JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL - New Jersey · 2010-2011 CAPA Summary Report Somers Point School District Page 1 CAPA REVIEW SOMERS POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT. JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL March 1-4, 2011 Introduction

New Jersey Department of Education Jordan Road School 2010-2011 CAPA Summary Report Somers Point School District

Page 1

CAPA REVIEW

SOMERS POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT

JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL

March 1-4, 2011 Introduction The New Jersey Department of Education conducted a CAPA (Collaborative Assessment for Planning and Achievement) review of Jordan Road School on March 1 to 4, 2011. This school is designated as “in need of improvement” for four consecutive years as defined in the NJ Accountability Workbook. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) §1117: School Support and Recognition requires that the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) create and maintain a statewide system of intensive and sustained support for those Title I schools designated as “in need of improvement” for more than two consecutive years. As part of this required support system, the NJDOE developed the CAPA review process, which assigns teams of skillful and experienced individuals to provide schools with practical, applicable, and helpful assistance, increasing the opportunity for all students to meet the state’s Core Curriculum Content Standards. The CAPA summary report identifies areas of strength and concern for districts and schools using the 2010-2011 CAPA Teaching and Learning Tool. The tool uses indicators of effective school practice (from CAPA) in the following seven standard areas: curriculum, assessment/evaluation, instruction, school culture, student/family/community support, professional development/evaluation, and leadership. Essential questions are answered regarding the accomplishment of each indicator. The CAPA Review team activities included: • A review of the documents collected for the school portfolio and data profile; • 55 classroom visitations; • 4 general observations, such as morning and afternoon arrival and dismissal, lunch in the cafeteria, and

student restrooms; • 63 interviews with teachers; • 8 interviews with building leadership and administrators; • 18 interviews with district administrators and board of education members; • 108 interviews with students; • 7 interviews with school and student support staff; and • 30 interviews with parents. The Jordan Road School is in Year 4 of improvement status for both language arts literacy and mathematics. The language arts literacy adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmark targets were missed on the elementary level by the following groups: total population, African-American students, and economically disadvantaged students; and at the middle level by the following groups: students with disabilities, African-American students, and economically disadvantaged students. All subgroups made the AYP benchmark in math at the elementary level, but at the middle level, students with disabilities, African-American students, Hispanic students, and economically disadvantaged students did not make the AYP benchmark. The focus of the team’s work is the identification of root causes of the lack of student achievement for these groups.


Page 2

2009-2010 Adequate Yearly Progress Summary

Groups ELEMENTARY LEVEL

Made 95% Participation Rate Made 2010 AYP Benchmark Target Made Safe Harbor

An * denotes no students or less than 30 students in a group An * denotes no comparable data

LAL Math LAL Math LAL Math

Total Population YES YES NO YES NO

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient Students

White YES YES YES YES

African-American NO NO NO YES

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Native American

Hispanic

Other

Economically Disadvantaged YES YES NO NO NO YES

School Attendance Rate: Met Target

(For elementary and middle schools)

Graduation Rate: Met Target

(For high schools)

Groups MIDDLE LEVEL

Made 95% Participation Rate Made 2010 AYP Benchmark Target Made Safe Harbor

An * denotes no students or less than 30 students in a group An * denotes no comparable data

LAL Math LAL Math LAL Math

Total Population YES YES YES YES

Students with Disabilities YES YES NO NO NO NO

Limited English Proficient Students

White YES YES YES YES

African-American YES YES YES YES

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Native American

Hispanic YES YES YES NO NO

Other

Economically Disadvantaged YES YES NO NO NO NO

School Attendance Rate: Met Target

(For elementary and middle schools)

Graduation Rate: Met Target

(For high schools)


Page 3

Summary of 2010 State Assessment Data Analysis Subgroups: The school has two bands: • Elementary: Only the white students subgroup made AYP in LAL; total population and the white

students subgroup made AYP in math, with African-American and economically disadvantaged subgroups making safe harbor.

• Middle: Total population, white students, and Hispanic students made AYP in LAL; total population and white students made AYP in math.

DFG Comparison: The district factor group (DFG) is C/D. In a comparison of Jordan Road School to other K-8 schools of this DFG, in LAL students in grades 3, 4, and 7 performed equal to or better than other schools of this DFG. In math, students in grades 4 and 7 performed better. In science, grade 4 students scored slightly below and grade 8 students are about equal when compared to other schools of this DFG.

District Comparison: Students in grades 3 and 4 performed better than the other school of this district, but grades 5 and 6 did not perform as well.

Trends 2009 to 2010: • In LAL, scores trend down in grade 3, 5, 6, and 8 and up in grades 4 and 7. • In math, scores trend down in grades 5, 6, and 8. Scores trend up in grade 4 and are the same in

grade 3.

Scale Score Comparisons by Grade – LAL: GR3 GR4 GR5 GR6 GR7 GR8

Total 199.7 198.3 190.1 197 209.6* 216.6* General Ed. 204.5* 205.1* 195 202.8* 215.5* 223.3* Special Ed. 177 165.1 166.4 169.9 183.1 191.9 *The only areas where students are performing beyond the 200 (proficiency) mark

Scale Score Comparisons by Grade – Math: GR3 GR4 GR5 GR6 GR7 GR8 Total 213.9 223.2 201.5 195.1* 209.9 200.6 General Ed. 221.7 230.3 208.9 201 217.2 212.3 Special Ed. 177.6 184.1 166.1 170 175.5 147.4 * Grade 6 scores were below the 200 proficiency level for total population General Education v. Special Education:

Number of students Difference in LAL Difference in Math GR 3 9 27.5 points 44.1 point GR 4 9 40 points 46.2 points GR 5 11 28.6 points 42.8 points GR 6 12 32.9 points 31 points GR 7 20 32.4 points 41.7 points GR 8 25 31.4 points 64.9 points


Page 4

Advanced Proficiency Range (LAL/Math/SPED): • In LAL, a small number of students scored advanced proficiency at grades 3-7, with 14 scoring in the

advanced proficiency (AP) range in grade 8. One 8th grade special education student scored in the AP range.

• In math, the advanced proficiency range is from a low of 9.4% in grade 6 to a high of 27.5% in grade 3. Two 7th grade special education students scored in the advanced proficiency range.

Language Arts Literacy v. Mathematics: At the elementary level, math is stronger. At the middle level, LAL is stronger.

Clusters (LAL/Math/SPED): • LAL: Writing is stronger than reading in the elementary grades, and reading is stronger at the middle

grades. The Working with Text cluster is most problematic at grades 3 and 5 for both general education and special education students. Speculative Writing Task is most problematic in grade 4 for both general and special education students. In the upper grades, Writing Tasks was most problematic cluster for general education students, but for special education students, the Analyzing Text cluster was most problematic.

