dick scobee elementary - Auburn School District

Planning Process
Every staff member was on a committee representing one of the SIP goal areas.
Data Carousels
Wrote Statements
Prioritized strengths and challenges
Wrote SMART goals for the priorities
Math
Researched best practices and high yield strategies targeting the SMART
goals
Prioritized and selected the strategies we would focus on (i.e. pd,
instruction, etc)
Reading
Selected focused areas of need
Designed strategies, systems, and approaches to address those needs
Environment
Selected PBIS that specifically supported the SMART goal
Each team presented to the whole staff
Gained consensus
Needs Assessment
Monitor and Adjust
Communication
Building Leadership Team
Reviewed and monitored progress towards goals with feedback to
grade level teams
Staff Meetings
Reviewed and discussed at staff meeting
All professional development trainings were directly tied to SIP
MSP Trends
AMO Status
SIP Goals
SMART Goal 1:
The average percent of students in grades 3-5 meeting and/or exceeding standard based on the
state literacy test will increase from 72.3% in 2013 to 84% in 2016. (Average of 4% per year)
SMART Goal 2:
The average percent of students in grades 3-5 meeting and/or exceeding standard
based on the state math test will increase from 70.5% in 2013 to 79.3% in 2016.
(Average of 3% per year)
SMART Goal 3:
The number of ODR’s (Office Discipline Referrals) for the 2011-2012 school year were
413 (2.4 per/day). The number of ODR’s for the 2012-2013 school year were 396 (2.23
per/day). This is a decrease of 17 (.4.5%). Our goal is to reduce ODR’s to 200 (1.13
per/day) over the next three years.
Action Plans and Goals
READING
YEAR 1: 2013-2014
Implement high yield strategies for acquiring academic and Tier II vocabulary in all content areas
for grades K-5.
Implement high yield strategies for teaching comprehension K-5 in Literature and Informational
Text:
YEAR 2: 2014-2015
Summarization (oral and written)
Year 3: 2015-2016
Implement high yield strategies for teaching point of view and compare and contrast strategies
appropriate to their specific grade level as defined by the CCSS.
MATH
Implement Balance Math in kindergarten through fifth.
This is delivered through explicit instruction with modeling, guided practice, and repetition through choral
response and writing.
Implement high yield strategies for acquiring academic and Tier II vocabulary in mathematics for
grades K-5.
ENVIRONMENT
Intervention and Enrichment
Intervention
Enrichment
Reading
● Leveled CORE Groups
● Leveled Tier 2 Groups
○ Intensive - Intervention
● After School Programs
● North Auburn Partnership (NAP)
Reading
● Leveled CORE Groups
● Leveled Tier 2 Groups
○ Benchmark - Enrichment
Math
Review portion of Balanced Math
addressed deficits
Co-Teachers
Leveled Problem Solving &/or
intervention
NAP
Environment
● CICO
● Behavior Plans
● SEL Programs
● Attendance Program
Math
Technology
Leveled Problem Solving &/or
enrichment
Environment
● Attendance Program
● Scobee Awards
● Scobee Tags
● Lunch w/ the Principal
● Caught Being Good
Professional Development
Vocabulary Training with Debbie Helm and Evelyn Probert
Building wide format for introducing Tier II words
Developing a cycle of review
Assessment
Balanced Math Training with Brendan Jeffreys
Balanced Math training and modeling
Video taping lessons
VEPS Problem Solving process modeled and recorded
Posters
Kim Sutton Fact Practice
Teaching with Poverty in Mind; what being poor does to kids
brains and what schools can do about it - by Eric Jensen
SIP Effectiveness
Principal observing and coaching - 2 days week
Meetings with School Improvement Consultant provided by DSL
Instructional Coach
Bulletin Scoreboard
Peer Observations
Vocabulary templates created and shared
Instructional Technology
Turning Point Student Response Cards
IXL
MobyMax
Khan Academy
BrainPop
Starfall
Typing Tutor
Eduportal
Remind 101
Class Dojo
Planning Year 2013-2016
DICK SCOBEE ELEMENTARY
Strategic Improvement Plan
1|
2013-2016
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.
School:
DICK SCOBEE ELEMENTARY
Date of SIP Team District Improvement Goal Review:
SIP Team Members:
Adam Couch
Principal
Dave Moynihan
Counselor
PBIS Chair
Amanda Baehr
Fifth Grade Teacher
2|
Cindy Carroll
Reading Specialist
Reading SIP Chair
Dara Lindberg
First Grade Teacher
Math SIP Chair
Judy Jones
Third Grade Teacher
Writing/Science Chair
Lindsay Spears
Kindergarten Teacher
Jennifer Riestra
Second Grade
Teacher
Beth Raines
Fourth Grade Teacher
Executive Summary
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
Motto: Only as far as we dream can we go!
At Dick Scobee Elementary School, we empower students to learn – no excuses!
We are committed to our belief statements:
 Students and staff will pursue learning and will meet high standards.
 All students must take an active part in their education.
 Students learn best when students, parents, and staff work together.
 High expectations and hard work lead to success.
 Each and every individual will be held in high regard and treated with respect by
students, staff and community.
 A safe and healthy environment promotes learning.
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, WELPA, Credit
Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or
HSPE.
5|
Dick Scobee SIP Process
Our SIP teams met on a monthly basis in sub groups (reading/math/pbis). Data was reviewed
by the SIP team and shared with staff at data carousels/reviews. Committees researched,
developed action steps or SMART Goals and an Action Plan was developed. The plan was
shared with staff for agreement and approval.
Demographic Data
