Laurel County Public Schools Green Eleme… · Web viewPLC discussions did not focus on analyzing student work on a consistent basis. This activity needs to focus on analyzing student

HAZEL GREEN ELEMENTARY

2010-2011Comprehensive School

Improvement Plan

With October 2011 Implementation and Impact Check

MISSION STATEMENT

1

“ Hazel Green Elementary will assist ALL students in reaching their potential, becoming responsible citizens, and remaining lifelong

learners.”

HAZEL GREEN ELEMENTARYCOMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

SCHOOL ASSURANCE REVIEWSCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011

_ Danny M. Hacker_________________ ____November 3, 2010________ Chairperson, School Council Date

Danny M. Hacker__________________ ____November 3, 2010_______ Chairperson, School Planning Committee Date

Plan Approved by the School Council:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 Date

School Council Members:

Ryan Burgess Teacher Member Tracie Hacker Teacher Member & Secretary

2

Daniel Smith Teacher Member & Vice-ChairMichelle Diaz Parent Member Annie Miller Parent Member

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYHazel Green Elementary School

2010-2011

Mission Statement for Hazel Green Elementary School

Hazel Green Elementary will assist ALL students in reaching their potential, becoming responsible citizens, and remaining lifelong learners.

Plan Summary

As a result of the Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Process, Hazel Green Elementary has targeted three areas of priority that we feel will make the largest impact on student achievement in our building during the 2010-2011 school year.

The utilization of our school-based curriculum mapping document to drive instruction with emphasis on vertical and horizontal alignment was recognized as the first priority. This focus on the Program of Studies and Core Content for Assessment will identify key transition points and assist in determining where Core Content should be introduced, where it should be continued, where it should be expected to be mastered, and where it should be reinforced. With this valuable tool in hand, unnecessary overlaps and harmful gaps in what students learn will be alleviated and higher student achievement will be realized.

A strong focus on Reading/Literacy, Math, and Students with Disabilities was a second priority. Determining that these areas presented the greatest concerns in realizing proficiency by 2014, all stakeholders embraced the idea of strengthening reading and math achievement in addition to strengthening achievement in the subgroup of students with disabilities. Embracing these core programs and utilizing every available resource along with supplementary and intervention materials/strategies will allow the instructional program to continue on the path to Proficiency by 2014.

The third area targeted as a priority was the continuation of data analysis and analysis of student work. Disaggregation of assessment data and regularly scheduled analysis of student work samples was seen as the foundation in evaluating the effectiveness of our instructional practice and in identifying and reducing achievement gaps in subgroup populations so success can be achieved by ALL.

The Planning Process3

The 2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Process began with a review of the school’s Mission Statement and Belief Statements to determine effectiveness and overall adherence to what the school wished to accomplish. This Mission Statement and Belief Statements were adopted and continue to be the driving force behind Hazel Green Elementary’s focus on proficiency during the 2010-2011 school year. In October 2010, the Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Committees – Academic Performance Committee, Learning Environment Committee, Efficiency Committee – with a representative number of Hazel Green’s certified staff, classified staff and parents began the process of reviewing/revising the current plan. A comprehensive data analysis of the 2009-2010 KCCT and NCLB results was conducted. As a result of this analysis, achievement gaps were identified in targeted subgroup populations and goals were established to reduce those gaps. Again, the Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Committees identified areas of need and established goals and objectives to address these concerns with a focus on reducing achievement gaps. A report was scheduled to be presented to the SBDM Council for approval on Wednesday, November 3, 2010.

Using the Planning Process and all data analysis, three areas of priority that were determined to make the largest impact on student achievement during the 2010-2011 school year were identified. The final draft of Hazel Green’s 2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan was then completed and scheduled to be available for public viewing on Wednesday, November 3, 2010. A SBDM Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2010 for final approval and adoption.

Hazel Green’s stakeholders embrace the goal of proficiency by 2014. The implementation of the 2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan will provide the constant focus for achievement of that goal. An increase in effective instructional practices as outlined in the plan will positively impact student achievement. Additionally, it will serve to remove barriers to learning for ALL students.

In order to ensure the planning process and school improvement, the SBDM council approved the plan and will act on recommendations set forth in the plan. The action component committees will continue to meet and complete Implementation and Impact Checks at least once per year. This information will be used to refine/revise the plan if deemed necessary.

As the implementation of the Improvement Plan occurs, it is essential that information be shared with All stakeholders. This will be accomplished by announcements of SBDM Council meetings, PTO meetings, and in newsletters sent home with students. Copies of the completed plan will be presented to each certified staff member with additional copies placed in the media center and reception area for other interested stakeholders. In addition, the 2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan will be accessible to all stakeholders via the school’s website (c.f. http://www.laurel.kyschools.us/Schools/HazelGreenElementary/I&Icheck.htm).