• In math, Numbers and Numerical Operations was most problematic in grades 3 and 4 for both general and special education students; Geometry and Measurement was most problematic in grades 5 and 8; and Patterns and Algebra was most problematic in grades 6 and 7. Special education students had similar problems, except in grades 5 and 6 where Data Analysis was the weakest scoring cluster.

Gender: • In LAL, scoring trends are consistent with state trends except in grade 6, where the opposite trend

occurs - males are significantly outscoring females. • In math, grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 trends compare to state trends. In grade 6, the trend is reversed as males

outscore females, and in grade 8 females are outscoring males. • There is the possibility that gender is playing a role in how students are performing at this school

Economically disadvantaged students do not score as well as non-economically disadvantaged students in either LAL or math. Point differentials between these subgroups range from as low as 13 points (grade 8 LAL) to a high of 37.1 points (grade 3 math).


Page 5

FINDINGS, KEY EVIDENCE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL

STANDARD 1: CURRICULUM

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fully implemented at the school.

INDICATORS

1.1 The district curriculum is aligned with the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJ CCCS), which provide a coherent vision for what students should know and be able to do, and specifies the content to be mastered.

1.2 The district curriculum is implemented at the school. 1.3 There is a process to monitor the implementation of the curriculum. 1.4 The school ensures that all students have access to the district’s common academic core. Summary Statement:

The math curriculum was aligned with the NJ CCCS in 2008. The next step will be the alignment with the new core curriculum standards. There is a full range of math courses from kindergarten through 8th grade geometry. LAL curricular programs are in the developing stages of implementation. In K-4, curriculum incorporates materials and procedures but does not have a pacing guide. Not all teachers use the curriculum to guide instruction. In grades 5-6, strategies are identified, but materials, procedures, activities, and pacing are limited. Teachers self-select programs and materials and determine activities and pacing of instruction. In grades 7-8, written curriculum is currently being developed. There is no ESL curriculum.

The staff does use the district curricula. The curricular documents, however, lack several key components that a well-written guide should contain. Some aspects of the walkthrough process have been implemented. Special education teachers and the ESL teacher lack opportunities to meet with their general education counterparts. Strengths:

• The math curriculum is readily available online and accessible to students, teachers, and parents. Lesson plans cite the NJ CCCS. Teachers participate in the curriculum revision process; there are two teacher representatives from each grade level on the 5-8 math committee.

• The algebra and geometry courses offered at Jordan Road School are accepted by Mainland Regional High School for high school credit toward graduation.

• Teachers follow the goals and objectives written in the student’s individualized education program (IEP). The student is instructed on grade level with modifications and accommodations in accordance with their IEP.

• The ESL teacher provides both pull-out and in-class services to the ELL students. Ample instructional resources are offered to her to support ESL instruction.


Page 6

Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) Mathematics/ English Language Learners/ Special Education

While the curriculum standards are being addressed, little attention is paid to the use of additional resources and materials to support the curriculum.

The curriculum guides do not list the available supplemental resources. Teachers do not see the value of supplemental resources and hands-on activities to involve students.

Language Arts Instructional approaches are shifting (from instruction based on basals to instruction based upon tradebooks; from product-based instruction to student-centered instruction; from whole-group instruction to developmental, individualized instruction) but teachers must rely on their own decisions as to what materials, resources, strategies and pacing to use.

The current curricular guide needs revision in format. It does not include materials, procedures, activities, and pacing guides for all grade levels. The curricular guide also needs updating to new practices (such as the L.E.A.D.S. program in grades 5 and 6) that teachers are using.

Special Education Reading is significantly below grade level. Problem solving is difficult due to below- grade-level skills in reading that impact math comprehension.

Students have significant gaps in skill development--lack of basic skills, poor comprehension and computation skills.

English Language Learners

There is no ESL curriculum. In-class services for ELLs do not reflect real coordination or cooperative planning.

ESL has not yet been addressed through the curriculum cycle. The schedule does not provide time for collaborative planning.

Recommendations:

1. Revise the math curriculum to include the supplemental resources and materials that are available to each math unit and centralize the supplemental resources in one location for grades K-4 and 5-8.

2. For each grade band (K-4, 5-6, and 7-8) revise/update the LAL curriculum to reflect programs,

materials, activities, and pacing that are developmentally appropriate, literature-based, and student-centered.

3. Provide PD for the instructional staff on effective co-teaching models. 4. The ESL teacher, under the guidance of the curriculum supervisor, should develop an ESL curriculum

that is aligned with both WIDA (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment) and language arts literacy standards and reflects the district’s language arts literacy program. The ESL schedule should reflect both in-class support and pull-out services for all ELLs that are fully coordinated and aligned with the language arts literacy instruction in the classroom. This requires adequate cooperative planning time.


Page 7

STANDARD 2: CLASSROOM EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT

Multiple evaluation and assessment strategies are used to continuously monitor and modify instruction to meet student needs and support proficient student work.

INDICATORS

2.1 Multiple classroom assessments are frequent, rigorous, and aligned with core content standards. 2.2 Students can articulate the expectations, know requirements, and assess their own and others’

work. 2.3 Test scores are used to identify gaps and adjust instructional practice for all subgroups.

Summary Statement:

Horizontal and vertical articulation and collaboration at all district levels in analyzing assessment data would enhance classroom instruction. Some teachers employ early warning systems to identify at-risk students. This additional support for the students enables them to be successful in classroom participation.

The ACCESS test determines ESL progress. However, at this time results are not provided in a way that will facilitate review of school-wide data for ELLs. Classroom assessments do not accommodate the needs of ELLs. Strengths:

• Assessment strategies are frequently embedded in instruction. Teachers are also using NJ ASK, DRA levels, and teacher-made benchmarks to collect data. Benchmark data is also used as an early warning process.

• Grade level meetings are held to analyze data from district benchmarks by identifying standards in which students are proficient and those standards which need additional attention. Most teacher collaboration occurs through informal meetings, common lunch periods, and continuous communications through emails.

• The ACCESS is used to identify student strengths and weaknesses of ELLs as they develop English language skills. There is an ESL report shared with parents that explains English language development for each child.


Page 8

Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) Mathematics/ Language Arts/ Special Education/ English Language Learners

There is limited differentiated instruction in most classrooms.

Teachers do not have the methodology to develop a variety of instructional approaches that address the same topic.

Language Arts/ English Language Learners/ Special Education

• Anecdotal notes are not effectively utilized to drive instruction.