Students served by Dick Scobee Elementary school represent some of the greatest challenges in
the Auburn School District. Over eighty-three percent of all students qualify for free and
reduced lunch; family mobility rate is thirty-eight percent; and over twenty-eight percent of our
students qualify for ELL (English Language Learners) services. As of October first 2011, Dick
Scobee Students were 11.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, 8.2% black, 28.3% Hispanic, 46.2% White,
and 6% Two or More Races. A large portion of our parents are residents of a King County
Housing Authority apartment complex. Many of these families speak little to no English at
home creating a greater challenge than our student percentages would indicate. Trends for
demographics for the last 5 years are described in the table below:
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Free/Reduced
61.6%
68.3%
73.8%
77.6%
82.3%
Lunch
ELL
20.4%
24.7%
27.5%
29.4%
25.7%
White
53.5%
49.2%
49%
46.2
45.5%
Discipline and Attendance Analysis
There was limited to no data collected officially for discipline prior to the 2011 2012 school-year. During the 2011-2012 school year there were 413 office
referrals recorded in Skyward (2.4 per/day). In 2012-2013, there were 351
recorded as of 5-23-2013 (2.25 per/day). More specifically, there was a decrease
from 238 referrals from the playground to 57 (2011 -2012 year to 2012-2013 year).
During 2010-2011 School year, there was an average monthly attendance rate of
92%. This went to 93% during 2011-2012 and 94.5% in 2012-2013. In 2010-2011,
there was an average of 115 tardy students per week. This decreased to an
average of 92 per week in 2011-2012 and 84 in 2012-2013.
Attendance has been a challenge in this building as far back as working memory and data can
track. In the last 15 months many steps have been taken to address this issue, and while the
growth in this area is slow, any additional minutes of seat time that is increased makes a
significant difference for that child.
6|
Assessment Decisions
In reading, DIBELS is our primary filter for establishing leveled reading CORE groups as well as
our Tier II leveled reading groups. Both words per minute and accuracy data are analyzed for
these decisions. While DIBELS is the primary filter in K-2, grades 3-5 use MAPS and MSP scores
for additional information. All grade levels use Common Formative Assessments to make
instructional decisions regarding the progress of students and/or need for additional
remediation. At various grade levels additional diagnostic assessments are used to target
specific deficits for students for the purpose of targeted assistance.
In math, Common Formative Assessments, Unit Pre-Assessments, and Unit Summative
Assessment are used for grades k-5. MAPS and MSP results are also analyzed for systemic
needs and targeted support.
Data Analysis- DIBELS
The gains in Benchmark students at most grade levels meets or surpasses the
number of Benchmark students in the past 2 years. Although we have an
increasing number of incoming Intensive students in Kindergarten, we continue to
make gains in the number of Benchmark students by the middle an d end of year. In
winter, 74% of our Kinders were at Benchmark on Nonsense Word Fluency, and
69% were Benchmark on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. The additional subtest of
ORF in mid-year first grade continues to be a challenge; however we still had 52%
of our students meet Benchmark on the ORF. In winter, 87% of our students were
Benchmark on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and 58% were benchmark on
Nonsense Word Fluency. Out first graders have a strong sense of phonemic
awareness which is allowing them to move into connected text earlier in the sc hool
year. At the second grade level, we more than doubled the number of Benchmark
students (74%) as measured by the winter Dibels than in previous years. A little
over half of our students in grades 3 through 5 met the winter Benchmark. There
has been a significant increase in the accuracy of readers in grades 2 through 5,
which may be reflected in the reduced rates .
7|
2012-2013
Instructional Recommendation
Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kinder
Beginning
Middle
End
41%
15%
31%
36%
28%
48% 20%
Grade 1
Beginning
Middle
End
13%
7%
29%
42%
59%
52% -7%
Grade 2
Beginning
Middle
End
21%
22%
22%
3%
57%
74% 17%
Grade 3
Beginning
Middle
End
20%
22%
35%
25%
45%
52% 7%
Grade 4
Beginning
Middle
End
31%
22%
21%
22%
48%
56% 8%
Grade 5
Beginning
Middle
End
24%
29%
28%
16%
47%
55% 8%
PLC YEAR 2
8|
2011-12
CORE READING: YEAR 3
Instructional Recommendation
Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kinder
Beginning
Middle
End
30%
10%
13%
45%
37%
8%
25%
54% 19%
79%
Grade 1
Beginning
Middle
End
12%
9%
12%
28%
24%
17%
60%
67% 7%
70%
Grade 2
Beginning
Middle
End
34%
29%
24%
26%
23%
26%
40%
48% 8%
50%
Grade 3
Beginning
Middle
End
24%
25%
22%
25%
17%
36%
51%
58% 7%
42%
Grade 4
Beginning
Middle
End
40%
23%
28%
21%
31%
32%
40%
47% 7%
41%
Grade 5
Beginning
Middle
End
22%
29%
33%
28%
26%
23%
51%
45% -6%
44%
9|
Data Analysis- MAPS
Our fall MAPS scores showed our third grade mean RIT score of 186 which puts
them into the 28%tile. Our fourth graders scored a mean RIT of 199 (30%tile) and
our fifth graders a mean RIT of 202 (36%tile). Winter MAPS scores indicate
students at grades 3 and 5 are making gains (3rd: 7.9/ 4 th : 0.0/ 5 th : 3.9).Fifth
grade’s gain of 3.9 from fall to winter has already exceeded their total annual gain
of 3.4 last year. Comprehension continues to be a challenge at every grade level,
particularly for our struggling students.
2012-2013