4

http://www.laurel.kyschools.us/Schools/HazelGreenElementary/I&Icheck.htm

HAZEL GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan with October 2011 I&I

ACTION COMPONENT: Academic Performance______________ Date Approved/Reviewed by SBDM: October 27, 2011

Priority Need

According to the 2009-2010 IPR and the 2009-2010 NCLB AYP Report: 31.58% of students scored below the proficient level on the Reading assessment 31.05% of students scored below the proficient level on the Math assessment

According to the 2009-2010 IPR: 45.46% of students scored below the proficient level on the Science assessment 42.1% of students scored below the proficient level on the Social Studies

assessment 36.85% of students scored below the proficient level on the On-Demand Writing

Assessment

Causes and/or Contributing Factors

1. Analysis of reading data evidenced the need for strengthening our reading/literacy program through early intervention program/strategies

2. The 2010 IPR evidenced that only 68.62% of all students, 64.14% of Free/Reduced Lunch, and 67.70% of Students with Disabilities scored Proficient or above in Reading with the goal being 73.64

3. The 2010 IPR evidenced that only 56.21% of Students with Disabilities scored Proficient or above in Math with the goal being 61.23

4. Appropriate DOK levels for open response and multiple choice items continued to be a concern for teachers when constructing assessments

5. Overall, according to the 2009-2010 IPR, males, students with disabilities, and students approved for free/reduced lunch did not perform as well as females, students without disabilities, or students not approved for free/reduced lunch

6. PLCs were used mainly for planning instruction/resources and did not focus enough on analysis of student work/outcomes

7. Strategies for effectively answering ORQs, MC, and On-Demand prompts were not as consistent across grade levels as desired

8. Analysis of student work indicates that students have basic knowledge but are not able to translate the information at high levels when answering ORQs

SMART Goal(s)

By Fall 2011, the following increases in students scoring proficient or above on the KCCT Assessment will be evident: 11.8% increase in

5

Reading; 2% increase in Math; 11% increase in Science; 10.5% increase in Soc. Studies; 9% increase in On-Demand Writing By Fall 2011, the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Report will reflect the required Annual Measurable Objectives of 80.23% in Reading and

70.92% in Math for the subgroups of gender, free/reduced lunch, and students with disabilities

HAZEL GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL2010-2011 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan with October 2011 I&I

ACTION COMPONENT Academic Performance Last Update/Review October 27, 2011

SMART Goal: By Fall 2011, the following increases in students scoring proficient or above on the KCCT Assessment will be evident: 11.8% increase in Reading; 2% increase in Math; 11% increase in Science; 10.5% increase in Soc. Studies; 9% increase in On-Demand WritingBy Fall 2011, the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Report will reflect the required Annual Measurable Objectives of 80.23% in Reading and 70.92% in Math for the subgroups of gender, free/reduced lunch, and students with disabilities

Strategy / Activity Monitoring Plan Expected ImpactResponsible Person for Monitoring

StartDate

Targeted Completion

DateProfessional Learning

NeedsEstimated Resources

and/or CostsA1. 4th/5th grades will continue a

90 minute reading block daily using the Scott Foresman Reading Series while K-3 students will participate in a 120 minute reading block (including reading in the content area) utilizing the SRA Imagine It Reading Series – 60 min. whole group / 60 min. workshop for differentiated instruction

A2. Teachers will implement the SRA Reading Mastery Program for targeted K-3 students for 1hr daily and the Language for Learning Program for targeted K students for 1hr daily (equity)

Lesson Plans Walkthroughs/PLCs Tracking Elgin consultant visits

and debriefing sessions

Reading Mastery Schedules/Assignments

Walkthroughs/Tracking Elgin consultant visits

and debriefing sessions

Consistent reading instruction

Strengthened reading skills

Targeted students receiving interventions

Strengthened reading skills

PrincipalSandy JohnsonElgin ConsultantDistrict Support : Jane Gabbard

PrincipalSandy JohnsonElgin ConsultantDistrict Support : Jane Gabbard

Aug. 2010

Aug.2010

May 2011

May2011

None at this time – May wish to monitor and attend follow-up PD sessions targeting reading instruction/strategies

Elgin Consultant will conduct debriefings and follow-up “booster sessions” on targeted concepts/strategies

None at this time

None

6

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*A1 Implemented. Evidenced by:

Consistent Reading instruction documented in Lesson Plans / Walkthroughs (i.e. Unit Benchmark Testing, Selection Tests) SRA consultant coaching/debriefing sessions

A2 SRA Reading Mastery Implemented. Evidenced by: Schedule and staff/student assignments Reading Mastery consultant coaching/debriefing sessions**Language for Learning no longer implemented for Kindergarten students. Kindergarten students also receiving Reading Mastery instruction.