• Writing portfolios that assess process writing over time are not evident in all classrooms.

• Prompt Writing using exemplars and the NJ Scoring Rubric is not effectively used to help students self-assess their writing, prepare for the NJ ASK, and develop student achievement. Prompt Writing strategies are either overused or underused.

• Multiple conference times are not scheduled for formal reading and writing teacher/student assessment.

• Rubrics are not being used to guide instruction or help students set goals.

Teachers do not have the methodology to develop a variety of instructional approaches that address the same topic.

Special Education In language arts and math, there is a lack of sufficient teacher articulation and collaboration vertically and horizontally.

The district schedules limited opportunities for vertical articulation.

English Language Learners

Classroom teachers do not develop alternative assessments to measure ELL student progress. ACCESS data is not broken out to identify individual student strengths and challenges in a systematic way.

There is not time for the ESL teacher to meet with the classroom teachers in order to develop alternative assessments. The teacher has collected progress indicators but has not mantained them in a portfolio system across the four domains and five levels embedded in the WIDA standards.

Recommendations:

1. Use benchmark review data analysis sheets to develop strategies for instructional interventions for students with similar weaknesses in identified skill areas. Provide all students with feedback from the multiple measures used to determine their levels of proficiency in all the math clusters.


Page 9

2. Teachers should provide evidence in their lesson plans of assessment procedures and the use of data to inform instruction (differentiated instruction).

3. The district should provide adequate time for teachers to discuss and analyze student progress. 4. Group special education children according to levels in the classroom and provide centers to reinforce

skills. 5. Consistency should be developed to ensure that rubrics are used and student-friendly across grade

levels and in all content areas. 6. Classroom teachers and the ESL teacher should collaborate to develop assessments for ELLs that

allow them to demonstrate their understanding of new concepts or proficiencies in alternative modes. ACCESS data should be broken out in a fashion to help better identify both individual and group strengths and weaknesses. An ESL portfolio should be developed to collect data that shows student progress across the four domains and five levels of proficiency embedded in the WIDA standards.


Page 10

STANDARD 3: INSTRUCTION

Effective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in all classrooms and are continuously monitored and aligned with individual student needs.

INDICATORS

3.1 Instructional strategies include a variety of challenging and engaging activities. 3.2 Learning goals are evident and provide focus for student learning. 3.3 Teachers demonstrate necessary content knowledge and pedagogy. 3.4 Technology is incorporated into the school organizational and instructional practices. Summary Statement:

Challenging and engaging activities are not evident throughout the instructional program. Student-friendly learning goals or objectives are not evident in every classroom. Many classroom teachers employ technology beyond the basic phase.

The ESL teacher schedule reflects both in-class and pull-out services; however, not all ELLs are served in both settings. Furthermore, in-class services must be coordinated, through cooperative planning and differentiated instruction in small groups, in order to be effective.

All teachers are knowledgeable and content-certified. Strengths: • The use of iPads to encourage independent reading and phonemic awareness in lower grades is being

utilized. In 7th and 8th grades, the Talent 21 Grant and the use of computer pads for research and projects are being utilized. In lower grades, document cameras and SMART Boards are beginning to be used to develop lessons to engage more students.

• The basic skills program supports classroom instruction for low-achieving students, and after-school LAL and math tutors support academic achievement.

• Classroom management creates safe learning environments.


Page 11

Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) Mathematics/ Language Arts/ Spec Ed/ELL

Mutually developed and agreed-upon best practices to meet the diverse needs of students are not frequently implemented. Technology is not integrated to extend learning and provide students with real-life, problem-solving experiences.

Teachers have not been able to reflect upon their knowledge of best practices and the practices they implement in the classroom.

Low expectations that many teachers have of their students limit the amount of student-centered activities in the classroom

Language Arts/ Math/Spec Ed/ ELL

Lesson plans do not include student objectives, materials used, procedures for instruction, pacing of instruction, and assessment of student achievement. There is a lack of common planning time and horizontal as well as vertical articulation to coordinate instruction among all classroom teachers and tutors. Many teachers do not have knowledge of a variety of effective instructional practices/strategies.

Teachers are not accountable for developing meaningful lesson plans.

Scheduling does not allow for common planning time. Some teachers do not take advantage of PD offered to them on a volunteer basis. They may not understand the PD. Implementation of PD is not consistently monitored, and teachers are not held accountable for implementing PD.

LAL/Spec Ed/ ELL

Reading and writing instruction is not integrated instruction. Objectives are not clearly posted in all classrooms Exemplars are not event/displayed in all classrooms There is a reliance on worksheets and packets. Questions on worksheets do not develop higher-level thinking skills. There is minimal evidence of writing in writing folders/logs. L.E.A.D.S. model at grades 5-6 is not effectively implemented.

The master schedule does not provide a literacy block. Not all teachers have high expectations that their students can be proficient writers. There is a lack of project-based learning Although teachers have had PD in the L.E.A.D.S. model, many are still not successful in its implementation.

Spec.Ed/ Language Arts/ Mathematics

Students do not have an understandung of the “what and why” of all academic activities. Technology, in particular SMART Boards, is not used beyond introductory

Explanation of the “what” and “why” to students has been unclear or incomplete. There has been insufficient PD and/or accountability for its implementation.


Page 12

lessons. Co-teaching for in-class resource is not seamless and does not demonstrate best practices.

Recommendations:

1. Implement mutually agreed-upon best practices (e.g., student-centered learning, peer-to-peer collaboration, hands-on learning, use of technology, use of differentiated instruction, and connecting concepts to real-life experiences) and relevant experiences to the instructional program with greater frequency.

2. Administrative walkthroughs should identify the implementation of scientifically research-based (SRB)

strategies, procedures, activities, and materials indentified in lesson plans. 3. All teachers utilizing the L.E.A.D.S. model for reading should plan and conduct lessons according to

the following: Tier 1 - Whole Group - Core Reading Instruction Tier 2 - Small Groups (4-6 students) for guided reading, guided writing, conferencing, and independent work Tier 3 - Targeted, Small, Flexible Groups (1-3 students) providing interventions and/or enrichment based on formal and informal assessment results

Thematic units, novel studies, or other authentic reading experiences should engage students in literature circles, writing workshops, cooperative learning, project-based activities, and integrated technology. There should be a heavy emphasis on daily writing tasks including journal writing; reader response journals; writing in science, social studies, etc.; writings that go through the full writing process; outlining; short reports; research papers; etc.