CORE READING: YEAR 4
(PLC: Year 3)
MEAN RIT SCORE
Fall
Winter
Spring
NET
CHANGE
Grade 3
Reading
186 (28%tile)
193.9
7.9
Grade 4
Reading
199 (39%tile)
199.0
0.0
Grade 5
Reading
202 (36%tile)
205.9
3.9
MSP/HSPE Reading
Our MSP scores continue to fluctuate from year to year rather than consistently
showing an upward trend. The number of fourth grade students meeting standard
exceeded the state percentage, while third and fifth graders were below the state
percentage. The trend for third grade is to perform better on informational text,
while the opposite is true of our fourth and fifth graders. Last year was a
challenging year for third graders. They significantly dropped in every measure of
comprehension, while fourth graders made significant gains in every measure of
comprehension. Fifth graders made gains in every area except comprehension of
text.
10 |
READING
3rd
4th
5th
SKILL SUBSET
Analysis of Text
2008-09
2009-10
73.8%
57.9%
68.2%
66.7%
62.9%
37.9%
2010-11
80.8% (state 73.1%)
58.1% (state 67.3%)
68.2% (state 67.7%)
3rd
4th
5th
67.9%
51.4%
56.1%
Comprehension
75.6%
54.1%
77.3%
Literary Text
75.6%
59.5%
65.2%
Informational
Text
80.8%
55.4%
54.5%
201112
66.2% (state 68.8%)
77.3% (state 71.5%)
67.2% (state 71.1%)
rd
3
4th
5th
58.2
60.0
58.7%
%
%
70.1
65.3
60.3%
%
%
59.7
66.7
61.9%
%
%
70.1
76.0
52.4%
%
%
STAR Reading
Although students in grades two and five are increasing in their GE from fall 2012 to winter
2013, they have decreased in the National Percentile Rank. Our students in grades three and
four have made significant gains in both GE and NPR. Comparing last year to this current school
year, second graders made some improvement (28 NPR to 31 NPR), third and fifth graders
showed the same NPR scores in winter 2013 as they did in winter 2012 (2nd: 37 NPR/ 5th: 32
NPR). Fourth graders showed the most improvement with a winter 2012 NPR of 35 and a 2013
NPR of 45.
2012-13
Avg. GE
NP
CHANGE
Grade 2
Beginning
Middle
End
2.0
2.2
40%tile
31%tile
0.2
Grade 3
Beginning
Middle
End
2.5
3.0
28%tile
37%tile
0.5
Grade 4
Beginning
Middle
End
3.7
4.5
39%tile
45%tile
0.8
11 |
Grade 5
Beginning
Middle
End
4.4
4.8
36%tile
32%tile
0.4
2011-12
Avg. GE
NP
Grade 2
Beginning
Middle
End
1.6
2.1
2.4
21%tile
28%tile
28%tile
Grade 3
Beginning
Middle
End
2.7
3.2
3.6
36%tile
37%tile
36%tile
CHANGE
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.9
Grade 4
Beginning
Middle
End
3.2
3.8
4.1
27%tile
35%tile
31%tile
0.6
0.3
0.9
Grade 5
Beginning
Middle
End
4.8
5.1
5.5
40%tile
32%tile
33%tile
0.3
0.4
0.7
Our analysis of data concluded that in almost every area measured on the MSP our third,
fourth, and fifth grade scores have a positive trajectory with the way they are trending. Our
female students consistently outperform our male students, and that “Problem
Solving/Reasoning” is the area in which our students do not meet standard most often.
We have made gains with many of our minority populations such as special education and ELL
students in the areas of “Number Sense” and “Geometric Sense/Measurement.” We infer from
the data that vocabulary is an area that would greatly assist these students in the other two
strands.
12 |
MATH
Percent Meeting Standard
90
79.1
80
71.4
70
60
50
40
50.7
50
43.1
57.6
54.1
62.7
55.6
3rd
4th
5th
30
20
10
0
2010
2011
2012
Percent Performing Similar as Those Meeting Standard (Number Sense/Algebraic)
90
79.1
80
71.4
70
60
50
40
50.7
50
43.1
57.6
54.1
62.7
55.6
4th
5th
30
20
10
0
2010
13 |
3rd
2011
2012
Percent Performing Similar as Those Meeting Standard (Measurement/Geometric
Sense/Statistics)
90
79.1
80
71.4
70
60
50
40
50.7
50
57.6
54.1
62.7
55.6
3rd
4th
43.1
5th
30
20
10
0
2010
2011
2012
Percent Performing Similar as Those Meeting Standard (Problem Solving/Reasoning)
90
79.1
80
71.4
70
60
50
40
50.7
50
57.6
54.1
62.7
55.6
4th
43.1
5th
30
20
10
0
2010
14 |
3rd
2011
2012
Percent Performing Similar as Those Meeting Standard (Procedures/Concepts)
90
79.1
80
71.4
70
60
50
40
57.6
54.1
50.7
50
62.7
55.6
3rd
4th
43.1
5th
30
20
10
0
2010
2011
2012
CEE Perceptual Survey
The CEE Perceptual Survey demonstrated significant gains in the affirmative direction for
almost every item. The one area that we continue to struggle in is Parent Involvement,
Communication, and Cultural Sensitivity.
With only a year-and-a-half of data collection on discipline, our analysis may be limited. What
we do know is that the data we analyzed is our current reality, and from that we can make
informed decisions. After the first year of data collection there were many steps taken in
response the high volume of office referrals that came from the playground. These steps
resulted in a reduction of approximately 75%.
15 |
Strengths
READING & ELA
Despite an increasing number of ELL students, children are exiting Kindergarten to
enter first grade with a stronger knowledge of phonemic awareness. We have
experienced significant increases in the number of students meeting benchmark by
the end of Kindergarten even with two additional subtests in t he spring testing.
Students are also entering first grade with more ability to decode nonsense words.
This is allowing first grade teachers to move into connected text much earlier than
in the past. That is evident in our current Winter Dibels Benchmark scores.
Students in grades two through five have significantly increased their Oral Reading
Fluency accuracy as evidenced by our fall and winter Dibels Benchmark scores. This
is contributing to the increase in their capability to retell. Successful
differentiation during CORE Reading, the use of explicit phonics/decoding
instruction, and consistent progress monitoring are helping to ensure the
