school year, 9.8% of Hollymead students (grades K-5) demonstrated below grade level proficiency in the analysis of
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
writing samples; 82.2 % demonstrated grade level proficiency, and 7.9% demonstrated above grade level proficiency.
Teachers reported that students (grades K-5) demonstrated improved progress in writing during the 2010-2011 school year as follows: 84.3%
progressed; 14.9% remained stagnant; 0.1% regressed.
Anticipated Obstacles: time/structure within the school day for writing; limited time for vertical collaboration/analysis of writing samples;
current state understanding of the Being a Writer program; identified needs to supplement the Being a Writer program.
Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Analysis of writing samples, evaluation of student progress through portfolios/ journals,
and evidence of planned and implemented Being a Writer lessons.
ST
UD
Y
KPI (Quantitative - Using a
number or percentage)
Indicating Progress Towards
SIP Goal:
Q1 KPI Data
Q2 KPI Data
Q3 KPI Data
Q4/EOY KPI Data
1. Percentage of students who
demonstrate grade level or above
proficiency in the analysis of writing
samples.
This data will be
assessed at the mid-year
review of KPI data.
On Grade Level – 81%
Above Grade Level – 9%
Below Grade Level – 10%
On Grade Level – 84%
Above Grade Level – 8%
Below Grade Level – 8%
This information was not
available at the time of
this report and will be
updated when it is
available.
2. Percentage of students who
demonstrate improved progress as
evidenced through writing samples.
91.5% of students have
demonstrated improved
progress in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the first quarter.
89% of students have
demonstrated improved
progress in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the first semester.
10% of students remained
stagnant in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the first semester.
1% of students
demonstrated regression in
writing from the initial
baseline to the end of the
first semester.
90% of students have
demonstrated improved
progress in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the first semester.
10% of students remained
stagnant in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the first semester.
<1% of students
demonstrated regression
in writing from the initial
baseline to the end of the
first semester.
94% of students have
demonstrated improved
progress in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the fourth quarter.
6% of students remained
stagnant in writing from
the initial baseline to the
end of the fourth quarter.
<1% of students
demonstrated regression
in writing from the initial
baseline to the end of the
fourth quarter.
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Key Strategies and Qualitative
Progress Indicators
Q1 Progress on
Strategies
Q2 Progress on
Strategies
Q3 Progress on
Strategies
Q4 Progress on
Strategies & EOY
Reflections
1. Implement Being a Writer with
fidelity to the program.
78.6% of teachers of
writing report teaching the
program with fidelity. The
remaining teachers
indicate using the program
as a basis but
supplementing lessons.
70% of teachers of writing
report teaching the
program with fidelity. The
remaining teachers
indicate using the program
as a basis but
supplementing lessons.
63% of teachers of
writing report teaching
the program with fidelity.
The remaining teachers
indicate using the
program as a basis but
supplementing lessons.
Teachers of writing
indicate that they plan
and implement an
average of 2.7 Being a
Writer lessons per week.
Based on outcomes of the
Mid-Year Review, a
school-wide focus and
analysis of teaching
grammar has begun.
60% of teachers of
writing report teaching
the program with fidelity.
The remaining teachers
indicate using the
program as a basis but
supplementing lessons.
Teachers of writing
indicate that they plan
and implement an
average of 2.6 Being a
Writer lessons per week.
DO
&
2. Participate in vertical and PLC
collaboration to discuss student
progress in writing and analyze
written works.
96% of teachers of
writing report discussing
students’ written work in
PLC meetings.
93% of teachers of
writing report discussing
students’ written work in
PLC meetings.
97% of teachers of
writing report discussing
students’ written work in
PLC meetings.
86% of teachers of
writing report discussing
students’ written work in
PLC meetings.
ST
UD
Y &
3. Use common language across
grade levels when writing is
involved
This practice is in place
with the fidelity to the
Being a Writer program.
This practice is in place
with the fidelity to the
Being a Writer program.
This practice is in place
with the fidelity to the
Being a Writer program.
This practice is in place
with the fidelity to the
Being a Writer program.