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011Recommendations:-continue both activities

**FOR EACH COMPONENT PAGE**-Revise Priority Needs, Contributing Factors, and Smart Goals to reflect 2011 data analysis – set new goals for 2011-2012 CSIP-Revise any staff changes / dates / needs / resources




Strategy / Activity Monitoring Plan Expected ImpactResponsible Person for Monitoring

StartDate

Targeted Completion

DateProfessional Learning

NeedsEstimated Resources

and/or Costs

A3. K-3 teachers will implement a 30 minute spelling and writing component daily as part of the SRA Reading Program

A4. Teachers will use MAP data to compile a “hotlist” targeting K-3 students scoring below mastery and 4-5 students scoring below the proficient level with emphasis in Reading and Math (Equity)

Lesson Plans Walkthroughs

“Hotlist” of students in place with performance / achievement levels documented

Students identified for receiving services

PLCs to analyze data

Strengthened reading, spelling, and writing skills

Students who are reading below proficient and below mastery identified for receiving services

COMPASS learning paths on student skill level

Principal Sandy JohnsonElgin ConsultantDistrict Support : Jane Gabbard

PrincipalSandy JohnsonDistrict Support : Tharon Hurley

Aug. 2010

Sept. 2010

May 2011

October / November

2010

None at this time – Elgin consultant will provide follow-up discussions and booster sessions as needed

Curriculum Coach and Lead Teacher will provide training and follow-up sessions as needed

None at this time

None

7


Spelling/Writing instruction documented in Lesson Plans / Walkthroughs SRA consultant coaching/debriefing sessions

A4 Implemented. Evidenced by: Teachers have completed the hotlist of students based on MAP data**Teachers are going to use additional data in targeting students – KCCT data, ITBS data, classroom assessments, etc.. Also teachers are going to include students who are struggling for reasons other than academics to ensure all struggling students are receiving assistance – students dealing with social/emotional issues that are also barriers to learning and succeeding. **A “mentoring program” will be implemented to assign mentors to struggling students

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011Recommendations:-continue both activities-add other available data sources as evidence in targeting students, including social/emotional barriers-implement a “mentoring program” to assign mentors to targeted students




Strategy / Activity Monitoring Plan Expected Impact Responsible Person for Monitoring

StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date

Professional Learning Needs

Estimated Resources

and/or CostsA5. Measurement of student

progress will be conducted on a weekly basis using KCCT-like “common” assessments: MC + ORQs focused on rigor, DOK, and CC4.1 with the Curriculum Coach acting as facilitator

A6. Teachers will attend grade level PLCs at least once per week to analyze data, instruction, student work to ensure curriculum documents are guiding instruction and assessment with a focus on POS, CC4.1, and DOK

Lesson Plans Walkthroughs Assessment Data

PLC Journals documenting purpose / minutes of meeting

Staff will stay informed about mastery and non-mastery of reading skills and can adjust instruction accordingly

Teachers focused on delivering instruction based on curriculum map, POS, CC4.1, and DOK

PrincipalSandy Johnson

Principal,Grade-level ChairsDistrictSupport : Jane Gabbard

Sept. 2010

Aug.2010

May 2011

May2011

None at this time – May wish to revisit and attend PD sessions targeting “Developing Quality Assessments”, “DOK”, and “CC4.1”

None

None

None

8

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*A3 Partially Implemented. Grade-level common assessments need to be more consistent with timely feedback. This activity also needs to be implemented on a more

consistent, regular basis.A4 Partially Implemented. PLCs are not used for this purpose on a consistent basis. PLCs continue to be used more for planning. A refocus on PLCs as a tool for

analyzing student work and effective instruction is needed.**DOK is no longer in standards. Teachers will use the Kentucky Core Academic Standards terminology to address this area.