Consider combining the reading and writing class periods into one integrated literacy block. 4. All lessons should begin with a focus on what the objective of a lesson is and how it relates to real-life

experiences. Children should be able to articulate a lesson’s objective(s).


Page 13

STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTURE

The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a climate conducive to performance excellence.

INDICATORS

4.1 The school community supports a safe, equitable, and healthy learning environment. 4.2 The members of the school community, including school leadership, instructional staff, students,

parents/adult caregivers, and partners, possess and cultivate the collective will to persevere, believing it is their business to produce increased achievement and advancement of all students.

4.3 A personalized environment is purposefully established for students in order for them to (a) learn about their strengths (intellectual, ethical, social, and physical); (b) discover and demonstrate their own competence; and (c) plan for their future.

Summary Statement:

This is a school that celebrates student diversity and uniqueness and promotes tolerance. The school addresses at-risk students and makes every effort with support to maintain the student within their home school. Strengths:

• Students with special needs are included within the school community in all areas and are not excluded at any time.

• There is full engagement of school staff, parents, and students in areas of academics and activities. Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) School Culture Teachers are not providing differentiation

during class instruction. Full implementation of the PD that has been provided on differentiated instruction is not occurring.

Recommendation:

1. Supervision should be provided to ensure that differentiation of instruction is being implemented.


Page 14

STANDARD 5: SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL

The school community collaborates with families, higher education, and community organizations to remove barriers to learning and address the needs of students.

INDICATORS

5.1 There are structures and support services in place to reduce barriers to learning for students. 5.2 Families and the community are active partners in the educational process and work with the

school to meet the needs of all students. 5.3 There is a program of community and institutions of higher education partnership and support. 5.4 The district supports the school in their efforts to promote family and community involvement. Summary Statement:

There are procedures and data available to identify and implement support programs for students, but it is not clear during classroom visits that teachers are incorporating differentiated instructional strategies into classroom practice to reduce barriers to learning. Fifty percent of the student population is offered supplemental educational services (SES), and 10% of these students take advantage of this service. Generally, teachers offer student assistance both before and after school.

Families and the community are active partners in the school, as evidenced by the successful fund-raising programs. Interviews with parents indicate a desire for frequent, roundtable parental/administrative discussion and consistent, web-based classroom information and communication, and parents express profound disappointment in the amount of time teachers are out of the classroom. Strengths:

• The physical appearance of the building is warm and welcoming to staff, parents, and students, as evidenced by the office, classrooms, and common areas.

• Leadership and staff members have set high expectations for student behavior and character, as evidenced by effective classroom management.

• The community supports the Rock Solid program. Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) Support There is a lack of student participation in

extended-day support services (SES). There is no substantive coordination among parents, providers, and school.

Culture Informative web-based administrative/teacher communication for parent reference is lacking.

School website information is inconsistent and sometimes non-existent.


Page 15

Recommendations:

1. Leadership should promptly finalize the partnership with Rowan University that enables Jordan Road School staff to provide supplemental educational services (SES) for its students.

2. Teachers should consistently use a communication tool (e.g., e-board) on Jordan Road School’s

website to inform parents about their classroom initiatives and expectations.


Page 16

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION

The school provides for staff research-based, results-driven professional development opportunities that are consistent with the district’s professional development plan, and implements performance evaluation procedures in order to improve teaching and learning.

INDICATORS

6.1 The school and district devote resources to content-rich professional development that is connected to reaching and sustaining the school vision and goals for increasing student achievement and is differentiated by teacher and student needs.

6.2 School-based professional development priorities are set by aligning the goals for student performance with the evidence of achievement and with the Professional Development Plans (PDPs) and evaluations of teachers and the Professional Growth Plans (PGPs) of principals.

Summary Statement:

Professional development has been a priority for this district and school. PD has been delivered in a variety of forms, such as sending teachers to outside offerings, bringing in consultants to work with staff, utilizing the talents within the staff to “turnkey,” and, most recently, bringing job-embedded, collaborative opportunities. There appears to be a coordination of initiatives regarding professional development as evidenced by the similarities in the current Title I Unified Plan, the 2010-11 Professional Development Plan, the calendar of PD activities, and the processes in place to show how PD is, in fact, being implemented.

An attempt is being made to use the evaluation process according to code, but there are some noticeable issues, such as not requiring each staff member to have an annual review. Teacher and principal professional growth reviews do not address student performance. Current PDPs/PGPs state general goals and activities, but they are not specifically connected to the school’s needs/initiatives nor are they written in measureable/documentable terms. Strengths:

• The collaborative work being done in the grade level planning time is well directed. The year began by setting common agreements and use much of the time to develop weekly plans. A grade level SMART goal has been formulated that involves student performance (e.g., the 5th grade has targeted DRA scores of their students, and they are seeking to raise each student two guided reading levels; aggregately, they want 80% of their students to accomplish this). Grade levels also work on analyzing the benchmark assessments given three times per year.

• The PD committee has made good use of perception surveys. Students, parents, and teachers have been asked for input, and the topics generated, particularly in the area of technology, have formed the basis of a needs list that the district and school use to design PD offerings.

• There are four practices recently put in place that are worthy of highlighting: a. A process to include teachers in peer coaching/peer observing has been started by the PD

committee. This is just now getting off the ground.


Page 17

b. The Teacher Leader Coalition is a group of teachers interested in improving teaching and student achievement via action research projects. As of this date, 14 teachers are involved teacher leaders.

c. An electronic tool, “PD On Demand,” provides any teacher with current information on a variety of educational topics. To date, a few teachers are taking advantage of this service.

d. The newsletter “Spotlights” features best practice instructional happenings throughout the district. Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause Professional Development

The follow-up on PD offerings that includes time to synthesize and implement new learning into practice is insufficient.

While teachers do make use of informal collaborative time, the current master schedule does not include sufficient formal teacher collaboration time.

Teacher Effectiveness

The idea of professional staff being held accountable, in a documentable sense, for improving their craft and taking on ownership of the school’s critical issues in student achievement is not pervasive.

The means for monitoring curriculum implementation and instructional delivery (such as walkthroughs, lesson plan reviews, teacher observations, etc.) is either weak or not occurring.

Economically Disadvantaged Students

There is little, if any, indication that the PD provided on children in poverty (Ruby Payne’s work) has had an effect in this school regarding high expectations for achievement.

Although it is clear that staff members understand poverty and its implications and have worked to address children’s emotional needs, they generally still look at poverty as a reason for the Jordan Road students not achieving.

Recommendations:

District: 1. The upcoming end-of-year setting of PDP/PGP goals should be revised to include both the grade

level SMART goals and the benchmarking results. Building goals should be reflected in each staff member’s actions as well as individual areas of professional interest. This practice should be considered at all three district schools. In the future, consider revising the entire evaluative process to include an annual performance review.

