school improvement plan 2011-12 - auburn school district · school improvement planning 1. ... on...

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011-12

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary School

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING

1. Readiness to benefit

2. Collect, sort and select data

3. Build and analyze the school portfolio

4. Set and prioritize goals

5. Research and select effective practices

6. Craft action plan

7. Monitor Implementation of the plan

8. Evaluate impact on student achievement

REVISED SIP

1. Needs assessment

2. Research of best practices in Reading and Math

3. Implemented SIP Plan based on data (MSP, DIBELS,

MAPS, AR/STAR, CEE, and CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT)

4. Focused Staff Development on area of need in Reading

and Math (Pyramid of Interventions, PLC, standards,

common assessments, formative data collection)

5. Monitoring and responding to results

MISSION

The mission of A.J.

is to provide a

welcoming, safe,

learning community

committed to

positive relationships and

academic excellence.

DATA-DEMOGRAPHICS

DATA-ADEQUATE YEARY PROGRESS

DATA-AMAO

DATA 3-5 MSP TREND

READING

DATA 3-5 MSP TREND

MATH

DATA 3-5 MSP TREND

5TH

GRADE

SCIENCE

4TH

GRADE

WRITING

DATA-3-5 MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS

DATA-CEE

READING

Our Reading Action Steps

1. Focus collaborative PLC work on the four critical questions

2. Utilize Data to establish Smart Goals

3. Implement tiered instructional model

4. Implement standards based teaching, learning and reporting.

5. Staff development

6. Utilize technology to support instruction

PLC TIME, FOCUS ON LITERACY

SCHOOL-WIDE DATA WALL

PLC FOCUSES ON READING AND OUR

TIERED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL

TECHNONLOGY INTEGRATION

• AR Enterprise

(Web-based Accelerated

Reader)

• STAR

• DIBLES

• MAPS (Grades 3rd, 4th, 5th

Reading and Math)

• I Succeed Math

• IXL

(Web-based Math)

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN-MATH

Our Math Action Steps

1. Modify Core Math Instructional Model – Walk to core

2. Implement intervention strategies

3. Implement grade level and cross grade level communication

4. Implement explicit computational fluency instruction

5. Implement explicit problem solving instruction

6. Implement standards-based teaching, learning and reporting

currently K-2nd, 3rd-5th in 2012-2013

7. Implement staff development

8. Utilize technology to support math instruction

CLIMATE

Our Action Steps:

1. Anti-bullying instruction and conduct ongoing class meetings

2. Peaceful School Bus Meetings

3. Conflict Manager Program and Safety Patrol

4. Recognition Program to reward positive behavior

5. Monthly Olweus formative survey and Fall to Spring Annual

survey

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN-CLIMATE

STAFF IS GOAL AND ACTION ORIENTED

CELEBRATIONS

1. Student Improvement!

2. Above State and District Averages for 3rd and 4th

Reading and Math

3. Highest 4th grade math in the District MSP

4. Continued intervention implementation

5. PLCs in action to improve learning

6. Standard-based teaching, learning and reporting.

7. Tiered instructional model for reading and math school wide.

8. Aligning curriculum/instructional materials to standards to

address student needs.

9. Use of classroom, benchmark, interim, common and state

assessments to support learning

10. Parents/AJ PTSA partnership to support student learning.

SUCCESS IS EVIDENT AT AJ!

2009 – 2012 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary

Strategic Improvement Plan

Strategic Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on insert school board approval

date here.

2009-2012 Auburn School District Strategic Improvement Plan

District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement

With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and 10. District Improvement Goal 2: Dropout Rate and On-time Graduation

Schools will reduce dropout rates and meet additional Adequate Yearly Progress indicators as determined by K-8 attendance and high school on-time graduation rates. District Improvement Goal 3: Parents/Guardians and Community Partnerships

The district and schools will continue to develop partnerships to support student academic achievement and success. District Improvement Goal 4: Policies and Resource Management

The district will focus on improving student academic achievement and narrowing the achievement gaps in its policy decisions and resource allocation. 2009-2010 Stated District Objectives-Student Achievement and Accountability

Superintendent implements district strategic improvement plan to establish professional learning communities, become a standards-based district, produce power standards, develop common formative assessments, monitor student achievement, and provide intervention for continuous improvement for 10% more students at or above standards in reading and math. Superintendent increases high school graduation rates to 95% and increasing high school aggregate credits earned and decreasing failing grades in 9th grade. Superintendent increases learning enrichment and achievement beyond standards for all students including less represented population.