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
School Improvement Plan – SIP Goal 3
2011-2012
Strategic Goal(s): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Goal 1: Prepare all Students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.
X Goal 2: Eliminate the Achievement Gap.
Goal 3: Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and
administrators.
Goal 4: Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.
Goal 5: Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s
vision, mission, and goals.
PL
AN
Board Priority(ies): Place an “X” in front of those that apply
X Priority 1.1: Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.
X Priority 2.1: Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.
Priority 4.1: Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.
Priority 4.2: Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.
Priority 5.1: Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.
SIP Goal: Improve overall school climate through a focus on Responsive Classroom and bullying prevention.
SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound): During the 2011-2012 school year, the students and
staff at Hollymead will focus on improving school climate through the training, use, and analysis of various climate-related tools.
Supporting Data / Gap Evidence:
The Spring 2011 School Climate Survey (given to 100% of the students in grades 3-5) indicated that there is evidence of bullying occurring
throughout areas of the school and across grade levels. When comparing the amounts of bullying and location of where bullying occurs, there
was an increase between the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 surveys in the occurrences of bullying in the classroom, hallways, cafeteria, outside,
and at the bus or bus stop. Many of these areas showed significantly higher instances of bullying than in other schools in Albemarle County.
Decreases occurred in bathrooms. Reports of teasing decreased in all indicators between the spring and fall surveys. 22% of students reported
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
telling someone that they were bullied in the month prior to the spring survey, telling an adult at school (45%), a friend (34%), or a parent
(32%). The percentages related to telling someone about bullying were higher than other schools in the school division. Indicators of school
climate showed that Hollymead has a substantially lower rate of teasing when compared to other schools in the school division.
Recommendations from the Spring 2011 School Climate Survey suggested that bullying prevention be established as a school-wide goal, that
classroom meetings should be held to discuss bullying, victims of bullying should be identified and individual interventions should be put
into place to assist them, and parents should be engaged in bullying prevention.
Anticipated Obstacles: While a number of teachers have had the weeklong Responsive Classroom I and/or II training, a critical mass does
not yet exist of those trained; difference in opinions about what a strong school climate or sense of community should look like; different
interpretation of school rules and expectations for students; interweaving Responsive Classroom and Olweus practices.
Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Morning Meetings, continued training in Olweus Anti-Bullying program and
Responsive Classroom, student climate survey
ST
UD
Y
KPI (Quantitative - Using a
number or percentage)
Indicating Progress Towards
SIP Goal:
Q1 KPI Data
Q2 KPI Data
Q3 KPI Data
Q4/EOY KPI Data
1. Evidence of Morning Meetings
held at least two to four times per
week in each homeroom class.
83.3% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting on a daily basis.
16.7% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting 2-4 days/week.
77% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting on a daily basis.
24% of non-homeroom
teachers participate in a
Morning Meeting on a
daily basis.
11.5% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting 2-4 days/week.
41% of non-homeroom
teacher participate in a
Morning Meeting 2-3
days/week.
70% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting on a daily basis.
22% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting 2-4 days/week.
7% of homeroom classes
have Morning Meeting on
an as-needed basis.
17% of non-homeroom
teacher participate in a
Morning Meeting 1-3
days/week.
81.8% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting on a daily basis.
9.1% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting 2-4 days/week.
9.1% of homeroom
classes have Morning
Meeting one time per
week.
29.4% of non-homeroom
teacher participate in a
Morning Meeting 1-3
days/week.
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
2. Climate Committee training of
staff in Olweus anti-bullying
practices.
To date, the Climate
Committee has provided
two training sessions for
the Instructional Staff
regarding the Olweus
Bullying Prevention
Program. One additional
training session is
scheduled.
The Climate Committee
has completed all of the
training sessions for the
Instructional Staff
regarding the Olweus
Bullying Prevention
Program.
The Climate Committee
has completed all of the
training sessions for the
Instructional Staff
regarding the Olweus
Bullying Prevention
Program.
The Climate Committee
has completed all of the
training sessions for the
Instructional Staff
regarding the Olweus
Bullying Prevention
Program.