School: 2. Developing a uniform lesson plan format that is reflective of objectives and how the objective is

communicated to students (introduction), strategies that demonstrate how differentiation is occurring and to whom (methods), and how students will demonstrate their internalization of the objective (assessment) is needed. Once this is accomplished, teacher lesson plans should be reviewed on a regular basis, and this review should provide teachers with feedback on the planning. Likewise, the walkthrough process should include the providing of feedback to the staff.


Page 18

STANDARD 7: LEADERSHIP AND NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE

The school leaders have organized the school by focusing on teaching and learning through (a) the communication of a clear vision, mission, and goals; (b) maximizing use of all available resources; (c) creating a learning culture with high performance expectations; and (d) effective planning with input from all stakeholders.

INDICATORS

7.1 Key leaders in the school facilitate a collaborative process to develop a shared mission, vision, values, and goals, which are understood and ingrained in the school’s culture.

7.2 There is a demonstrated and unrelenting focus on evidence-based teaching and learning. 7.3 There is a culture of trust, continuous improvement, and accountability for performance. 7.4 School leadership and the NCLB school improvement committee plan effectively by

communicating a clear purpose, direction, and strategies focused on teaching and learning through the development, implementation, and evaluation of the following: vision, goals, and the NCLB school improvement plan.

7.5 School leadership, the NCLB school improvement committee, and the district are implementing the strategies in the Secondary Education Initiative.

Summary Statement:

The school has established several committees consisting of teachers and administrators, including a professional development committee, an NCLB committee, a math committee, an LAL committee, and a teacher leadership committee. The school also has the capacity to conduct power walkthroughs utilizing technology; however, the walkthrough process is only infrequently used and no feedback is provided to teachers. Teachers in selective grade levels may not be appropriately assigned.

Some teachers report that they are reluctant to implement effective teaching strategies because they believe the students are not capable. This is reinforced through the walkthrough process as observers note that the majority of classes are teacher-directed and rely heavily on worksheets. There also is a lack of feedback provided to teachers to assist them in moving forward.

The school and district have embraced a culture of respect and collaboration as they work through a shared distributive leadership model. This is particularly true in the working relationship between the principal and director of curriculum. A PD On Demand program is in place and meets the needs of most staff members. The school leadership is currently considering a more strategic approach to planning.

As mentioned above, the school embraces the notion of distributive leadership through a wide array of committees. This structure of many committees does not always permit a coordinated effort.

The level of academic rigor observed during classroom visits is not high. This is connected to both the content and the instructional strategies utilized. Strengths:

• The school has established a culture of including staff in the decision-making process.


Page 19

• The school has established a culture of continuously exploring new inititives to improve student achievement.

• The leadership team models lifelong learning essential to enhancing the educational process. Challenges:

Challenges Root Cause(s) Principal Walkthrough protocols are not directly

related to program implementation. A walkthrough process has not yet been established as a priority.

School Leadership Team/NCLB

While the school is commended for the various committees, there does not appear to be a mechanism for connecting all of the work.

There is no overarching group that coordinates the works of the various committees.

NCLB committee None identified District The current grade configuration does not

provide for the greatest economy of scale or utilization of personnel.

The current configuration is valued by the community.

Implementation of Secondary Initiative

None identified

Recommendations:

1. A monitoring process that includes walkthroughs, lesson plan review, and a feedback component should be designed and implemented.

2. Consider utilizing the School Improvement Committee to organize, review, and monitor the work of

the other various committees. This could be accomplished through a sub-committee structure. 3. The district should consider examining the current grade level configuration duing the 2011-2012

school year.


Page 20

SCHOOL, DISTRICT, AND STATE RECOMMENDATIONS

LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY 1. For each grade band (K-4, 5-6, and 7-8) revise/update curriculum to reflect programs, materials,

activities, and pacing that are developmentally appropriate, literature-based, and student-centered. 2. Teachers should continue to receive professional development to guide them in collecting and

analyzing both formal and informal data with an emphasis on writing portfolios and rubrics. 3. Teachers should develop lesson plans that provide student objectives, materials used, procedures for

instruction, pacing of instruction, and assessment of student understanding. 4. Administrative walkthroughs should identify the implementation of SRB (scientifically research-based)

strategies, procedures, activities, and materials indentified in lesson plans. 5. All teachers utilizing the L.E.A.D.S. model for reading should plan and conduct lessons according to

the following: Tier 1 - Whole Group - Core Reading Instruction Tier 2 - Small Groups (4-6 students) for guided reading, guided writing, conferencing, and

independent work Tier 3 - Targeted, Small, Flexible Groups (1-3 students) providing interventions and/or

enrichment based on formal and informal assessment results

Thematic units, novel studies, or other authentic reading experiences should engage students in literature circles, writing workshops, cooperative learning, project-based activities, and integrated technology. There should be a heavy emphasis on daily writing tasks including journal writing; reader response journals; writing in science, social studies, etc.; writings that go through the full writing process; outlining; short reports; research papers; etc.

Consider combining the reading and writing class periods into one integrated literacy block. MATHEMATICS 1. Revise the curriculum to include the supplemental resources and materials that are available for each

math unit. Centralize those supplemental resources in one location for grades K-4 and 5-8. 2. Use benchmark review data analysis sheets to develop strategies for instructional interventions for

students with similar weaknesses in identified skill areas. Provide all students with feedback from the multiple measures used to determine their levels of proficiency in all the math clusters.

3. Use the technology resources available to provide students with a variety of instructional opportunities. 4. Implement mutually agreed-upon best practices (e.g., student-centered learning, peer-to-peer

collaboration, hands-on learning, and relevant experiences) to the instructional program with greater frequency.


Page 21

SPECIAL EDUCATION 1. Provide more opportunities for horizontal and vertical articulation about curriculum and achievement

issues. 2. Provide professional development for the instructional staff on what an effective co-teaching model

should look like. 3. Provide more project-based and student-centered instruction and less teacher-centered instruction.

The instructional staff should develop strategies to include a variety of challenging and engaging activities. Teachers should employ technology, implement differentiation of instruction, and connect concepts to real-life experiences. Teachers should give students a voice and encourage active participation in order to assess students’ understanding of a lesson. All lessons should begin with a focus on what the objective of a lesson is and how it relates to real-life experiences. Children should be able to articulate a lesson’s objective(s).