continuation of increasing the number of benchmark readers.
MATHEMATICS
5 th Grade Celebrations
 The strand in which the most 5 th graders met standard for all three years
was Measurement and Geometric Sense.
 There was a 12% increase in the number of students that met standard for
Geometric Sense from 10 to 12.
 Measurement and Geometric Sense was the stron gest strand in terms of ELL
students meeting standard for all three years.
 There was a 12% increase in the number of students that met standard for
Procedures and Concepts from 10 to 12.
 Our male 5 th graders have made gains of at least 25% in all four str and
areas.
16 |
4 th Grade Celebrations
 Number Sense grew from 35% to 64% from 2010 to 2012.
 Number Sense went from being the weakest strand to the strongest strand.
 30% more of our Special Education Students met standard in 2012 than in
2010.
 The boys have made significant gains in math.
 Procedures and Concepts is the strand in which the most 4 th grade male
students met standard
 Procedures and Concepts was the strand in which the most students met
standard for all three years.
3 rd Grade Celebrations
 Problem Solving has improved from 44% to 61% 2010 to 2012.
 Procedures and Concepts improved from 50.7% of our 3 rd graders meeting
standard to 79.1% from 2010 to 2012.
 The number of our 3 rd graders meeting standard on Number Sense/Algebraic
Sense improved from 48% to 65%.
 Male third graders met standard in Procedures and Concepts at a higher rate
than any other strand.
 Female 3 rd graders perform better in Geometric Sense/Measurement than
any other strand
 42.9% more of our Special Education Students met standard for Number
Sense/Algebraic Sense in 2012 than in 2010.
 Special education improved from 0% to 71.4% in Procedures and Concepts
from 2010 to 2012.
17 |
SUPPORTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
 Supportive Learning Environment went from 32% in 2010 to 52% in 2012
(almost always true).
 12% of staff in 2010 felt “Students are engaged in learning”. In 2012
50% of staff believed this to be almost always true.
 Clear and Shared Focus went from 38% in 2 010 to 47% in 2012.
 “The staff demonstrate commitment to our goals” grew to 53% in
2012. Only 16% of stuff believed this to be true in 2010.
 Collaboration & Communication grew to 39% in 2012, up from just 18% in
2010.
 “Staff collaborate to improve studen t learning” went from 32% in
2010 to 50% in 2012.
 The total number of office discipline referrals (ODR’s) have decreased from
357 in 2011-2012 to 351 in 2012-2013. That is an average of 2.33/day in
2011-2012 down to 2.29 in 2012-2013.
 Categorically, “Horseplay” was the coded offense with the second highest
frequency with 45 (11%) in 2011-2012. There were zero referrals for that
offense in 2012-2013.
 The number of playground referrals decreased from 205 (62.6% or 1.34/day)
in 2011-2012 to 57 (15.5% or .37/day) in 2012-2013. This is a decrease of
47.1%.
18 |
Prioritized Challenges
READING/ELA
Vocabulary – Implement an instructional template that explicitly teaches
vocabulary.
Vocabulary acquisition continues to be a challenge for most of our students,
especially the increasing number of ELL students at our school. This statement
is based on STAR scores as well as observations of speaking and student writing
pieces.
 STAR: 2nd Grade went from the 40%tile in Fall to the 31%tile in Winter.
 5th Grade level went from the 36%tile in Fall to 32%tile in Winter.
Comprehension - Strengthen strategies for analyzing and comprehending
text
Our fluctuating MSP and MAPS scores indicate inconsistent performance on
measurements of comprehension and analysis using both informational and
expository texts. For example, our fifth grade students continue to lag behind
both the district AND state in their comprehension and analysis of
informational and literary text. (Students who do pass the MSP, generally score
a Level 3 vs. Level 4.)
We need to engage students in reading high -quality texts in a variety of genres
closely and critically by teaching research -proven reading comprehension
strategies using gradual release of resp onsibility approaches.
Retell vs. Summary – Explicitly teach the definition of each, comparing how
they are alike and different. Model and teach how to give an excellent oral
retell and how to tell or write an excellent summary. Create and
implement school wide rubrics for measuring the quality of student retells
and summaries.
Many of our teachers and most of our students have confusion about how to
give a retell and how to write/give a summary of text. This statement is based
on on-going teacher dialogue with peers at their grade level as well as with
their cross-grade colleagues. Research shows that effective summarizing is part
of critically thinking deeper about text.
19 |
Gender Gap- Incorporate movement opportunities as part of the learning
process, provide male reading role models, provide boys with topics and
genres that are of interest to them (in connection to texts, assignments,
read alouds, classroom libraries).
This is a trend that permeates grades three through five as we look at MSP
results over the last 5-7 years. We know there may be a variety of causes such
as the brain development of boys, interest level of the texts, apprehension
about writing responses, and lack of motivation and interest in reading.
 3rd & 4th Grades: Girls have outperformed boys on MSP for at least the
past 6 years. Boys that do pass, generally score a Level 3. (Never been a
year where there has been more Level 4’s than 3’s.)
 5th Grade: Girls outperforming boys for 5 out of the last 7 years on the
MSP.
MATHEMATICS
5 th Grade Challenges

