School Strategic PlanPresentation

August 30, 20139:30 AM

School: Austell Elementary SchoolPrincipal: Dr. Marvin Bynes

JanuaryMid-Year Update: Formative Data, What's Working and What Needs to Change/Shift

June-September

School Strategic Plan

Presentations and Review

Celebrations and Achievements2013-2014

Austell Elementary School

I. Successful transition from a K-1 school to a full elementary school completed

II. High expectations for all students

III. Parent support is evident through PTA participation and other school-wide activities

IV. The school has been named a “Distinguished Title I School” for seven years

Strengths: 2013-2014 • Teachers and parents have high expectations for all students• Reading scores are consistently high at all grade levels• Teachers are trained in standards-based practices (e. g. Readers

Workshop, Writers Workshop, Math Workshop, small group instruction, student conferences, mini-lessons, CAFÉ strategies, and guided reading)

• The school has ample literacy materials• The school does a good job coordinating Title I funds to

supplement state funds for personnel and instructional materials (e.g. paraprofessionals, parent facilitator, tutors, leveled text, Fast Math software, and SRI Lexile materials

• Teachers make their lessons and curriculum maps rigorous and relevant

• The school turnover rate of staff is low (06%)

Weaknesses: 2013-2014

• Teachers need training on increasing and monitoring Lexile levels• Students are weak in the area of Number Talks• The loss of our school math coach to a neighboring school

district• There is no academic coach to assist administrators in leading

professional development activities, developing assessments, or redelivering teaching strategies from district coaching meetings

• Our inclusion teachers’ schedules are so tight that the time for supporting in depth instruction for our SPED students is not at its fullest

• The budget crunch has dwindled resources for personnel and instructional materials

Opportunities: 2013-2014

• Teachers have an understanding of assessing students which include performance tasks and extended responses because of the teachers’ past experience with the America’s Choice Program

• Fifty minutes of daily common planning time at each grade level allow teachers to plan together as a team

• The staff has developed a common language in the areas of discipline and student expectations

• The school has identified three teachers who desire to become future academic coaches. We will use these teachers as pseudo coaches who will attend district academic coaches’ meetings. The pseudo coaches will perform certain duties that an academic coach would normally perform. These duties would include providing professional development in the form of classroom strategies, data analysis, and developing common assessments

• Ninety eight percent of SPED students are in an inclusion classroom• Inclusion and GenEd teachers work well together in classrooms

Threats: 2013-2014• Large classroom sizes diminish the effectiveness of teachers to meet

the needs of students in the classroom, especially if there are serious behavior distractions in the classroom

• As a school, we focus much time preparing students for Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) and very little for Norm-Referenced Tests (NRTs)

• The Georgia CRCT assesses students’ knowledge of curriculum at a minimum with very low cut scores

• As a school, we do not have a solid NRT assessment to assess all our students at the different grade levels for rigor in order to prepare students for college and careers

• Not having an adopted math textbook as a resource for teachers is a serious threat, especially for teachers who are weak in teaching math

• Teachers need assistance in finding proper researched-based resources to support math program

Data Update: School Profile

482 Enrolled Students58% African-Americans18% Latino-Americans

17% White/Caucasian–Americans05% Multiracial

63 Employed Staff Members10 Teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree19 Teachers with a Master’s Degree 8 Teachers with Advanced Degrees

Years of Experience10 Years = 16 Staff Members

Over 10 Years of Experience = 21 Staff Members

Stakeholder Survey97% Curriculum Approval 95% Assessment Approval98% Instruction Approval