School:

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary

Date of SIP Team District Improvement Goal Review:

SIP Team Members:

Jim Riley Janet Amundson Thelma Beck Kris Brock

Stacy Swensrud Debbi McGaughey Stephanie Swift Eric Daniel

Requirements for School Improvement Plan WAC 180-16-220

Each school in the district shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors. “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan”. The checklist below contains the required elements for School Improvement Plans under WAC 180-16-220. School Improvement Plans are subject to review by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

1. Evidence and date of annual school board approval.

2. Evidence staff certification requirements were met. (Highly Qualified)

3. Evidence the plan is based on self-review and participation of required

participants (staff, students, families, parents, and community members).

4. Brief summary of use of data to establish improvement.

5. How continuous improvement in student achievement of state learning

goals and essential academic learning requirements (EALRs) is promoted.

6. Recognition of non-academic student learning, what and how. (School Climate, bullying, counselors, community resources, partnerships, student leadership; interpersonal relationship skills)

7. Plan addresses characteristics of successful schools.

8. Plan addresses educational equity (gender, race, ethnicity, culture,

language, and physical/mental ability).

9. Plan addresses use of technology to facilitate instruction.

10. Plan addresses parent, family, and community involvement. Failure to make AYP for two consecutive years will result in identification for school improvement beginning with Step 1. The consequences associated with each step are detailed at: http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/AdequateYearlyProgress.aspx

http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/AdequateYearlyProgress.aspx

Auburn School District Mission In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.

Auburn School District Vision The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.

School Mission The mission of A.J. is to provide a welcoming, safe, learning community committed to a positive relationships and academic excellence.

Background Information WAC 180-16-220 Requirements for School Improvement Plan

Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WLPTII, Credit Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE.

The AJ Elementary SIP team is made up of a diverse group of professionals. We asked for grade level volunteers as well as specialists whose voice we felt were critical for the creation of our SIP. We also asked for volunteers from our classified staff. Once this process was done we had a primary and intermediate teacher, a para-educator, reading and math specialist, counselor and administrative intern. The team participated in all the training and worked collaboratively to share the information with the rest of the AJ staff. The team used district release days to deepen our understanding of math assessments and to assemble our action plans. For 2011, there was a change in the SIP team make up, replacing two members; intermediate representative and counselor.

Demographic data Arthur Jacobsen’s enrollment has seen slight growth from 405 in October 2008 to 437 in May 2009. October 2009 began with 410 and increased to 422 May 2010. October 2010 enrollment grew to 451, with an increase to 454 in 2011. Male and female gender remains within a 4% difference, similar to the state and District, 2010 males 44.7%, females 55.3%, an increase. Males increased .5 to 45.2%, females decreased by .5 to 54.8% in October 2011. Ethnicity varies from year to year with only slight changes, seeing the greatest increases in Hispanic , 2.6 %., white declining 1.3%. White makes up the largest ethnic group at 56%, slightly lower than

District 59.2 % and State 64.8% in 2008-09, 2010 white group is lower at 55.2%. In 2011, white ethnic group remain steady at 54.3% and all other groups remained with a 2% difference. Significant is the increase in Free and Reduced price meals, increasing 3.7% from 2007-08 to 2008-09, similar to District Average, and slightly higher than the state. 2009, 43.1% free and reduced lunch rate remains steady. 2010, increased to 46%.