Problem Solving is the strand in which the least amount of 5 t h graders
have met standard for each year from 10 -12.

There was a 10% decrease in the number of students meeting standard in
number sense from 11 to 12.

Number Sense and Algebraic Sense is the biggest weakness for our
students with IEP’s.
4 th Grade Challenges

Problem Solving is the weakest strand for our 4 th graders.
3 rd Grade Challenges
20 |

Problem Solving has been the weakest strand for all three years.

There have been no gains in the Geometric Sense strand for our Special
Education students from 2010 to 2012.

Problem Solving is the most significant challenge for our ELL students.
POSITIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT









Parent and Community Involvement. 39% of the staff felt this was a
challenge for our school in 2012.
Only 7% staff felt the statement “This school has activities to celebrate
the diversity of this community” was almost always true (2012).
Focused Professional Development. 27% of staff felt this was a challenge
for our school in 2012.
20% of staff believes “We are provided training to meet the needs of a
diverse student population”.
Monitoring of Teaching and Learning. 24% of staff felt this was a
challenge for our school in 2012.
17% of staff feel peer observation and feedback is used to improve
instruction.
ODR’s for “Multiple Offenses” increased from 26 (6.34%) recorded in
2011-2012 to 81 (20.51%) in 2012-2013.
ODR’s for “Non-Compliance” rose from zero in 2011 -2012 to 47 (11.9%)
in 2012-2013.
Our ODR data for race is not proportionate to our racial demographic
data.
Study Teams
(Each study team should consider parent/community involvement, cultural competency and integration of technology as potential strategies in
each goal area e.g. How can parent involvement, cultural competence and technology assist the school in meeting its reading goal?)
Literacy Goal Group: Cindy Carroll, Jennifer Riestra, Tim Pfab, Glenn Jenkins,
Debbie Helm,
Reading Goal Group Research Materials:
Vocabulary: Exposing students to many words at the surface level is not
enough (Beck, McKeown &Kucan, 2002; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Graves,
2006). Although the National Reading Panel has concluded that there is
no one single vocabulary instruction method will result in optimal
learning, explicitly teaching vocabulary has been shown to increase
students’ ability to understand new content by 12 percentile points
(Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Research documents the strong link and
reciprocal relationship between vocabulary kn owledge and text
comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Beck, 2002; Nagy, 2007;
Stahl & Fairbanks, 1987). Studies have shown that s tudents’ achievement
will increase by 33 percentile points when vocabulary instruction focuses
on specific words that are important to what they are learning. Research
on ELLs also indicates that vocabulary knowledge predicts academic
achievement across the curriculum (Saville -Troike, 1984; Snow & Kim,
2007). Effective vocabulary instruction incorporates both direct ( teach
specific words, direct instruction, word roots and affixes, read alouds,
21 |
pre teach vocab, deep processing of words ) and less direct approaches
(use context clues, encourage wide reading, engage in high quality oral
language, cultivate an interest in words (Baker, 1995; Beck, 2002;
Biemiller, 2004; Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004; Marzano, 2004; Nagy,
2005, Stahl, 1999). Students must encounter words in context more than
once to learn them. (repetition and multiple exposures in a variety of
contexts.) In essence, more exposure results in more understanding. Use
read alouds/think alouds to expose students to higher -level vocabulary
than they may read independently by providing word explanations during
the read. There is a need to explicitly teach vocabulary terms that are
critical to students’ understanding of new content. It is vital to identify
appropriate words to teach (Tier 1, 2, 3) and provide student -friendly
definitions. Vocabulary words should be those that the learner will find
useful in many contexts. Direct teaching helps students to develop in depth knowledge of words (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). When
students receive instruction on words prior to encountering them in
context, their ability to comprehend these words increases by a factor of
one-third. Effective vocabulary instruction also includes active
engagement in learning tasks, motivation to learn and use words, and the
development of independent word-learning strategies including the use
of context clues, the use of word parts, and the efficien t use of the
dictionary. An effective way to learn a new word is to associate an image
with it (nonlinguistic representations such as pictographs, mental
images, pantomimes, pictures, videos) National Reading Technical
Assistance Center 2010 Computer technology can also be used
effectively to help teach vocabulary.
Comprehension:
1.) Retelling & Summarizing:
Speaking, listening
Children develop the ability to retell a story with a logical sequence of
events between the ages of two and five. Children who have problems
retelling stories seem to be more likely to have problems with reading
comprehension in later years. Repeated practice in retelling —even with
minimal teacher instruction—improves reading comprehension, with
transfer to future reading tasks.
Retelling is considered an oral event, and is a prerequisite to
summarizing. A retell should include key points and details (narrative:
setting, characters, problem, sequence of events, resolution;
informational: topic, main ideas, details, organization, k ey vocab.).
(Kissner)
Summarizing, an oral or written event, is a shortened version of an
22 |
original text that requires higher order thinking (synthesis, evaluation. It
should include all the main ideas and important details, while reflecting
the structure and order of the original text. (Kissner)