98% Planning & Organizing 98% Professional Learning

98% Leadership97% Culture97% Overall

Program Participation62 % General Education Students

10% EIP Students 05% Gifted Students

15% Students with Disabilities

Data Update: CRCT Data by Class

Spring 2013 CRCT Results by ClassStudents Met/Exceeded

Classes ELA Reading Math Sci SS

Third Grade Class A 100% 100% 91% 96% 100%

Third Grade Class B 95% 100% 76% 76% 86%

Third Grade Class C 59% 77% 35% 29% 35%

Fourth Grade Class A 90% 97% 93% 97% 90%

Fourth Grade Class B 93% 100% 77% 87% 93%

Fifth Grade Class A 79% 90% 85% 26%* 42%*

Fifth Grade Class B 95% 100% 90% 80% 70%

Fifth Grade Class C 100% 100% 100% 76% 76%

Data Update: CRCT Data by Grade

Spring 2013 CRCT Results by Grade LevelStudents Met/Exceeded

Grade Levels ELA Reading Math Sci SS

Third Grade 85% 92% 67% 67% 74%

Fourth Grade 92% 99% 85% 92% 92%

Fifth Grade 91% 97% 92% 61% 63%

Data Update: CRCT Data by Building

Spring 2013 CRCT Results by BuildingGrades 3-5 Combined

Students Met/Exceeded

Year ELA Reading Math Sci SS

2009-2010 NA NA NA NA NA

2010-2011 NA NA NA NA NA

2011-2012 NA NA NA NA NA

2012-2013 89% 96% 82% 75% 77%

Data Update: Percentage of Students Exceeding by Grade Level

Spring 2013 Percent of Students Exceeding CRCTStudents Exceeded

Grade Levels ELA Reading Math Sci SS CCRPIBenchmark

Third Grade 19% 37% 27% 18% 15% 65.7%

Fourth Grade 32% 34% 31% 26% 17% 65.7%

Fifth Grade 22% 32% 49% 21% 7% 65.7%

Total 24% 34% 36% 22% 13% 65.7%

Data Update: Percentage of Students Meeting Required Lexile Levels

Percent of Students Meeting Grade Level Lexile Score

Grade (Required

Lexile)

Reading CCRPI Benchmark

Third Grade (650)

52% 86..4%

Fourth Grade (750)

59% N/A

Fifth Grade (850)

60% 87.8%

School Total 57%

Data Update: Percentage of Students at/above 50th Percentile

FALL MATH ITBS 2012Grade Three

  

Year  

  

Test

  

Grade

Number of Students with

NPR Complete Composite Plus Computation

Score

Number of Students At or

Above 50th Percentile

  

Percentage

 2012-2013

 

 ITBS

 3

 53

 25

 47%

FALL MATH ITBS 2012Grade Five

  

Year  

  

Test

  

Grade

Number of Students with

NPR Complete Composite Plus Computation

Score

Number of Students At or

Above 50th Percentile

  

Percentage

 2012-2013

 

 ITBS

 5

 54

 22

 40%

Data Update: Math Gap Analysis

Gap Analysis – CRCT Math Scale ScoreYear Tested Offset

(30%)Upper Limit

LowerLimit

Gap

2009-2010 NA NA NA NA NA2010-2011 NA NA NA NA NA2011-2012 NA NA NA NA NA2012-2013 175 53 851 809 42

Data Update: Benchmark Assessments

Common Core Mathematics Benchmark Assessments 2013

Grade Austell Area Cobb County Schools

Quarter 2Average %

Score

Quarter 3Average % Score

Quarter 2Average % Score

Quarter 3Average Scores

Quarter 2Average % Score

Quarter 3Average % Score

Grade 1 77% 58% 68% 58% 72% 56%

Grade 2 50% 73% 57% 61% 63% 65%

Grade 3 64% 78% 64% 72% 67% 74%

Grade 4 58% 53% 51% 44% 54% 48%

Grade 5 60% 62% 61% 56% 62% 56%

Data Update: GKIDS Assessment

GKIDS 2012-2013

Mathematics % Meets/Exceeds

Numbers and Operations 77%

Measurement 81%

Geometry 77%

Data Analysis -

Math Total 79%

Data Update: Targets 2013-2014

 

CCSD School

Lexile Levels (E) 73.7% 60%

Gap closure (E) 99 35

College Ready (E) 80% 90%

Career Ready (E) 65% 100%

Advanced Academics 54.4% 06%

Stakeholder Satisfaction 88.2% 97%

Tactical Plan: Priorities of the School

Desired Results• Annually raise Lexile levels of students in grades 2-5• Annually increase math achievement for all students in grades