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011

Recommendations:-continue both activities, but be more consistent in implementation-make sure implementation is true to the inherent meaning in the activity/strategy-remove the “DOK” terminology and use the vocabulary from the new standards





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

A7. Comprehensive Learning Checks will be administered at least once per 9 week grading period to assess instructional effectiveness and student achievement

A8. The “Do What” Method will be utilized across grade levels as a uniform strategy in answering ORQs (Equity)

“Learning Check” schedule

Learning Check Data

Walkthroughs Student work samples

Reduced test-taking anxiety and students better prepared

Staff able to monitor achievement of individual students and subgroup populations

Students more prepared and more comfortable with answering ORQs

Principal Sandy Johnson, Grade-level ChairsDistrictSupport :Jane Gabbard

Sandy JohnsonGrade-level Chairs

Oct.2010

Sept.2010

March2011

May2011

None

None at this time. May want to revisit the “Do What” method of answering ORQs

None

None

9

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* A7 Partially Implemented:

Not all grade levels conducted Learning Checks each 9wksA8 Partially Implemented

Not all teachers are using the “Do What” Method for ORQs.


Recommendations:-continue both activities-build consistency across grade levels





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

10

A9. The T-Chart will be utilized across grade levels as a uniform strategy in answering MC questions (Equity)

A10. Flexible grouping in primary and intermediate classrooms will be utilized as a strategy to meet the needs of identified students (Equity)

A11. The ESS program will be utilized to target lower-achieving students using a “hotlist” of student names (Equity)

Walkthroughs Student work samples


ESS instructional schedule

Students more prepared and more comfortable with answering MC questions

More effective instruction

Lower-achieving students achieving at a higher success rate

Lower-achieving students receiving services

Reading (including in the content) and Math strengthened

PrincipalSandy JohnsonGrade-level Chairs

Principal, Grade-level Chairs

Principal,Phyllis HuffShirlene RudderDistrictSupport :Greg Smith

Sept.2010

Aug.2010

Sept.2010

May 2011

May 2011

April2011

None

None at this time – May wish to monitor and attend PD sessions regarding flexible grouping strategies

None

None

None at this time

ESS Budget:$5901 with additional from reward monies and/or Title I ARRA

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* A9 Partially Implemented:

Not all grade levels used the T-Chart strategy consistentlyA10 Implemented. Evidenced by:

Classroom schedules, lesson plans, and walkthroughsA11 Implemented. Evidenced by:

ESS schedule and data


Recommendations:-continue all three activities-build consistency across grade levels regarding use of the T-Chart





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs11

A12. An “enrichment” program will be conducted afternoons each week to target all content areas (intermediate grades) – teachers will conduct an additional period of instruction to strengthen targeted content areas

A13. COMPASS software will be utilized as an intervention tool to strengthen instruction and achievement – Learning Paths created and dictated by MAP data/scores (Equity)


COMPASS learning path assessment results

COMPASS lab schedule

Students will receive additional instruction in core content, focusing on enrichment activities to extend learning

Student strengths and areas for improvement identified and addressed

Instruction more focused

Dan SmithSandy Johnson

Grade-level Chairs,Sandy Johnson

Sept. 2010

Sept.2010

May 2011

May 2011

None

May schedule follow-up PD on COMPASS software program if needed

None

PD Budget: $25 per hr preparation; $20 per hr presentation; $15 per hr stipend

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* A12 Not implemented.

Schedule did not make it feasible for this activity. Teachers did conduct additional instructional activities but on an individual basis.A13 Implemented.

All teachers had a scheduled lab time for COMPASS activities

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011Recommendations:-the “enrichment program” will be replaced with “rest and review Friday”, a strategy from Leslie Robertson Assessment Training-continue COMPASS as an intervention tool





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs12

A14. Students will continue to participate in a sixty to ninety minute math block utilizing the Saxon Math Series (K-3) and the McMillan/McGraw Hill Math Series (4-5) as the foundation of the math program

A15. Fastt Math, IXL, and the EKU Automaticity Program will be utilized as intervention tools for students achieving below grade level in math and as an enrichment tool for students who need to be challenged (Equity)


Lab scheduleand data

Lesson Plans PLCs

Consistent math instruction

Strengthened math skills

Students struggling in basic math skills receiving interventions


PrincipalSandy JohnsonGrade ChairsDistrictSupport :Jane Gabbard

Sandy Johnson,Grade-Level ChairsDistrictSupport :Barney Paslick

Aug.2010

Aug. 2010

May 2011

May 2011

None at this time

Follow-up PD and/or study group sessions if needed

None

PD Budget:$25 per hr preparation; $20 per hr presentation; $15 per hr stipend


Lesson Plans/Walkthroughs -- Students currently participating in 60-90 minute blocks on a daily basisA15 Implemented. Evidenced by:

Students currently participating in the Fastt Math program, either as an intervention tool for students performing below grade level, or as an enrichment tool to challenge students who are performing at/or above grade level. Implementation is evidenced by Fastt Math computer lab schedule, Fastt Math data collected by teachers, and lesson plans.