Gender Gap
Brain research has found that certain areas of the male brain do not
develop at the same rate or even in the same sequence as the female
brain. The female brain matures sooner than the male brain, and certain
areas of the brain do not develop to the same degree in one gender as
compared with the other. These brain design differences are what create
some of the external behaviors and attitudes that we see in boys and
girls. Gender research of the brain implies the need for movement in
males, which stimulates boys’ brains and enhances their ability to learn
(Guriar & Henley, 2001).
Boys do not read or enjoy reading as much as girls
Boys enjoy reading different materials. Girls are twice as likely as boys to
read fiction for enjoyment. They are more likely to read text messages,
magazines, animal-related books, lyrics and poems. By contrast, more
boys than girls read newspapers, science fiction/fantasy, sports-related
books, manuals, joke books, humorous fiction and comic books. (National
Literacy Trust)
How teachers can get boys motivated:
Provide role models, appeal to the interests of boys (read aloud
selections, balance fiction and nonfiction in class libraries), make literacy
relevant; provide choice of reading and writing tasks.
Effective comprehension instruction includes explicitly teaching students how
to use research-based reading comprehension strategies (strong evidence), how
to identify and use text’s organizational structure (moderate evidence), guiding
students through focused, high-quality discussion on the meaning of text
(minimal evidence), and establishing an engaging and motivating context in
which to teach reading comprehension (moderate evidence) . Creating an
engaging, motivating context includes helping students discover the purpose
and benefits of reading, creating opportunities for students to see themselves
as successful readers, giving students reading choices, and providing
opportunities for students to learn by c ollaborating with their peers (moderate
evidence). (What Works Clearinghouse/Institute of Education Sciences)
Build disciplinary and world knowledge by providing exposure to a volume and
variety of texts. (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, Billman)
Strong evidence: Provide explicit vocabulary instruction. The probability that
students will leanr new words while reading is relatively low —about 15%.
(Swanborn and de Glopper)
23 |
Writing Goal Group Research Materials:
The CCSS Writing Standards strongly emphasize the need for students to
learn to write about the information that they find in text. This is in line
with recent research suggesting that writing about texts and engaging in
the act of writing text increase reading comprehension. Students will
need to know how to summarize text, critically analyze the information
reported in texts, and synthesize information from multiple texts, using
what is drawn from sources as evidence in support of students’ own
ideas. Recommendations include:
1. Provide opportunities for students to write in response to reading
across the curriculum.
2. Provide research opportunities that involve reading both print and
digital texts, and that require writing in response to reading.
3. Provide teachers with professional development in teaching
students how to write the types of texts required in the CCSS.
Math Goal Group: Dara Lindberg, Lindsay Spears, Amanda Brooks, Tiffany Mattox,
Amanda Baehr, and LeAnn Ringler
Math Goal Group Research Materials:
Fact Fluency Program: Math fact fluency is the ability to recall the answers
to basic math facts automatically and without hesitation. Students must
first gain a conceptual understanding of the operations, then be taught
specific computational strategies and practice in untimed settings , and
finally develop fluency through times assessments. (Spear -Swerling, 2006)
Fact fluency allows students to solve complex problems without cognitive
overload taking place due to lack of fact fluency. (Woodward, 2006;
Cummings & Elkins, 1999; Pellegrino & Goldman, 1987; Hasselbring, Goin, &
Bransford, 1988)
Building-wide Problem Solving Strategy: Using a building wide approach
to problem solving will improve and streamline vocabulary instruction and
increase the fidelity of instruction across classrooms. This involves the
process of teaching students how to define the problem, identify and
prioritize possible solutions, and evaluating the outcome. (Mellinger, 1991).
We will use “USA ” (Understand, Solve, Answer, Check). This strategy includes the
four essential tenants supported in the meta-analysis of research on this topic.
(Marcucci, 1980). When students are taught this with deep understanding, there is an
effect size of .61. (Hattie, 2009)
Common Formative Assessments: When teachers are required to use data
and evidence based models, effect sizes were higher than when data were
evaluated by teacher judgment.
In addition, when the data was graphed, effect sizes were higher than when
data were simply recorded. The effect size of using these assessments
24 |