Discipline and Attendance Analysis Arthur Jacobsen uses the Think Time school wide discipline prog ram. In 2008 there were a total of 9 out of school suspensions for 8 students. In 2009 there were a total of 8 out of school suspensions for 5 students. In 2010 there were a total of 11 out of school suspensions for 7 students. In 2011 there were a total 8 out of school suspensions, and 4 in-house suspensions, for 7

students. Unexcused Absence rate remains low below District and State at 0.1% in 2008-09 to

2010-2011. 2007-08 school year AJ had a 5.75% absenteeism rate. 2008-09 school year AJ had 5.19% absenteeism rate. 2009-2010 school year AJ had 5.18% absenteeism rate. 2010-2011 school year AJ had 5.02% absenteeism rate.

Data Analysis- DIBELS Fall 2009 Kindergarten DIBELS LNF at risk declined from 19.05 % to 11.02%

in the spring 2010. Fall 2010 Kindergarten DIBELS LNF at risk declined from 11.49% to 8.33% in the

spring 2011. Fall 2009 1st Grade DIBELS NWF at risk declined from 23.53% to 4.49% in

the spring 2010. Fall 2010 1st Grade DIBELS NWF at risk declined from 10.39% to 1.28% in

the spring 2011. Fall 2009 2nd Grade DIBELS ORF at risk declined from 14.55% to 11.29% in

the spring 2010. Fall 2010 2nd Grade DIBELS ORF at risk increased from 8.33% to 14.09% in the spring

2011. Fall 2009 3 rd Grade DIBELS ORF at risk increased from 8.20% to 10.39% in

the spring 2010. Fall 2010 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF at risk declined from 15.38% to 12.00% in the spring

2011. Fall 2009 4 th Grade DIBELS ORF at risk increased from 17.72% to 23% in

the spring 2010. Fall 2010 4th Grade DIBELS ORF at risk declined from 15.87% to 7.81% in the spring

2011. Fall 2010 5th Grade DIBELS ORF at risk declined from 14.61% to 14.29% in the spring

2011.

Data Analysis- MAPS

17.74% of the 3rd graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2009 math assessment. 17.65% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2010 math assessment.

14.0% of the 3rd graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2010 math assessment. 16.0% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2011 math assessment.

15.63% of the 5th graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2009 math assessment. 13.33% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2010 math assessment.

35.96% of the 5th graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2010 math assessment. 16.67% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2011 math assessment.

12.9% of the 3rd graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2009 reading assessment. 16.67 % scored on the at risk level on the spring 2010 reading assessment.

38.46% of the 3rd graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2010 reading assessment. 24.9% % scored on the at risk level on the spring 2011 reading assessment.

17.19% of the 5th graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2009 reading assessment. 15% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2010 reading assessment.

36.67% % of the 5th graders scored in the at risk level on the fall 2010 reading assessment. 29.67% scored on the at risk level on the spring 2011 reading assessment.

Data Analysis- WLPTII AMAO 1 (Annual Measurable Achievement Outcomes) - Annual increases in the number of percentages of children making progress in learning English.

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 1 is 96%, for 2010. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 1 is 87.3%, for 2011.

AMAO 2 - Annual increases in the number of percentages of children attaining English proficiency.

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 2 is 38% for 2010. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 2 is 33.70% for 2011.

AMAO 3- The number or percentage of students meeting AYP targets in the reading and math ELL cell (as measured by the MSP).

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 3 is 38% for 2010. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary percent meeting target for AMAO 3 is 38% for 2011.

Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey 80% of the staff felt it was almost always true or often true that A.J. has a clear and

shared focus in 2008. 51% of the staff felt it was almost always true or often true that A.J. has high standards

and expectations in 2008. This is about 15% below the elementary school average. 92% of the students felt it was almost always true or often true that their teachers expect

them to do their best in 2008.

53% of the students felt it was almost always true or often true that their teachers regularly talk with them about how they are doing in school in 2008.

91% of the parents felt it was almost always true or often true that their teachers in this school are dedicated to helping all students succeed in 2008.

61% of the parents felt it was almost always true or often true that this school has activities to celebrate different cultures, including theirs in 2008.

95% of the staff felt it was almost always true or often true that they are willing to work at changing my school the better in 2010

89% of the staff felt it was almost always true or often true that they understand the mission/purpose of the school in 2010.