4. Group special education children according to levels in the classroom and provide centers to reinforce

skills. 5. Consistency should be developed to ensure that rubrics are used and student-friendly across grade

levels and in all content areas. ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1. The ESL teacher, under the guidance of the curriculum supervisor, should develop an ESL curriculum

that is aligned with both WIDA and language arts literacy standards and reflects the district’s language arts literacy program.

2. The ESL schedule should reflect both in-class support and pull-out services for all ELLs that are fully

coordinated and aligned with the language arts literacy instruction in the classroom. This requires adequate cooperative planning time.

3. Classroom teachers and the ESL teacher should collaborate to develop assessments for ELLs that

allow them to demonstrate their understanding of new concepts or proficiencies in alternative modes. 4. ACCESS data should be broken out in a fashion to help better identify both individual and group

strengths and weaknesses. An ESL portfolio should be developed to collect data that shows student progress across the four domains and five levels of proficiency embedded in the WIDA standards.

5. Cooperative teacher planning time should be provided to allow co-teachers (the ESL and general

classroom teacher) to plan together to tailor instruction to meet student needs. 6. Teachers should be trained in the co-teaching model to plan and deliver instruction effectively. Student

grouping models with a focus on small-group work should be part of the training.


Page 22

SCHOOL CULTURE and PARENT INVOLVEMENT 1. Administration should facilitate discussion with teachers to develop a unified teacher vision, belief, and

mission that will collectively deepen teacher ownership and commitment. All teachers should consider joining school committees to collectively have a voice in the school’s decision-making processes.

2. The I&RS committee members should attend the training necessary to implement a solid process for

student interventions. SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL 1. Leadership should promptly finalize the partnership with Rowan University that enables Jordan Road

School staff to provide supplemental educational services (SES) for its students. 2. Teachers should consistently use a communication tool (e.g., e-board) on Jordan Road School’s

website to inform parents about their classroom initiatives and expectations. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT District: 1. The upcoming end-of-year setting of PDP/PGP goals should be revised to include both the grade

level SMART goals and the benchmarking results. Building goals should be reflected in each staff member’s actions as well as individual areas of professional interest. This practice should be considered at all three district schools. In the future, consider revising the entire evaluative process to include an annual performance review.

School: 2. Develop a uniform lesson plan format that is reflective of objectives and how the objective is

communicated to students (introduction), strategies that demonstrate how differentiation is occurring and to whom (methods), and how students will demonstrate their internalization of the objective (assessment). Once this is accomplished, teacher lesson plans should be reviewed on a regular basis, and this review should provide teachers with feedback on the planning. Likewise, the walkthrough process should include the providing of feedback to the staff.

3. New teachers to the school would benefit from a pre-service designed to acquaint staff with basal LAL

and math programs, curricula, and instructional models. LEADERSHIP and NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE District: 1. The district should consider examining the current grade level configuration during the 2011-2012

school year. School: 2. A monitoring process that includes walkthroughs, lesson plan review, and a feedback component

should be designed and implemented.


Page 23

3. Consider utilizing the School Improvement Committee to organize, review, and monitor the work of other school committees (PD, teacher leaders, math, etc.). This could be accomplished through a sub-committee structure.


Page 24

SUMMARY OF CLASSROOM VISITS

The results of the classroom visits provide a view of instruction within the building. This summary is a cross-section or snapshot of instruction. Several rounds of classroom walkthroughs were conducted to provide a representative and thorough understanding of the nature of instruction in the school. The Jordan Road School is a well-maintained and safe academic environment. During the visit, the CAPA Review teams visited 55 classrooms from all grade levels (K-8). There were a number of indicators in which most classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) students exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward the teacher and each other, (2) orderly and well-maintained classrooms, and (3) sufficient supplies, materials, and technology. There were fewer cases of (1) effective co- teaching, (2) teachers communicating why a lesson is being taught, and (3) high levels of student engagement centering around cooperative learning, project-based activities, and use of technology. Overall, the school environment is nurturing and supportive of academics and extra-curricular activities for the students.

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTATION REVIEW

The team activities included a review of the documents collected for the school portfolio and data profile, including: • Cycle II data, AYP profile charts, cluster analysis • Background Information Form • Title I Unified Plan 2011 • School website • Teacher and Administrative Working Conditions Surveys • Principal’s Presentation • Teacher Observations and PDPs, Principal’s PGP • 2010-11 Professional Development Plan • School Highly Qualified Teacher Report • Walkthrough logs • Professional Development Surveys (teachers, parents, students, technology) • Math Curriculum K-8, LAL Curriculum • Math Benchmark data grades 1 – 8 • Individual student ACCESS results, student ESL progress reports • Lesson plans • Agendas (PLC meetings, grade level meetings, faculty meetings) • Master schedule • Review of student individualized education programs (IEPs) • Textbooks, workbooks, worksheets, classroom learning materials • Displays of student work • Character Education Program (Solid Rock) • Student Handbooks (elementary and middle); Staff Handbook • Teacher Orientation packet • Monthly Discipline Report


Page 25

IN CONCLUSION

Members of the CAPA review team express their appreciation to the staff and community of Jordan Road School for their gracious welcome and for their open interaction with us during our visit. We encourage the school community to review this report asking themselves reflective questions about the findings of fact and recommendations for action.


Page 26

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FORM

Principal/Lead Person – Years in Building Susan Dugan - 8/10 to present Number of Vice Principals in Building 1 Grade Levels in Building K-8 Number of Teachers in Building 64

Number of Teachers meeting NCLB HQT 64 (A Sp.Ed. teacher is teaching science, not HQT)

Number of Teachers with Emergency Certification and Subject Area 0 Teacher Mobility Rate 0 Teacher Attendance Rate Total days present 7,332 out of 7,497, according

to NJ State Report Card Total Number of Classrooms 49 Total Number of Students in Building 612 Percent Special Education Students 10.64% without speech only

15.22% speech only Percent Special Education Students in Inclusive Classrooms

Math 31 LAL 38 Science 43 Specials 59

Number of Special Education Self-Contained Classrooms 1 Number of Inclusive Classrooms and Grade Levels 32 K-8 Percent LEP 3% Number of Bilingual Classrooms 0 Number of Students Receiving Bilingual Services 0 Number of Students Receiving ESL Services 18 Student Attendance 0 unexcused (2009-2010) Student Mobility 111 out, 83 in Student Suspensions 44 (2/2/11) Subgroups Missing AYP Special Education, African American,

Economically Disadvantaged, Hispanic AYP Content Areas Missed (Math or LAL) LAL & Math ( middle), LAL ( elementary) Number of Students Receiving Supplemental Services (SES)