All classrooms are participating in the EKU Automaticity Program **The IXL Math Program was not renewed during the 2010-2011 school year. Will be considered for the 2011-2012 school year.


Recommendations:-Continue both activities-consider renewing the IXL Math Program





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs13

A16. Analysis of student work will be conducted on a more frequent basis as part of grade-level and/or faculty PLCs

A17. Teachers, in collaboration with itinerant teachers, will develop word walls to strengthen content-specific vocabulary in order to deliver more effective instruction including the areas of A/H and PL/VS

PLC Journals documenting purpose / minutes of meeting

Faculty Meeting Agenda

Word walls in place

Strengths / weaknesses in instruction and assessment identified

Strengthened instruction in content areas

Students more empowered to use content area vocabulary in responses

Grade-Level Chairs

Grade ChairsLauri HensleyJames BurnsShayna Chasteen

Sept. 2010

Oct.2010

May 2011: Continuing

through year

May 2011

None

None

None

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*A16 Partially Implemented.

PLC discussions did not focus on analyzing student work on a consistent basis. This activity needs to focus on analyzing student work as a priority.

A17 Partially Implemented. Word walls are in classrooms, however, they are not consistent


Recommendations:-continue both activities-focus on regular schedule of analyzing student work as a priority-build consistency with content-specific word walls





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs14

A18. Strategies from Leslie Robertson’s “A Practical Approach to Formative Assessment: Raising Student Achievement” will be incorporated into instruction. Included will be:

Exit slips Flashbacks Group work on ORQs /

posting KCCT graphs and setting goals in each content area

Use of graph paper on math assignments

Math Journals/Science Journals

Walkthroughs Lesson Plans Student Work Samples Math Journals

Students more empowered to answer open response and multiple choice assessments

A “competitive attitude” created toward attaining 100 on content area assessments

PrincipalGrade-Level ChairsSandy Johnson

Aug. 2010

May 2011 Follow-up sessions on Leslie Robertson Strategies if needed


Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*A18 Partially Implemented Not all teachers implemented the strategies on a consistent basis Math and Science Journals were not purchased for the 2010-2011 school year

**The following activities will be added: Teachers will compile a notebook of Exit Slips and Flashbacks and will submit these weekly to be reviewed Math and Science Journals will be purchased for the 2011-2012 school year


Recommendations:-continue the activities-increase the rigor of activities and build school-wide consistency





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs15

A19. Instructional materials / programs will continue to be reviewed and purchased to strengthen targeted content areas

A20. Teachers will implement LCIS to target at-risk students for RTI tier interventions (Equity)

A21. Teachers will continue to compile lists of content specific resources to use with the Smart Board technology

Purchase orders Inventories

LCIS referral forms and intervention documents

Lesson Plans Instructional

Walkthroughs

Availability of varied instructional material / programs to address varied learning styles

At-risk students receiving services in math, reading, writing

Increased student motivation

Ability to address varied learning styles

PrincipalClassroom teachersSandy Johnson

LCIS Team

Grade-level Chairs

Sept. 2010

Aug. 2010

Aug.2010

May 2011 Continuing

through year as funding

permits

May 2011Ongoing with

monitoring

May 2011

None

Continuing work sessions/PLCs/PD regarding policies and procedures

May wish to attend work sessions / PLCs for training when new sites/programs are introduced

Will vary

None at this time

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*A19 Implemented.

Purchase orders evidenced a variety of materials/programs added to the instructional program. These materials/programs were used for reteaching, for interventions, for extending learning and challenging students.

A20 Implemented. Students moved through the Tiers of RTI and received interventions in identified areas.

A21 Implemented. Teachers used a wide variety of resources with the Smart Board. Teachers shared effective websites that strengthened instruction and

students seemed to be very engaged


Recommendations:-continue all three activities


ACTION COMPONENT Students with Disabilities Date Approved/Reviewed by SBDM: October 27, 2011

Priority Need

According to the 2009-2010 IPR and the 2009-2010 NCLB AYP Report: 32.3% of students with disabilities scored below the proficient level on the Reading

assessment 43.79% of students with disabilities scored below proficient on the Math assessment


1. Analysis of reading data evidenced the need for strengthening our reading/literacy program through early intervention programs/strategies

2. Overall, according to the 2009-2010 IPR, males did not perform as well as females3. The collaboration model to deliver services to identified students was not utilized to

16

According to the 2009-2010 IPR: 65.22% of students with disabilities scored below proficient on the Science

assessment 16.67% of students with disabilities scored below proficient on the Social Studies

assessment 66.66% of students with disabilities scored below proficient on the On-Demand