K-5 on CRCT, GKIDS, and benchmark assessments• Focusing on increasing the percent of students (Grades 3-5)

exceeding on CRCTHow to Accomplish Results

• More in-depth training for guided reading, utilizing more non-fiction texts during instruction, and training on Lucy Calkins Units of Study for Writing

• Instituting a ”Balanced Math” program in all classrooms in grades K-5, consisting of Math Workshop, Guided Math, and Number Talks

Tactical Plan: Monitoring Progress

Ongoing Measurements• Bi-annual DRA assessments (K-5)• Progress monitor DRA monthly and monitor SRI Lexile Growth

(Grades 3-5)• Quarterly Math and ELA Benchmark assessments (K-5)• Data collected using formal assessments • Collaborative ELA and Math planning days every third month• Targeted walkthroughs that are focused on specific areas

every four weeks

Professional Learning The data indicates improvement in the following areas:

• Conceptual math skills• Students reaching higher Lexile levels• Higher number of students reaching exceeds level on CRCT and

GKIDS• Closing the achievement gap• Moving more third and fifth grade students at or above the 50th

percentile in math on the Iowa TestsProfessional Learning Tied to Desired Results and Framework of Student Success• Training staff to use SRI progress monitoring, DRA, and formal

assessments to target strategies to raise Lexile levels• Training staff on the “Balanced Math” form and guided math• Revisit Writers Workshop and Readers Workshop• Effectively training staff in using Number Talks to increase mental

math skills• Inclusion teachers trained on how to utilize their tight time

schedules to meet the rigorous learning needs of our special education students

Professional Learning

Implementation to reflect change in teacher practices will depend on the following:• Collaborative planning among grade level team members• Vertical planning among grade levels• Using the Data Room as a source of collecting and analyzing

data in order to drive discussions of what is working and not working in our classrooms

• Having serious performance discussions with teachers individually during post evaluation conferences

Framework for School Success

Backward DesignCurriculum Maps

Essential QuestionsUnpacking Standards

Big IdeasPicasso Resources

Collaborative Team Planning Using Data

Team Planning Common Core Curriculum

District Lab ClassroomsRubric Development for Common

Core CurriculumWeekly Team Meetings

Data collection and discussions

Use of Instructional FrameworkResearched-Based Planning Based

on Common Core CurriculumWorkshop Models

Student ConferencingCollaborative Conversations

Differentiation/Flexible Grouping

ESOL/Target/Inclusion ClassesWhole Group, Small Group, and

Individual InstructionMeeting IEP Accommodations

Ongoing Assessments for Flexible Grouping

Framework for School Success

Rigor /RelevanceHigh Expectations

Differentiated InstructionStudent-Centered InstructionIntegration of Content Areas

Workshop ModelsEngaged Learning

Building RelationshipsSOAR (Cara Shores)

Weekly and Monthly NewslettersDaily Behavior Sheets

Academic NightsPTA/Family Involvement

Parent Conferences

Balanced AssessmentsBenchmarks

DRA’sRubrics for Math & Language Arts

Teacher Commentary Teacher/Student Feedback

County Report Cards

Purposeful Integration of Technology

Computer LabLap Top CartsSmart Boards

ELMOsEducational SoftwareEducational Websites

Framework for School Success

Instructional EnvironmentAcademic Centers

Print Enriched EnvironmentStandards, EQs, and Student Work Posted

Workshop Models PostedInstructional Rubrics Posted

Common Core LibrariesArtifacts Posted

Use of Researched-Based Strategies

Common Core StandardsPacing Guides

Unpacking StandardsProfessional Learning LiteratureCCSD and GADOE Frameworks

Support Needed: Tier II Support

District SupportI. Support from CCSD special education department to help

inclusion teachers develop schedules that provide effective instruction for SPED students

II. Flexibility in using Title I Funds to support school programs

III. District coaches to assist in bringing innovative researched-based strategies to teachers

In Closing: “The problem isn’t the kids. It’s not even what they can achieve. The problem is what you expect them to achieve. You are setting the bar

here. Why? Set it up here! They can make it.”The Ron Clark Story

We at Austell are about three “BIG THINGS”. This process has made these things evident.

RIGORENGAGEMENT

RELATIONSHIPS