systematically is .90. (Hattie, 2009)
Acceleration: One of the most powerful strategies available is
“Acceleration.” This means that the system intentionally looks for ways to
allow students to work ahead in the content if and when they are ready.
“Accelerated instruction enables bright students to work with their mental
peers on learning tasks that match their abilities” (Kulik & Kulik, 1984b, p.
84). It has an effect size of .88. (Hattie, 2009)
Micro Teaching: Microteaching typically involves teachers conducting
lessons to a small group of students and then engaging in post discussions
about the lessons.
They are usually video taped for later analysis and allow for an intense view
of their teaching and/or to model expected instruction. This has an effect
size of .88. (Hattie, 2009)
Teacher Clarity: It is important for the teacher to communicate the
intentions of the lessons and the notions of what success means for these
intentions.
Teacher clarity is defined as organization, explanation, examples and guided
practice, and assessment of student learning . (Fendick 1990) Ensuring that
students fully comprehend the learning target and what they will have to do
to demonstrate mastery has an effect size of .75. (Hattie, 2009)
Feedback: When feedback is combined with a correctional review, feedback
and instruction become intertwined until “the process itself takes on the
forms of new instruction, rather than informing the student solely about
correctness” (Kulhavy, 1977, p.212).
“Feedback is information with which a learner can confirm, add to,
overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that
information is domain knowledge, meta -cognitive knowledge, beliefs about
self and tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies” (Winne & Butler, 1994,
p.5740). This specific type of feedback when provide d consistently has an
effect size of .73. (Hattie, 2009)
Piagetian Programs: Knowing the ways in which students think, and how
this thinking may be constrained by their stages of development may be
most important to how teachers choose materials and tasks , how the concept
of difficulty and challenge can be realized in different tasks, and the
importance of developing successive and simultaneous thinking (Naglieri &
Das, 1997; Sweller, 2008). We are not prescribing a “specific” program be
adopted but rather that the staff receive professional development around
the concepts and understanding pertinent to their instruction with kids.
Self-Reported Grades: Students need to have an estimate of their own
performance-typically formed from past experiences in learning. While the
results of this strategy vary based on age, there is strong data to support the
notion that this is a powerful strategy for all students. When used with
fidelity, the effect size is 1.44. (Hattie, 2009)
25 |
Supportive Learning Environment Goal Group: Dave Moynihan, Beth Raines,
Heather Clerget, Liz Gibson-Meyers, Allison Kihara, Lori Adams, Judy Jones, Sarah
Lysene
Supportive Learning Environment Research Materials:
Evidence-based practices have been demonstrated in formal research studies to be related to valued
outcomes for children and their families.
Any claim that a practice or procedure is “evidence-based” should be framed in the context of (a) explicit
description of the procedure/practice, (b) clear definition of the settings and implementers who use the
procedure/practice, (c) identification of the population of individuals who are expected to benefit, and (d)
the specific outcomes expected. Given this context, the research involving the practice/procedure may be
reviewed, and an array of criteria have been proposed by different agencies and organizations (c.f.
American Psychological Association, What Works Clearinghouse, SAMSA, Institute for Education Science)
for how this literature may be examined to determine the level of experimental rigor, and the confidence
with which any statement about “evidence-based” effects can be claimed. A summary of suggestions for
defining evidence-based practices from Quantitative (Gersten et al., 2005), Correlational (Thompson et
al., 2005) and Single Subject (Horner et al., 2005) research methods was reviewed for educational
literature in special section of Exceptional Children (Odom et al., 2005).
We provide here (a) the citations defining the context content for SWPBS, (b) the current status of
evidence for each of the three tiers of the SWPBS approach (Primary Prevention, Secondary Prevention,
Tertiary Prevention), and (c) summary of current and expected directions.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support
School-wide Positive Behavior Support is a systems approach to establishing the social culture and
behavioral supports needed for all children in a school to achieve both social and academic success.
SWPBS is not a packaged curriculum, but an approach that defines core elements that can be achieved
through a variety of strategies. The core elements at each of the three tiers in the prevention model are
defined below:
Prevention Tier
Core Elements