Writing Assessment

an effective degree4. PLCs were not scheduled/utilized to maximize effectiveness regarding analyzing

student work – difficult to schedule common planning time for regular education and special education teachers to meet

5. Strategies for effectively answering ORQs, MC, and On-Demand prompts were not consistent across grade levels – need to be consistent

6. Analysis of student work indicates that students have basic knowledge but are not able to translate the information at high levels when answering ORQs

SMART Goal(s)

By Fall 2011, the following increases in students with disabilities scoring proficient or above on the KCCT Assessment will be evident: 8% increase in Reading; 11% increase in Math; 16.3% increase in Science; 4% increased in Social Studies; 16.6% in On-Demand Writing

By Fall 2011, the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Report will reflect the required Annual Measurable Objectives of 80.23% in Reading and 70.92% in Math for the subgroup of students with disabilities


ACTION COMPONENT Students with Disabilities Last Update/Review October 27, 2011 SMART Goal: By Fall 2011, the following increases in students with disabilities scoring proficient or above on the KCCT Assessment will be evident: 8% in Reading; 11% in Math; 16.3% in Science; 4% in Social Studies; 16.6% in On-Demand Writing, and the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Report will reflect the required Annual Measurable Objectives of 80.23% in Reading and 70.92% in Math for the subgroup of students with disabilities


StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

17

Sw/D1. Teachers will use MAP data to compile a “hotlist” of students with disabilities scoring below mastery and below the proficient level with emphasis on Reading and Math (Equity)

Sw/D2. Collaboration models will continue to be utilized more effectively as methods to deliver services to identified students (Equity)

“Hotlist” of students with disabilities in place with performance / achievement levels documented

Students identified to receive services

Teacher Schedules IEPs Progress Monitoring

Data Walkthroughs

Performance levels of students with disabilities documented

Teachers aware of students with disabilities achieving below standards

More effective delivery of instruction to students with disabilities

Ryan BurgessAshley CollettBarbara Wells

Ryan BurgessDistrictSupport :Melissa Reynolds

Sept. 2010

Oct. 2010

October2010

May 2011

None

Follow-up study group sessions with Connie Brookins if needed

None

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI*

SW/D1 Partially Implemented. Although a specific list was not created, Special Education teachers have a copy of each individual’s MAP scores. Special Education teachers are using a breakdown of MAP data to identify area(s) of need and to focus instruction on these areas.

SW/D2 Implemented. Teachers continue to use collaboration as a service model to deliver specially designed instruction for students with disabilities.

**Teachers also use other sources of data to identify and target students. These sources will be added to the activity.

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011Recommendations:-continue both activities-add the other sources of data used to identify and target students – i.e. KCCT, ITBS, Fastt Math, COMPASS, classroom assessments, etc.





StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

18

Sw/D3. Read/Write Gold will be utilized as an intervention tool to strengthen instruction in reading/language arts (Equity)

Sw/D4. SRA’s Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading Programs will be used as intervention tools for identified students (equity)

Sw/D5. The ESS program will identify and target students with disabilities to receive services (Equity)

Lesson Plans Lab Schedule Student Work Samples

Lesson Plans Walkthroughs Elgin consultant visits

and follow-up debriefings

ESS instructional schedule

Strengthened student products and increased achievement

Identified students receiving more effective instruction

Students with disabilities receiving more effective instruction

Ashley CollettRyan BurgessDistrictSupport :Barney Paslick

PrincipalSpecial Ed. Staff

PrincipalPhyllis HuffShirlene RudderDistrictSupport :Greg Smith

Oct. 2010

Nov.2010

Sept. 2010

May 2011

May2011

April2011

Follow-up PD and/or study group sessions on Read/Write Gold software program

None

None

PD Budget:$25 per hr preparation;$20 per hr presentation;$15 per hr stipend

ESS Budget:$6255 with additional from reward monies and/or Title I ARRA


SW/D3 Not Implemented. This activity will be removed due to issues/glitches/price with overall implementation of software. Other programs will be implemented to service students.

SW/D4 Implemented. Students with disabilities are receiving Reading Mastery in grades K-3. Students with disabilities are receiving Corrective Reading in grades 4-5, evidenced by a collection of data kept by the Special Education teachers on a daily basis.