54% of the staff believes that all student scan meet state reading standards in 2010. 58% of the staff believes that all students can meet state math standards in 2010. 93% of the parents felt the school is orderly and supports learning in 2010. 92% of the parents felt the school celebrates student success in 2010. 68% of the parents felt the school has activities to celebrate different cultures, including

theirs in 2010.

Achievement In 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010, A.J. Elementary met AYP in 17 out of 17

proficiency cells as well as 17 out of 17 participation cells.

MSP Reading The 3rd grade trend of results from Reading MSP shows an improvement from 80.90% in

2010 to 84.0% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages. The 4th grade trend of results from Reading MSP shows an improvement from 67.9% in

2010 to 87.5% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages. The 5th grade trend of results from Reading MSP shows a decline from 75.0% in 2010 to

61.5% in 2011, our scores are below district and state averages. The 2011 results indicated the All student group, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Low

Income group met AYP. This has been a consistent trend. 3rd grade females and males have similar performances for 2011 4th grade males out performed females in 2011, in 2010 females out performed males. 5th grade females out performed males the last two years. 3rd grade 78.6% of low income students met reading standards on MSP in 2011 vs.

90.9 % non low income achieved standards. 4th grade low income outperformed non low income by 4%, 89.2% vs. 85.2%. 5th grade 43.9% of low income students met reading standards on MSP in 2011 vs. non

low income 76.0% achieved standards.

MSP Math The 3rd grade trend of results from Math MSP shows an improvement from 67.60% in

2010 to 68.0% in 2011; our scores are above state averages.

The 4th grade trend of results from Math MSP shows an improvement from 56.40% in 2010 to 71.88% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages.

The 5th grade trend of results from Math MSP shows a decline from 71.1% in 2010 to 69.20% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages.

The 2011 results indicated the All student group, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Low Income group met AYP. This has been a consistent trend. Our challenge area is low income.

3rd grade females and males have similar performances for 2011. 4th grade males out performed females the last two years. 5th grade females out performed males in 2011, in 2010 that was the opposite 3rd grade 50.9% of non low income students met reading standards on MSP in 2011 vs.

50.0% low income achieved standards 4th grade, 64.9% of low income students met reading standards on MSP in 2011 vs.

81.8% non low income achieved standards. 5th grade, 56.1% of low income students met reading standards on MSP in 2011 vs. non


MSP Science The 5th grade trend of results from Science MSP shows an improvement from 46.7% in

2010 to 59.3% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages. 5th grade females and males have similar performances for 2011. 5th grade 70.3% of low income students met standards on science MSP in 2011 vs. non


MSP Writing The 4th grade trend of results from Writing MSP shows an improvement from 70.5% in

2010 to 71.9% in 2011, our scores are above district and state averages. 4th grade females out performed males the last two years. 4th grade, 70.3% of low income students met reading standards on Writing MSP in 2011

vs. non low income 74.1% achieved standards.

Summary Statement:

Since its opening in 2007 A.J.’s achievement trend has been one of improvement, particularly in the area of reading. We have seen improvement in the number of students meeting standards on the MSP and the number of students moving out of the intensive category based on DIBELS. For 2011-2012 we continue the focus on improving reading, and a concentrated school wide effort to improve math.

Needs Assessment Data Documents

Arthur Jacobsen Elementary Summary, 2010-2011. Attachment 1

MSP Results; Arthur Jacobsen All Trend, Grades 3-5; Line Chart, School/District/State. Attachment 2

MSP Results; Arthur Jacobsen Gender Trend, Grades 3-5; Line Chart. Attachment 3

MSP Results; Low Income vs. Non Low Income Trend, Grades 3-5, Line Chart. Attachment 4.

DIBELS Data, 2010-2011. Attachment 5

MAPS Data, 2010-2011. Attachment 6

2010 CEE Spider Chart; Comparison. Attachment 7

AYP Summary, 2010-2011. Attachment 8

AMAO Summary, 2010-2011. Attachment 9

Improvement Goals

The staff at Arthur Jacobsen analyzed the data from MSP, DIBELS, MAPS, CEE and the Olweus anti bullying survey. The information gained from this led to grade level teams writing their own SMART goals for this year. The Leadership Advisory team analyzed the grade level goals and identified trends in literacy and math across the grade levels. The SIP team took these trends and information gained through the District training and developed the school wide SMART goals.

