LONSDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLOPEN HOUSE 2013

WELCOME!!!WELCOME!!!

Currently, Lonsdale Elementary School is classified as a school in the “Typical” Range

Schools in this range scored within a point range of 50-70

OUR GOAL IS TO BE A COMMENDED SCHOOL!!!

Educator Evaluation System

School Classification Breakdown

SCHOOL TitleI

TargetsPassed

Classifica-tion

TotalPoints/100

Points From

% PROF/30

SUBGROUP

GAPS/30

PROG TO 2017

TARGET/5

% INDISTINCT

ION/10

STUDENT

GROWTH/25

HSGRADUATIO

N/20

HS SCALED SCORE CHANGE

/5

Central Elementary

  12/12

Typical 55.50

18.00 21.00 3.00 3.50 10.00    

Lincoln Middle School

  9/14 Typical 53.00

15.00 16.50 3.00 3.50 15.00    

Lincoln High School

  13/13

Typical 64.67

16.00 18.00 8.00 3.00 NA 16.67  3.00 

Lonsdale Elementary

  9/12 Typical 56.50

17.00 19.50 2.00 3.00 15.00

Northern Elementary

Y 12/12

Typical 61.17

16.00 19.50 6.00 3.00 16.67    

Saylesville Elementary

  12/14

Typical 51.67

17.00 18.00 2.00 3.00 11.67    

RIDE Systems under RTTT

Teacher Leadership

•EPSS (Educator Performance Support System)

All Teachers

•Data Team Work

•Susan Mischler, Colleen Boisvert, Tracy Hastings, Jeannine Magliocco

•ELA Curriculum Alignment to the Common Core

•Barbara Berleth, Kimberly Cole, Debra Lyons, Dana Miga, Susan Mischler

•SS Curriculum Alignment to the Common Core

•Diane Avery

Educator Evaluation System

Research has shown that one of the most important school-based factors influencing a student’s achievement is the quality of his or her teacher (RIDE website, 2012).

Continuous feedback aligned with teacher standards

Teacher Professional Growth Plans and Student Learning Objectives will drive the work teachers do (data and needs based)

The online EPSS (Educator Performance Support System) will capture all critical information associated with teacher and administrator evaluations and streamline the process for both educators and evaluators. The EPSS will provide access to all forms, components, and scoring features required for implementation, as well as guidance to support the evaluation process (RIDE website, 2012).

Percentage of Lonsdale Students Achieving Proficiency or Above Over the Past 5 Years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Reading Mathematics Writing

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Longitudinal Reading Proficiency by Grade

Reading Proficiency: 2010-2011 2011-2012

2012-2013Lonsdale School 85 % 86%

73%

Beginning of Grade 3 86 % 85% 65%

Beginning of Grade 4 91 % 88% *74%

Beginning of Grade 5 81 % 83% 83%

Longitudinal Mathematics Proficiency by Grade

Math Proficiency:

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Lonsdale School 75 % 82% 66%

Beginning of Grade 3 68 % 82% 56% Beginning of Grade 4 87 % 83% 83%

Beginning of Grade 5 71 % 83% *63%

Longitudinal Writing Proficiency—Grade 5

Writing Proficiency:

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Lonsdale School 61% 62% 74% (grade 5)

Lincoln Elementary Schools Writing Scores 2011-2012 2012-2013

Central 68% 86% Lonsdale 62% 74% Northern 61% 63% Saylesville 69% 71%

Reading Proficiency Across Elementary Schools in Lincoln

Grade Central Lonsdale Northern Saylesville

3 74% 65% 71% 71% 4 86% 74% 72% 75% 5 86% 83% 75% 85% 6 (Teaching Year) 88% 89% 82%

85%

Percentage Of Students Proficient Or Proficient With Distinction

Grade Central Lonsdale Northern Saylesville

3 12% 13% 7% 94 2% 2% 8% 10% 5 6% 5% 8% 8% 6 3% 0% 3% 7%

Percentage Of Students Substantially Below Proficiency

Mathematics Proficiency Across Elementary Schools in Lincoln

Percentage Of Students Proficient Or Proficient With Distinction

Grade Central Lonsdale Northern Saylesville

3 71% 56% 74% 77% 4 80% 83% 73% 65% 5 85% 63% 69% 74% 6 80% 81% 74% 85%

Percentage Of Students Substantially Below Proficiency

Grade Central Lonsdale Northern Saylesville

3 13% 21% 7% 7% 4 8% 6% 14% 15% 5 9% 12% 15% 14% 6 10% 13% 14% 19%

Lonsdale Elementary Subgroups (IEP and SES (Supplemental Education Services))

IEP Grade Number of Students Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency

3 8 25% N/A

4 1 N/A N/A 5 3 N/A 33%

SES Grade Number of Students Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency

3 31 42% 38% 4 15 67% 73% 5 15 73% 47%

Timeline of Action

February 8, 20132012 NECAP Results released

Results communicatedTo faculty

Principal performs preliminary analysis

February 25through March 12Item Analysis withGrade level teams begins during common planning time

March 13Grade level team meeting—grade level teams meet to brainstorm interventions based on item analysis results and begin implementation

March 21SIT meets and develops action plans

Implementation

Grade 3 Findings from Item Analysis

Reading Findings

Academic Vocabulary Analysis and

interpretation weak Reading the questions Inference of Idiomatic

Expression Developing constructive

responses using details from the passage

Math Findings

Completion of items Fractions (equal parts of a

whole) Using key words to choose

operation (“How many more…?”)

Equivalence Line plots vs. graphs—how

to read Area of a shape using

manipulatives Depth of Knowledge—

multi-step difficult problems

Grade 4 Findings from Item Analysis

Reading Findings Homophones Analysis and

Interpretation Response to

Informational Text Prefixes Poem comparison

Math Findings

Place value Mathematics

Vocabulary Fluency with

subtraction, multiplication

Equivalence Depth of Knowledge

—multi-step word problems

Grade 5 Findings from Item Analysis

Reading Findings

Constructed responses—supporting with evidence from the text

Vocabulary—using context to determine meanings of unknown words

Fact vs. Opinion Understanding the prompt

for a constructed response. Analysis and Interpretation

Math Findings

Following directions Fractions---reducing to

lowest terms Algebraic expressions

(relationships between the operations)

Equivalence Key words to help create

algebraic expressions Fractions—reducing to

lowest terms

Additional ACTIONS the

school will take

Face to Face meetings with parents of students who achieved 1’s or 2’s

Ramp up program Summer--the start of NECAP

Highlights in “SPOTS” and on listserv for parent intervention

PLC s to focus on these areas of need (Text Complexity is the next topic)

Reward students for hard work and effort during testing

ACTION PLANS--Developed in both Reading and Math

Use Envisions program more regularly to expose students to problems with higher depth of knowledge (“quick checks’)

Academic and test words “word walls”—highlight them in directions Key words “word walls” and consistency of its use during instruction Continue with Student Learning Objectives in Math---Fluency focus More consistent focus on equivalence—work at a more concrete level to

scaffold for the abstract balancing of equations Provide more consistent opportunities to solve problems at higher levels

that are “like” problems that were solved during instruction Explicitly embed those skills that were deficient into math instruction or

morning work (for example, counting and making change in grade 2) Continue practicing responses to literary and informational text with the

TEEC format—write the acronym on their written work Provide more opportunities for students to compare two texts (such as

poems) More explicit work with morphemic parts of words (prefix, suffix—

meaning) Build stamina for reading lengthier passages Consistently require students to read the questions before reading a

passage. Explicitly teach inference of idiomatic expressions Reading and writing about various text structures such as fact vs. opinion

and cause/effect to embed understanding of these important comprehension

Students will take released items from the test in June. Students will practice with multiple choice tests in June and in

September.

Science NECAP

Proficiency Levels

oStudents in grade 4 take Science NECAP in the Spring of their fourth grade year

oStudents are tested for their understanding of Grade Span Expectations

oScience NECAP will be taken until the spring of 2016

Science Initiatives in Place in Response to NECAP Data

Scientist Notebook Revised Scope and Sequence ~includes Kit-based Inquiry

Science Common Inquiry tasks being implemented at grade 4 Study Island TEEC Writing Consultant and Professional Development Increased district and school-based support in Science Action plan to be developed in Science

Time and people….

Grade Level and Faculty meeting times devoted to topics focused on teaching and learning (e.g., intervention block planning, Looking at Student Work, data analysis)

Common Planning Time (3x/week) School Improvement Team Lonsdale Parents and Teachers PBIS (1x/month) PLC (1x/month during faculty meeting) Intervention Blocks~built intoMaster schedule (common preps and Intervention blocks) September Ramp-up—9/4—9/20 Face to Face meetings with Parents

PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention Supports)

PPaws and Path to a Reward

• Principal’s Award

• Keys to Kindness

• Paw Raffle

•Student Leadership—PBIS Leadership Team and 5th grade Leadership Team (Service, Fun, and Spirit)

• Community Meetings

Parents—Important Partners in a Child’s Education

When parents get connected to the school, children do

better. Research shows children whose parents areinvolved get better grades, do better on tests, andhave fewer discipline problems at school by more

than 50 percentParent Outreach•Face to face meetings with parents•Listserv•Lonsdale Spots•Website•SIT•LPT•Volunteers (BCI check required)

Earn Your Parent Paw!

On our way from Typical…..

…to Commended!