SW/D5 Implemented. Students with disabilities are included in the “before-school” ESS program conducted in the computer lab and implementing Fastt Math and COMPASS activities


Recommendations:-remove SW/D3-continue SW/D4 and SW/D5




StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

19

Sw/D6. COMPASS software will be used to develop and complete learning paths in content areas with emphasis on Reading and Math – MAP data will dictate learning paths (Equity)

Sw/D7. Fastt Math, IXL, and the EKU Automaticity Program will be used as tools to strengthen math instruction (Equity)

COMPASS learning path assessments

COMPASS data

Lab scheduleand data

Lesson Plans

Student strengths and weaknesses identified

Focused instruction on identified content

Students receiving intervention at skill level

Students struggling in basic math skills receiving interventions


Ryan BurgessSandy Johnson

Sandy Johnson Ryan BurgessDistrictSupport :Barney Paslick

Sept. 2010

Aug. 2010

May 2011

May 2011

Follow-up PD and/or study group sessions on COMPASS software program if needed

Follow-up PD and/or study group sessions if needed




SW/D6 Implemented. Evidenced by classroom teacher reports and lab schedules.

SW/D7 Implemented. Evidenced by classroom student data and reports.

**IXL Math was not renewed for the 2010-2011 school year, but will be considered for 2011-2012


Recommendations:-continue both activities



Strategy / ActivityMonitoring Plan Expected Impact Responsible

Person for Monitoring

StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

20

Sw/D8. TOUCH Math will be used as an intervention strategy to strengthen math instruction (Equity)

Sw/D9. Special Education staff will collaborate with regular classroom teachers to deliver more effective instruction with greater emphasis on core content vocabulary (Equity)

Sw/D10. Special Education staff will continue to compile lists of content specific resources to use with the Smart Board technology (Equity)

Lesson Plans Walkthroughs Student work samples

Lesson Plans PLC Journals

documenting purpose / minutes of meetings

Lesson Plans Instructional

Walkthroughs

Students with disabilities receiving intervention strategy to strengthen math skills

Students with disabilities more empowered

Increased motivation in students

Varied learning styles addressed

Barbara WellsRyan BurgessAshley Collett



Sept. 2010

Aug. 2010

Sept.2010

May 2011

May 2011

May 2011Ongoing

None

None

None

None

None

None


SW/D8 Partially Implemented. All teachers do not use the strategy. Students with disabilities who have sever deficits in math receive TOUCH math as an intervention to strengthen math skills

SW/D9 Implemented. Teachers collaborate with regular education teachers on emphasizing core content vocabulary on a consistent basis.

SW/D10 Implemented. Special Education teachers continue to compile list of resources to use with the Smart Board technology. Resources are shared with all staff.


Recommendations:-continue all three activities


ACTION COMPONENT Learning Environment Date Approved/Reviewed by SBDM: October 27, 2011

Priority Need

According to staff discussions, there is a need to refocus on KYCID and PBIS as the standardized school-wide positive behavior support system during the 2010-2011 school year.


1. Although guidelines for success have been established, they are not consistently communicated or implemented as a school-wide program

2. Although behaviors have been defined and categorized as major vs. minor, there remains a need to communicate to stakeholders

21

3. Although there are student expectations regarding behavior, consistent school-wide expectations have not been communicated effectively

4. Classroom Instruction continues to be compromised due to time spent managing disruptive behavior

5. Although students are rewarded for positive behavior, a consistent school-wide reward/incentives system has yet to be established

6. Although disciplinary data is gathered and filed, there is a need to summarize existing data on a consistent basis as to “where”, “when”, “what types”, and “how many” behaviors are occurring

SMART Goal(s)

By May 2011, there will be a school-wide positive behavior support system in place which follows guidelines established by the Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline (KYCID).

By May 2011, there will be a 10-15% decrease in the number of office disciplinary referrals as evidenced by data collected and summarized by the School Wide Information System (SWIS).


ACTION COMPONENT Learning Environment Last Update/Review October 27, 2011

SMART Goal: By May 2011, there will be a school-wide positive behavior support system in place which follows guidelines established by the Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline (KYCID), and there will be a 10-15% decrease in the number of office disciplinary referrals as evidenced by data collected and summarized by the School Wide Information System (SWIS).


StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

22

LE1. The KYCID Team will participate in required trainings as detailed in the Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline program and will meet at least once per month to oversee, monitor and evaluate data

LE2. School-wide expectations regarding academics, responsibility, and safety will be established, posted, and taught to students

Training and meeting sign-in sheets

Lesson Plans Posted expectations

KYCID Team members better prepared to train/support staff in implementing the Positive Behavior Support program

Students will know what is expected of them in order to be successful

PrincipalKYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

Principal KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

Oct. 2010

Nov. 2010

May2011

May2011

None

None

None

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* LE1 Implemented. Training completed. Monthly meeting schedule developed – second Tuesday of each month. Coach, April Addison, will

go for updates, new information, additional meetings as required/needed**Monthly meetings need to be completed on a more consistent basis – team did not meet every month.