SMART Goal 1: The average percent of students meeting standards on the state reading assessment at 3rd, 4th and 5th grade will increase by 15% from 81.2% in 2009 to 96.2% in 2012.

SMART Goal 2: The average percent of students meeting standards on the state math assessment at 3rd, 4th and 5th grade will increase by 15% from 69.6% in 2009 to 84.6% in 2012.

SMART Goal 3: As measured by the annual Olweus anti-bullying curriculum survey, A.J. will increase the percentage of students who report that they have not been bullied from 70% to 85% between 2010 and 2012. .

Highly Qualified Staff Arthur Jacobsen has 100% of its teachers meeting the NCLB highly qualified definition.

Assessment Decisions Arthur Jacobsen students are assessed using universal screenings and results on state and district wide tests. Curriculum based measures, building assessments, classroom data, existing data and other progress monitoring measures are used to screen and monitor student progress. Data based decisions on the collected data is utilized to find the best instructional approaches for students.

Assistance to Students Experiencing Difficulty Arthur Jacobson’s professional staff attended Response to Intervention Training on August 29, 2008. This began an ongoing process of implementing a multi-tiered approach to intervention. This assessment and intervention process at Arthur Jacobsen is used to systematically monitor student progress and through the work of collaborative teams make decisions about the need for instructional modifications or more intensified services using progress monitoring data.

Timeline for Planning Process A.J. finalized the SIP plan in 2008 with action steps. Teacher leaders have observed the PLC process at White River in order to facilitate the continued improvement of the A.J. PLC process. Teacher leaders who are GLAD trained are using GLAD strategies and the units they developed to make their classrooms language rich. Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade teachers completed a Read Well Survey to gage their level of understanding on Read Well testing and implementation of instruction. Some teachers are currently using Target the Question problem solving program for math and we plan on using teacher leaders to present school based professional development on teaching problem solving. Study groups set dates to meet and researched strategies that helped facilitate our goal attainment. The staff decided the best ways to utilize the building 21 hours for next year that will allow us to attain our goals. The staff will use the 3rd trimester DIBELS and MAPS data to help plan for our differentiated instruction for the fall of 2011. For 2011, the professional staff reviewed the plan in May and continued to set the focus on RTI, differentiated instruction and using data to inform instruction. In August, we completed training on RTI and a differentiated tiered reading model. We completed the data carousel as MAPS became available and completed our reading DIBELS spring data wall. SIP Teams continued to meet from September to January to further modify the action steps, with the smart goals remaining as written. The greatest amount of work went into revising the action steps for the reading plan. Drafts were completed by January. All plans were presented to the staff in February. Teams continue to meet, focusing on our new tiered instructional model, using assessments, and monitoring student achievement and our walk-to-math program. Focus on the supportive learning environment continues, and a spring Olweus survey to be administered to students by April to monitor progress. Our document is a working document, and is monitored every Fall, Winter and Spring.

Planning Implementation Calendar, 2011-2012: A master schedule will be developed that will allow us to maximize our time for PLC meetings. We will also set a schedule for staff meetings which will build in cross grade level PLC time. At the beginning of the school year we will go over MSP results and compare them to the spring benchmark data. We will assess students in reading and math at the earliest possible dates no later than September 30th using DIBELs, MAPs and grade level math assessments. Students will be identified as intensive, strategic and benchmark and then strategies and interventions will be implemented. Research teams will meet quarterly to discuss new research that will have a positive impact on student learning. Building 21 hours will be used to build the capacity of all the teachers to effectively meet the needs of AJ’s diverse learners. Throughout the year grade level teams will continue to use their PLC time to identify students who need interventions and/or enrichment.