Feedback regarding the
program and training has
been compiled to inform
further work in this area.
3. Responsive Classroom Steering
Committee provides RC strategies
and activities to the staff on a
regular basis.
This has been done on a
monthly basis to this
point. The intent is for
this to occur with greater
frequency.
While the committee
exists, it has not met on a
regular basis. Teachers
trained in RC provide
supports to the others
through PLCs.
The intent continues for
the RC Steering
Committee to provide
additional supports for
teachers.
A new Responsive
Classroom Committee
has been formed and an
initial plan for further
Responsive Classroom
supports has been
developed. It will be
modified through the
third quarter with
implementation
beginning in the fourth
quarter.
A Responsive Classroom
plan has been developed
and will be implemented
during the 2012-2013
school year.
By the end of the summer
approximately ¾ of the
staff will have attended
RCI and/or RC II
weeklong training.
4. Student climate survey (two
times/ year in grades 3-5). The Student Climate
Survey was given to
students in grades 3-5 in
November. The results are
not yet available.
The Student Climate
Survey was given to
students in grades 3-5.
Peer nominations
indicated on the survey
have been reviewed.
The Student Climate
Survey was given to
students in grades 3-5.
Peer nominations
indicated on the survey
continue to be reviewed.
The Student Climate
Survey was given to
students in grades 3-5.
Peer nominations
indicated on the survey
continue to be reviewed.
Key Strategies and Qualitative
Progress Indicators
Q1 Progress on
Strategies
Q2 Progress on
Strategies
Q3 Progress on
Strategies
Q4 Progress on
Strategies & EOY
Reflections
1. Staff participation in Responsive
Classroom Book Club.
All instructional staff
members are reading
either Yardsticks or The
During the second quarter,
all instructional staff
members completed the
Responsive Classroom
Book Clubs were
completed by the end of
Responsive Classroom
Book Clubs were
completed by the end of
DO
&
To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning
Power of Our Words. To
date, two formal Book
Club meetings have been
held and two others are
scheduled.
Book Club discussions
around their reading of
either Yardsticks or The
Power of Our Words.
the second quarter. the second quarter.
2. Structures placed in master
schedule to allow for Responsive
Classroom practices to occur.
The master schedule has
30 minutes built in daily to
allow for Morning
Meeting to occur first
thing in the morning.
In all grade levels, recess
is scheduled just prior to
lunch.
Teacher trained in RC
frequently implement
“quiet time” after lunch.
The master schedule has
30 minutes built in daily to
allow for Morning
Meeting to occur first
thing in the morning.
In all grade levels, recess
is scheduled just prior to
lunch.
Teacher trained in RC
frequently implement
“quiet time” after lunch.
The master schedule has
30 minutes built in daily
to allow for Morning
Meeting to occur first
thing in the morning.
In all grade levels, recess
is scheduled just prior to
lunch.
Teacher trained in RC
frequently implement
“quiet time” after lunch.
The master schedule has
30 minutes built in daily
to allow for Morning
Meeting to occur first
thing in the morning.
In all grade levels, recess
is scheduled just prior to
lunch.
Teacher trained in RC
continue to implement
“quiet time” after lunch.
ST
UD
Y &
3. Discussions regarding Responsive
Classroom practices held
regularly during PLC meetings.
25% of teacher report
having PLC discussions
around Responsive
Classroom on a weekly
basis; 20% report those
conversations on a
monthly basis; and 55%
report having them on
an as-needed basis.
23% of teacher report
having PLC discussions
around Responsive
Classroom on at least a
weekly basis; 25% report
those conversations on a
monthly basis; and 48%
report having them on
an as-needed basis.
23% of teacher report
having PLC discussions
around Responsive
Classroom on at least a
weekly basis; 15% report
those conversations on a
monthly basis; and 53%
report having them on
an as-needed basis.
29% of teacher report
having PLC discussions
around Responsive
Classroom on at least a
weekly basis; 24% report
those conversations on a
monthly basis; and 35%
report having them on
an as-needed basis.
AC
T