Last year 26 This year 37

NCLB Committee Meets Monthly Yes NCLB Committee Has Required Representation Yes


Page 27

TEAM POSITION

NAME

AFFILIATION

EXTERNAL TEAM

Team Leader

Lyn Gallagher

Educational Consultant

Principal

James Gallagher


Language Arts Literacy Specialist

Carol Satz


Mathematics Specialist

Walt Spector


Special Education Specialist

Anthony Errichetto


English Language Learning Specialist

Linda Dold-Collins


Culture/Parent Specialist

Loretta Andrayo


INTERNAL TEAM

District Liaison

Jennifer Luff

Director of C&I

Principal

Susan Dugan

Jordan Road School

Language Arts Literacy Specialist

Michelle Baltz Adrienne Breitinger

School Reading Specialists

Mathematics Specialist

Dawn Bentivegna

7th Grade Math Teacher/Coach

Special Education Specialist

Jennifer Cruikshank

Supervisor of Special Services

English Language Learning Specialist

Dawn Williams

ESL Teacher

Culture/Parent Specialist

Margie Smock

5th Grade Teacher, Union President


Page 28

CAPA DISTRICT AND SCHOOL

“CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORS STANDARD 1: CURRICULUM

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fully implemented at the school. 1 1.1 The district curriculum is aligned with the NJ CCCS (that provide a coherent vision for what

students should know and be able to do) and specifies the content to be mastered. 2 1.2 The district curriculum is implemented at the school. 3 1.3 There is a process to monitor the implementation of the curriculum. 4 1.4 The school ensures that all students have access to the district’s common academic core.

STANDARD 2: CLASSROOM EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT Multiple evaluation and assessment strategies are used to continuously monitor and modify instruction to meet student needs and support proficient student work.

5 2.1 Multiple classroom assessments are frequent, rigorous, and aligned with core content standards. 6 2.2 Students can articulate the expectations, know requirements, and assess their own and others’

work. 7 2.3 Test scores are used to identify gaps and adjust instructional practice for all subgroups.

STANDARD 3: INSTRUCTION There is evidence that effective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in all classrooms and are continuously monitored and aligned with individual student needs.

8 3.1 Instructional strategies include a variety of challenging and engaging activities. 9 3.2 Learning goals are evident and provide focus for student learning. 10 3.3 Teachers demonstrate necessary content knowledge and pedagogy. 11 3.4 Technology is incorporated into the school organizational and instructional practices.

STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTURE The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a climate conducive to performance excellence.

12 4.1 The school community supports a safe, equitable, and healthy learning environment. 13 4.2 The members of the school community, including school leadership, instructional staff, students,

parents/adult caregivers, and partners, possess and cultivate the collective will to persevere, believing it is their business to produce increased achievement and advancement of all students.

14 4.3 A personalized environment is purposefully established for students in order for them to (a) learn about their strengths (intellectual, ethical, social, and physical); (b) discover and demonstrate their own competence; and (c) plan for their future.

STANDARD 5: SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL The school community collaborates with families, higher education, and community organizations to remove barriers to learning and address the needs of the students.

15 5.1 There are structures and support services in place to reduce barriers to learning for students. 16 5.2 Families and the community are acrive partners in the educational process and work with the

school to meet the needs of all students. 17 5.3 There is a program of community and institutions of higher education partnership and support. 18 5.4 The district supports the school in their efforts to promote family and community involvement.

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION The school provides for staff research-based, results-driven professional development opportunities that are consistent with the district’s professional development plan, and implements performance evaluation procedures in order to improve teaching and learning.


Page 29

CAPA DISTRICT AND SCHOOL “CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORS

19 6.1 The school and district devote resources to content-rich professional development that is connected to reaching and sustaining the school vision and goals for increasing student achievement and is differentiated by teacher and student needs.

20 6.2 School-based professional development priorities are set by aligning the goals for student performance with the evidence of achievement and with the Professional Development Plans (formerly PIPs) and evaluations of teachers and the Professional Growth Plans of principals.

STANDARD 7: LEADERSHIP AND NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE The school leaders have organized the school by focusing on teaching and learning through (a) the communication of a clear vision, mission, and goals; (b) maximizing use of all available resources; (c) creating a learning culture with high performance expectations; and (d) effective planning with input from all stakeholders.

21 7.1 Key leaders in the school facilitate a collaborative process to develop a shared mission, vision, values, and goals that are understood and ingrained in the school’s culture.

22 7.2 There is a demonstrated and unrelenting focus on evidence-based teaching and learning. 23 7.3 There is a culture of trust, continuous improvement, and accountability for performance. 24 7.4 School leadership and the NCLB school improvement committee plan effectively by

communicating a clear purpose, direction, and strategies focused on teaching and learning through the development, implementation, and evaluation of the following: vision, goals, and the NCLB school improvement plan.

25 7.5 School leadership, the NCLB school improvement committee, and the district are implementing the strategies in the Secondary Education Initiative.


Page 30

NCLB CORRECTIVE ACTIONS CAPA was designed to do a needs assessment and make recommendations to address one of the required corrective actions listed below from the non-regulatory guidance – LEA and School Improvement. F-1 What is corrective action? Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is designed to remedy the school’s persistent inability to make adequate progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and mathematics. In addition, the LEA must take at least one of the following corrective actions §1116(b)(7)(C); §200.42:

Institute a new curriculum grounded in scientifically based research and provide appropriate professional development to support its implementation.

Extend the length of the school year or school day. Replace the school staff members who are deemed relevant to the school not making adequate

process. Significantly decrease management authority at the school. Restructure internal organization of the school. Appoint one or more outside experts to advise the school (1) how to revise and strengthen the

improvement plan it created while in school improvement status; and (2) how to address the specific issues underlying the school’s continued inability to make AYP.


Page 31

ACTION PLAN 1

Corresponding Recommendation:

A monitoring process that includes walkthroughs, lesson plan review, and a feedback component should be designed and implemented.

Name of Program or Strategy:

Reflective walkthroughs and feedback for student success

SMART Goal:

By June, 2011, a walkthrough protocol that incudes two targeted areas and a rubric will be developed and implemented collaboratively by teachers and supervisors.