Action Plans A.J. Elementary started this process at the beginning of the year as each grade level developed its norms for their professional learning community. With this in place the grade level teams looked over various data and developed their own SMART Goals. After this was done the leadership advisory team looked over all the SMART goals and tried to identify trends over all the grade level goals. With this information and the help of the district consultants the SIP team crafted our SMART Goals. Once the SMART Goals were written each grade level completed a current reality/preferred reality work sheet. The SIP team then took that information and looked for trends across grade levels for the strategies the staff felt would enable us to attain our goals. With the help from the district consultants the SIP team developed A.J.’s action plan. To the present day, the action plans are a working document with action plans being modified by SIP teams. Grade level teams continually modify grade-level goals based on current data and needs.

School Improvement Planning SMART Goal Worksheet

School Name: Arthur Jacobsen Elementary SMART GOAL Subject Area: Literacy

Target Population: All students at Arthur Jacobsen Elementary.

Our Reality: The average percentage of 3rd, 4th and 5th graders who passed the state reading assessment in 2009 was 81.2%

Our SMART Goal: The average percent of students meeting standards on the state reading assessment at 3rd, 4th and 5th grade will increase by 15% from 81.2% in 2009 to 96.2% in 2012.

Strategies from the District


1.a Use Professional Learning Communities within grade levels and between grade levels to increase student achievement using common assessments, interventions, and extended learning 1.a.3 Use common formative assessments aligned to power standards that prepare students for summative assessments 1.a.4 Implement a pyramid of interventions to address students not meeting standards 1.a.5 Establish extended learning models to address students who are at or beyond standards 1.b.2 Implement professional development programs that are based upon needs established in AJ’s school improvement plans 1.c.2 Use district-identified power standards developed for each grade level and content area 1.c.4 Develop a standards-based reporting tool aligned with consistent grading practices 1.c.6 Ensure all students receive exemplary instruction differentiated to meet the needs of individual learners 4.d.4 Utilize technology to support instruction, deliver local and state assessments, track student progress, and store longitudinal data for instructional decisions.

Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal

Attainment

1. Focus collaborative PLC reading work on the four critical questions a. What do we want each student to

learn?

b. How will we know when each student has learned it

c. How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

d. How will we respond when a student

already knows it?

AJ Professional Staff, PLC teams

Weekly

a. EALRS district Power Standards (future, Common Core Standards 2014-2015) b. Multiple assessments: formative, summative c. RTI, Tiers 1-3 intervention d. Tier 1 enrichment

Meet targeted MSP percentage goal Meet AYP

2. Utilize data for instructional purposes:

MSP, DIBELS, AR/STAR, MAPS a. Establish grade-level SMART goals

AJ Professional Staff

Annually (August) 3 times a year school-wide (September, January, May) progress monitoring frequency dependent on student need. 4 times a year school-wide (September, November, March, June) 3 times a year school-wide (fall, winter, spring)

MSP DIBELS (K-5 online reports and data wall) AR/STAR MAPS

Meet targeted MSP percentage goal Meet AYP DIBELS-Meet fall, winter, spring benchmarks AR/STAR on grade level or above MAPS-achieve grade-level RIT

3. Implement Tiered Instructional Reading Model a. Implement Leveled 90 Minute Core reading instruction, 30 minutes Tier

2 intervention, 30 minutes Tier 3 intervention b. Provide direct, explicit instruction focused on standard skill attainment (flexible, differentiated instructional groups and standards-based teaching and learning)

AJ Professional Staff

Fall 2011-2015 District Consultant

c. Teachers develop and administer formative assessments to standards.

d. Align curriculum materials based on

students’ tiered instructional level which is determined by assessment data

e. Teachers create individual RTI

plans for non-responsive intensive or strategic students

f. Tier 1 enrichment

c. Classroom assessment materials d. Harcourt Trophies (below, on, advanced, ELL) Harcourt Map Templates Harcourt Intervention program Read Well K, 1, Plus AR Enterprise GLAD Lessons Explode the Code/Online (ELL) Read Naturally Phonics Blitz 6 Minute Solution Rewards Early Reading Intervention Other resources, e.g. Reading A-Z, state released items, Readworks online, Scholastic 3 minute reading assessment

c. Grade-level standards are achieved d. Curriculum-based assessment targets achieved

4. Implement standards-based reporting

aligned with consistent grading practices

Teachers 2011-12 expanded pilot K-2 2012-13 expanded pilot K-3 2014-15 all grades K-5

District standard-based report card

Grade-level standards are achieved

5. Implement staff development on PLC, research-based instructional strategies, power standards/Common Core Standards, formative and summative assessments, interventions, and extended learning.