LE2 Implemented. Expectations have been developed and posted. Expectations are part of “morning announcements” each morning.

Date Reported to Council: October 27, 2011Recommendations:-continue both activities-be more consistent adhering to meeting schedule



ACTION COMPONENT Learning Environment Last Update/Review October 27, 2011 SMART Goal: By May 2011, there will be a school-wide positive behavior support system in place which follows guidelines established by the Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline (KYCID), and there will be a 10-15% decrease in the number of office disciplinary referrals as evidenced by data collected and summarized by the School Wide Information System (SWIS).


StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

23

LE3. Behaviors will be defined and categorized as major or minor with clearly established guidelines as to what constitutes an office referral

LE4. Discipline data will be entered into the Infinite Campus Program and SWIS to analyze / summarize according to “when”, “where”, “what types”, and “how many” behaviors are occurring

Discipline referral form Discipline referral

process established with flow chart illustrating consequences hierarchy for classroom and office managed behaviors

Data reports / analysis

Clearly defined referral process in place with distinction between problem behaviors that are staff-managed (minor) vs office-managed (major)

More reliable data

Staff better prepared to respond proactively to different situations

Staff can identify problems and generate solutions

KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

PrincipalCheryl RoeJim FegerDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

Nov. 2010

Nov. 2010

May2011

May 2011

None

None

None

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* LE3 Partially Implemented. KYCID team has met and discussed major/minor guidelines for office referrals but the task has not been

completed and distributed/discussed with staff at this time. LE4 Partially Implemented. Discipline data was entered into SWIS and was summarized as part of the “Year End Report”, but data was not

part of Team meetings on a consistent basis.


Recommendations:-continue both activities-include SWIS data analysis as a standing item on team meeting agenda




StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

24

LE5. Behavior expectations for non-classroom areas (common areas) will be developed, posted, and taught to students (Equity)

LE6. Staff will participate in follow-up sessions regarding Positive Behavior Support components (PBS)

Lesson plans Posted expectations

PLC / Faculty Mtg. Agenda

Consistency across settings

Decreased discipline referrals

Staff better prepared to implement / reinforce the positive behavior support system

KYCID Teamwith input from staff / stakeholdersDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Monica Smith

Nov. 2010

Nov. 2010

May2011

May2011

None

None

None

None

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* LE5 Partially Implemented. Behavior expectations for common areas have been discussed at KYCID Team meetings but haven’t been

distributed, discussed with staff or taught to students at this time LE6 Partially Implemented. The process of developing plan for training staff is in the process as part of scheduled KYCID Team meetings

but plan has not been implemented at this time**PBIS updates will be a standing item on faculty meetings agendas per KYCID recommendations


Recommendations:-complete and teach “common area” lesson plans-ensure that PBIS updates are a standing item on faculty meeting agendas




StartDate

Targeted Completion

Date


Estimated Resources

and/or Costs

25

LE7. Plans will be developed for involving families and community (Equity)

LE8. Evaluation of PBS activities and effectiveness of program will be on-going (Equity)

LE9. A school-wide rewards system will be developed to acknowledge and reinforce positive behaviors in students and staff

Lesson Plans

Evaluation documents

Reward data

Total buy-in by all stakeholders

Decreased problem behaviors leading to increased student achievement

Proactive planning and informed decision-making

Improved school climate/culture

KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Jane Gabbard

Principal KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Jane Gabbard

KYCID TeamDistrictSupport :Jane Gabbard

Nov. 2010

Nov. 2010

Nov.2010

May2011

May 2011

May2011

None

None

None

None

None

Sect. 7 Reward Fund / PTO

$500 - $1000

Implementation and Impact Data: (Evidence of Implementation and Impact on teaching and learning) □ I* □ PI* □ NI* LE7 Not Implemented. Plans for involving families and the community are part of the agenda for KYCID Team meetings but have not been

completed at this time. LE8 Partially Implemented. Evaluation is on-going as part of the KYCID Team meetings. Data is being entered into Infinite Campus and

SWIS and will be a standing item on the agenda of team meetings. LE9 Not Implemented. The school-wide rewards system is a priority on the agenda for the KYCID Team meetings but has not been

developed at this time.


Recommendations:-complete and continue all three activities

26

Documents

Laurel County Public Schools Green Eleme… · Web viewPLC discussions did not focus on analyzing student work on a consistent basis. This activity needs to focus on analyzing student