Research Supporting Strategy: (from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse)

IES Practice Guide, “Turning Around Chronically Low Performing Schools,” Recommendation #1: Maintain a consistent focus in improving instruction; and Recommendation #4: Build a committed staff

Indicators of Success:

Document; schedule of walkthroughs; data generated from walkthroughs; improved NJ ASK and district benchmark results

Description of Action Plan Steps

Persons Involved

Resources Needed

Due Date - Timeline

1 Collaboratively identify two areas of instruction to be targeted for assessment by the use of walkthroughs.

Administrative team School Improvement Team Teacher leadership

Meeting time April 2011

2 Develop a four-point rubric for each identified area. The CAPA Teaching and Learning Tool could be used as a model.


Meeting time May 2011

3 Inservice supervisory staff in the use of the rubric to insure inter-rater reliability.

Administrative team Teachers

May or June after- school meeting

June 2011

4 Familiarize teachers with rubric and and feedback expectations. Administrative team Teachers

May or June after- school meeting

June 2011

5 Schedule targeted walkthroughs utilizing a model such as 5x5. A good frequency of classrooms visited each month would be 200 divided among the four building-based administrators.

Administrators Summer meeting August 2011

6 Collect baseline data and report back to staff at monthly faculty meetings.

Administrators Meeting Curriculum Secretary data collection

November 2011


Page 32

7 Establish schoolwide targets to improve the baseline data; repeat cyce as needed.


Meeting time December 2011

8 Individually conference with and require PD for teachers who, after an agreed-upon time, have not demonstrated significant growth on the rubric.

Administrators Conference time PD resources

January 2012

9 Continuously review data and revise targeted areas as indicated. Administrative team School Improvement Team Teacher leadership

Meeting time Ongoing


Page 33

ACTION PLAN 2


Revise the curriculum to include the supplemental resources and materials that are available to each math unit. Inventory the supplemental resources for grades K-4 and 5-8.


Using manipulatives to provide students with “hands-on” applications

SMART Goal:

100% of the Jordon Road School classroom teachers will implement the use of manipulatives within their instructional programs by October, 2011.


IES Practice Guide, “Encouraging Girls in Math and Science,” Recommendation # 4: Create a classroom environment that sparks initial curiosity and fosters long term interest in math and science; and IES Practice Guide, “Assisting Students Struggling With Mathematics: Response to Intervention for Elementary and Middle Schools,” Recommendation #5: Intervention materials should include opportunities for students to work with visual representations of mathematical ideas


Weekly lesson plans will include the use of manipulatives by highlighting their inclusion in the lesson. Administrative and peer walkthroughs; the request for availability of materials and PD On Demand participation; improved students achievement levels on NJ ASK and district benchmarks


Persons Involved

Resources Needed

Due Date - Timeline

1 At faculty meeting, introduce procedures and rationale for the Inventory Process

Math coach Director of curriculum

Dedicated faculty meeting time

May 2011

2 Inventory Checklist Math coach None May 2011 3 Inventory the materials available throughout the school Teachers

Coaches BSI Teachers

None June 2011

4 Math Curriculum Committees K-4 and 5-8 formed as subcommittees of the School Improvement Committee

Teachers Request participation June 2011

5 Review the new Common Core Standards and highlight needs Committee Copies of CCS Meeting time

July 2011

6 Align the available materials with the scope and sequence Committee Curricular guides July 2011 7 Identify materials that are needed and order them Committee Inventory of materials

Knowledge of how to purchase materials

July 2011


Page 34

8 Introduce to the teachers the alignment of the available materials with the scope and sequence

Faculty Coach Director of curriculum

None September 2011

9 Review lesson plans for the inclusion of manipulatives in daily instruction. Conduct frequent walkthroughs.

All K-6 and content area math teachers

Manipulative inventory and resource list

September 2011 to June 2012

10 Review and evaluate Faculty Coach Director of curriculum

Dedicated faculty meeting time Grade level meeting time

Monthly October 2011 to June 2012


Page 35

ACTION PLAN 3


Redesign the ESL curriculum and program to better meet the needs of ELL students.


In-class and pull-out ESL services focused on integrating WIDA standards in the ESL instructional program

SMART Goal:

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, as a result of the ESL program redesign, 75% of all ELL students in the Jordan Road School will show an increase of at least one level in English language development as measured by the ACCESS test.


IES Practice Guide, “Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades,” Recommendation #2: Provide intensive small-group reading interventions; and Recommendation #5: Schedule regular peer-assisted learning opportunities


ESL curriculum/LAL curriculum improved; improved student achievement as measured by ACCESS, NJ ASK, district benchmarks, report card grades


Persons Involved

Resources Needed

Due Date - Timeline

1 Develop an ESL curriculum that is aligned with both WIDA standards and the district’s local language arts literacy curriculum.

Director of curriculum. ESL Teacher

Sample curricula from other districts WIDA Standards Local LAL curriculum guide

Adoption 8/11

2 Develop a master schedule that provides for co-teaching services:

Staff Administrators

(a) Identify co-teachers Teachers Principal Director of curriculum

Research on the advantages of co-teaching; Survey of teach

5/11

(b) Provide time in the master schedule for cooperative planning across co-teachers

Principal 9/11

(c) Based on ACCESS results, grade level expectations, and individual student needs, redesign the ESL schedule to provide all ELLs with both push-in and pull-out services from the ESL teacher.

Principal Assistant principal

Grade level rosters, student profiles

9/11


Page 36

(d) Assign ELL students to the same general education classroom at each grade level.

Principal Assistant principal

Student schedules 9/11

3 Train designated classroom teachers in awareness and sensitivity to the special needs of ELL students as they acquire English.

Principal Director of curriculum ESL teacher

Consultant or ESL teacher 9/11

4 Train designated teachers (ESL & general education) in planning for effective practices in a co-teaching setting

Director of curriculum LAL coaches

Training modules from professional

8/11

5 Meet with co-teachers during co-planning sessions Principal Director of curriculum

Model lesson plans, research on co-teaching/ LAL & ESL

9/11 – 6/12

6 Monitor co-teaching in the classrooms to identify areas for continued support

Principal Director of curriculum.

Walkthrough instrument 9/11 – 6/12

7 Co-teachers should develop student assignments that are language-appropriate

ESL & general teachers Standards 9/11 – 6/12

8 Co-teachers develop student assessments that are language- appropriate as well as content-appropriate

ESL & general teachers

Research materials & exemplars of alternative assessments

9/11 – 6/12

9 Develop an ESL portfolio that reflects growth in English language development across the four domains of the WIDA standards

Director of curriculum ESL teacher

Model curricula, standards 9/11 - 6/12

10 Evaluate both formative & summative indicators of program success

Director of curriculum Principal ESL teacher & coaches

Curriculum, schedules, lesson plans, walkthrough report analyses, student asssessment results

7/12

Documents

JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL - New Jersey · 2010-2011 CAPA Summary Report Somers Point School District Page 1 CAPA REVIEW SOMERS POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT. JORDAN ROAD SCHOOL March 1-4, 2011 Introduction