Principal Teachers Inservice Advisory Representative District Consultant

August 30, 31, September 1, 2011 2012-15

Staff training “Building Your RTI Model” Staff development according to PDTIP yearly plan.



a. Administer computerized STAR, AR, MAPS, MSP and utilize DIBELS online.

b. Utilize data charts/information for instruction, progress monitoring, and for creating flexible grouping, tiered instruction.

Principal Teachers

a. Administer to district and building testing schedule

MSP DIBELS (K-5 online reports and data wall) AR/STAR MAPS Explode the Code/ Online (ELL)


DIBELS-meet fall, winter, spring benchmarks

AR/STAR on grade level or above MAPS- achieve grade-level RIT


School Name: Arthur Jacobsen Elementary SMART GOAL Subject Area: Math

Target Population: All the students at Arthur Jacobsen Elementary

Our Reality: The average percentage of 3rd ,4th and 5th graders who passed the state math assessment in 2009 was 69.6%

Our SMART Goal: The average percent of students meeting standard on the MSP in math at third, fourth and fifth grade will increase by 15% from 69.6% in 2009 to 84.6% in 2012.



1.a.3 Develop common formative assessments aligned to the power standards that prepare students for summative assessment

1.b.1 Develop and submit school improvement plans modified in accordance with student achievement data aligned to the district

strategic improvement plan and the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools.

1.b.2 Implement professional development programs that are based upon needs established in school improvement plan


Attainment

Modification to Core Instructional Model: Standards based instruction. Use of standard based reporting to

clearly identify problem areas and tailor individual instruction accordingly.

Pilot new Math program to replace Everyday Math core to meet National Core Standards

Use supplemental math instructional material to support program.

Principal, Leadership Advisory Team, Classroom Teachers, Math Specialist

2012-2015 enVision Math, 3rd to 5th Meet targeted MSP percentage goal Meet AYP

Staff will use a variety of intervention strategies to improve student learning; possibilities include:

Small group pull-out program Individual/small group tutoring Before school/ after school/

lunchtime/ recess programs


All students assessed no later than September 30, 2011. MAPS Test

Defined time for staff discussion/ planning (CMT)

Availability of funds

Staffing (paid or volunteers with training)

Administer a valid and reliable grade level assessment to identify high risk students. Grade levels use data to identify at risk students and create interventions schedule.

Walk-to Math Model Others as suggested Technology programs (IXL,

ISucceed, etc)

Location (certificated staff supervision)

Instructional program/ materials Technology programs (IXL, ISucceed)

Progress monitoring of students at risk. Reports from technology use.

Implement effective grade level and longitudinal (cross-grade level) communication

Analyze MAPS/MSP data to determine which content strands need improved instructional strategies

Identify “at-risk” students for early intervention.

PLC & CMT


September 2011, review spring data on incoming students.

Fall, winter, and spring benchmark testing.

Year-end student performance information (may include assessment “probe” results)

MAPS/ MSP data for prior school year.

Defined time for staff discussion (CMT, PLC time as needed)

Master schedule is created to allow for grade level PLC, CMT and Longitudinal Communication Evaluate progress on formative assessments and adjust instruction.

Implement explicit computational fluency instruction

Principal, Leadership Advisory Team, Certificated Staff

Instruction: At least 2 times a week

Origo

ISucceed Math (grades 3-5 only) IXL

Kim Sutton resources Other materials as needed/ used

Students are showing significant growth on computational assessments. 85% of students will meet computational state standards on end of year, Curriculum Base Measurement.

Implement explicit problem solving instruction.

Use pre/post assessment, would need assessments designed for beginning/end of year comparison.

Principal, Leadership Advisory Team, Certificated Staff

Instruction: At least 2 times a week

Target the Question

MSP “mirror” questions

ADD

Other materials as needed/ used

85% primary students will meet problem solving state standards on end of year assessment. Intermediate students will show significant growth (5% or greater) on the Winter and Spring MAPs test

7. Implement standards-based reporting

aligned with consistent grading practices

Teachers 2011-12 expanded pilot K-2 2012-13 expanded pilot K-3 2014-15 all grades K-5

District standard-based report card

Grade-level standards are achieved

8. Implement staff development on PLC, research-based instructional strategies, power standards/Common Core Standards, formative and summative assessments, interventions, and extended learning.

Principal Teachers Inservice Advisory Representative District Consultant

August 30, 31, September 1, 2011 2012-15

Staff training “Building Your RTI Model” Staff development according to PDTIP yearly plan.



a. Administer computerized STAR, AR, MAPS, MSP and utilize DIBELS online.

b. Utilize data charts/information for instruction, progress monitoring, and for creating flexible grouping, tiered instruction.

Principal Teachers

a. Administer to district and building testing schedule

MSP DIBELS (K-5 online reports and data wall) AR/STAR MAPS Explode the Code/ Online (ELL)


DIBELS-meet fall, winter, spring benchmarks

AR/STAR on grade level or above MAPS- achieve grade-level RIT


School Name: Arthur Jacobsen Elementary SMART GOAL Subject Area:

School Climate

Target Population: All the students at Arthur Jacobsen Elementary

Our Reality: As measured by the 2009 Olweus anti-bullying curriculum survey 70% of the students felt they hadn’t been bullied at school.

Our SMART Goal: As measured by the annual Olweus anti-bullying curriculum survey, AJ will increase the percentage of students who report that they have not been bullied from 70% to 85% between 2010 and 2012.



1.b.1 Develop and submit school improvement plans modified in accordance with student achievement data aligned to the district strategic improvement plan and the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools.

1.b.2 Implement professional development programs that are based upon needs established in school improvement plan


Attainment

We will hold weekly Class Meetings and use the first six weeks to train and teach on bullying definitions, bystander responsibilities, and strategies for bystanders to respond and stop bullying.

Classroom Teachers and Counselor.

Weekly email recaps from teachers and counselor tracks on excel.

Olweus

AJ Counselor

Class Meeting Workbook

At least 85% of students will report not being bullied on Olweus Survey by 2012. Students will actively participate in weekly meetings. Teacher will do weekly meetings, and send recap of those meetings with an email to Counselor.

We will hold school wide Peaceful School Bus meetings three times a year to discuss strategies and set goals for creating a positive bus environment.

AJ Staff and Counselor.

3 meetings per school year by staff.

Peaceful School Bus Program

Olweus

AJ Counselor

At least 85% of students will report not being bullied on Olweus Survey by 2012.

Students will actively participate in tri-annual meetings.

Staff will run meetings and update Counselor on outcomes.

We will continue the Conflict Manager Program and Patrol supervision of recess using fourth and fifth grade students.

Counselor Spring training, scheduling, monitoring, and attendance tracking.

Conflict Manager Program

AJ Counselor


Students will work hard and have good attendance.

Counselor will monitor Conflict Managers and follow up on conflict agreement contracts.

We will use a Recognition Program to reward positive behavior.

AJ Staff and Counselor

Staff nominations and Counselor implementation.

Olweus

Random Acts of Kindness/ Soaring Thunderbirds


Students will follow AJ Guideline number one and show Courtesy.

Staff will nominate at least 2 kids each month for Soaring Thunderbird award.

Counselor will make awards monthly.

We will give a monthly Olweus formative assessment with a three question survey and then present to identify and perfect strategies of a no bully climate. A pre-post perception Olweus survey will be administered Fall and Spring, annually

Counselor Monthly assessments, and presents data 2 times a year. Olweus Perception survey

Olweus

AJ Counselor


Students will answer honestly.

Counselor will give monthly Olweus survey to each class.