Primary



26 |
Behavioral Expectations Defined
Behavioral Expectations Taught
Reward system for appropriate behavior
Continuum of consequences for problem behavior

Continuous collection and use of data for decisionmaking

Universal screening
Progress monitoring for at risk students
System for increasing structure and predictability
System for increasing contingent adult feedback
System for linking academic and behavioral
performance
System for increasing home/school communication
Collection and use of data for decision-making


Secondary








Tertiary

Functional Behavioral Assessment
Team-based comprehensive assessment
Linking of academic and behavior supports
Individualized intervention based on assessment
information focusing on (a) prevention of problem
contexts, (b) instruction on functionally equivalent
skills, and instruction on desired performance skills,
(c) strategies for placing problem behavior on
extinction, (d) strategies for enhancing contingence
reward of desired behavior, and (e) use of negative
or safety consequences if needed.
Collection and use of data for decision-making
The core elements of SWPBS are integrated within organizational systems in which teams, working with
administrators and behavior specialists, provide the training, policy support and organizational supports
needed for (a) initial implementation, (b) active application, and (c) sustained use of the core elements
(Sugai & Horner, in press).
Is there evidence indicating that SWPBS can be implemented with fidelity and is related to improved
social and/or academic outcomes for students?
Among the most rigorous standards for documenting that a practice/procedure is “evidence-based” is
demonstration of at least two peer-reviewed randomized control trial research studies that document
experimental control.To meet this standard the practice/procedure must be operationally defined, there
must be formal measures of fidelity, there must be formal outcome measures, and these elements must
be used within a randomized control trial group research design.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Todd, A., Nakasato, J., & Esperanza, J., (in press). A
27 |
Randomized Control Trial of School-wide Positive Behavior Support in Elementary Schools.Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions.
Bradshaw, C.,Koth, C., Bevans, K., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. (in press). The impact of school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary
schools.School Psychology Quarterly.
Bradshaw, C., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K., & Leaf, P. (2008).Implementation of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations
from a randomized trial.Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P. (in press).Examining the effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized
controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.
Wagner, M., Sumi, C., et al., (under consideration). Effectiveness Study of School-wide Positive
Behavior Support.
28 |
SMART Goal 1:
The average percent of students in grades 3-5 meeting and/or exceeding standard based
on the state literacy test will increase from 72.3% in 2013 to 84% in 2016. (Average of 4%
per year)
SMART Goal 2:
The average percent of students in grades 3 -5 meeting and/or exceeding standard
based on the state math test will increase from 70.5% in 2013 to 79.3% in 2016.
(Average of 3% per year)
SMART Goal 3:
The number of ODR’s (Office Discipline Referrals) for the 2011 -2012 school
year were 413 (2.4 per/day). The number of ODR’s for the 2012 -2013 school
year were 396 (2.23 per/day). This is a decrease of 17 (.4.5%). Our goal is to
reduce ODR’s to 200 (1.13 per/day) over the next three years.
29 |
SMART Goal 1
Subject Area: READING
School Name:
Dick Scobee Elementary School
Target Population- based on
All students at Dick Scobee Elementary
demographic, discipline and attendance
data analysis:
Our Reality-based on assessment
data analysis:
Our SMART Goal-based on
target population and your reality:
Student population significantly changes which is reflected in fluctuating test scores from year to year.
However, the number of students who speak a second language at home continues to increase.
The average percent of students in grades 3-5 meeting and/or exceeding standard based on the state
literacy test will increase from 72.3% in 2013 to 84% in 2016. (Average of 4% per year)
Action Plan
Action Steps
Evidence of
Implementation
Evidence of Impact
Sequential- what
comes first?
( 3-5 Action Steps)
YEAR 1:
Implement
high yield
strategies for
acquiring
academic and
Tier II
vocabulary in
all content
areas for
grades K-5.
30 |
Resources
Responsibilities
Professional
Development
Examples include:
PLC, Building 21, CEE
data, Power Standards
All teachers will implement
and regularly use a consistent
format for introduction of
high yield academic words.
Students
comprehension scores
on state and/or
national assessments
will increase. Each
Teachers will implement a
trimester STAR,
cycle of continuous review of MAPS, and DIBELS
academic and Tier II
data will be analyzed
vocabulary.
for evidence of
student growth.
Teachers will incorporate the
structured use of academic
CFA’s and student
vocabulary into their lessons. responses will be
PLC Time/ Building
21
August In-service/
Staff Meetings
Science, Social Studies
texts
Instructional Routine
Cards
Principal
August Training
SIP/BLT
Staff meetings (one per
trimester)
Teachers and Paraeducators
PLC meetings
Debbie Helm
established a list of
40 academic
vocabulary words.
Grade level teams
Teachers will incorporate
academic vocabulary in
grade level common
assessments.
CORE and Tier II will focus
on consistent implementation
of foundation skills:
phonemic awareness,
phonics/word recognition
&fluency.
YEAR 2:
Implement
high yield
strategies for
teaching
comprehension
K-5 in
Literature and
Informational
Text:
Year 2
Summarization
(oral and
written)
Year 3
Compare and
contrast
Instructional staff will define
a retell vs. a summary.
Classroom Teachers,
Support Specialists
Students will use
academic vocabulary
with accuracy in
discussions and on
written work.
Students retell scores
on DIBELS will
increase. At the
primary level students
will be able to give
Instructional staff will
oral retells and
collaboratively design rubrics eventually summaries
for assessing retells and
as a results of this
summaries (1 primary/ 1
instruction. At
intermediate)
intermediate grade
Explicitly teach students how levels, students will
to retell using specific
be able to give oral
frameworks (1 primary
and written
grades/ 1 intermediate
retell/summaries.
grades) that are staffselected. Classroom
Teachers, Support
Specialists, Paras
Explicitly teach students in
grades K-5 how to give/write
31 |
analyzed during PLC
for evidence of
knowledge/use of
academic vocabulary
(i.e. analyze,
summarize, etc).
Professional
Development:
 Trainings:
Identifying Tier 2
Words & Use of
Instructional
Routines & DAZE
Administration/Sco
ring
 Peer Observations
 Ongoing Coaching
PLC Time/ Building
21
August In-service/
Staff Meetings
Peer Observations
Ongoing Coaching
Samples of Summaries
Videos of Retells
Create Rubrics
SWBST Framework
will prioritize
grade level lists by
content.
Principal
Staff meetings
SIP/BLT
PLC meetings
Teachers and Para- Building 21 Hours
educators
This time will be spent
developing and training
for consistent instructional
practices on retell and
summary. (PD to be
determined)
a summary of literary text
using the SWBST
(Somebody Wanted But So
Then) framework. Classroom
Teachers, Support
Specialists, Paras
YEAR 3:
Implement
high yield
strategies for
teaching point
of view and
compare and
contrast
strategies
appropriate to
their specific
grade level as
defined by the
CCSS.
Grade level teams will use
the Common Core State
Standards to define each
strategy (Point of View &
Compare and Contrast).
Classroom Teachers,
Support Specialists
Use cross grade level team
discussions to create an
awareness of the continuum
of complexity of these
strategies from Kinder to 5th
grade. Classroom Teachers,
Support Specialists
Certificated and classified
instructors will use common
building wide instructional
language (and hand motions)
when teaching “Point of
View” and “Compare and
Contrast.”
Classroom teachers will use
the DOK wheels when
writing/asking questions so
as to increase the rigor.
32 |
Students
comprehension scores
on state and/or
national assessments
will increase. Each
trimester STAR,
MAPS, and DIBELS
data will be analyzed
for evidence of
student growth.
CFA’s and student
responses will be
analyzed during PLC
for improved skill in
“Point of View” and
“Compare and
Contrast.”
PLC Time/ Building
21
Staff Meetings
Money to identify and
purchase “mentor
texts.”
Principal
Staff meetings
SIP/BLT
PLC meetings
Teachers and Para- Building 21 Hours
educators
Training on building wide
phrasing, hand motions,
and instructional practices
for continuity of
instruction.
Modeling and observation
will be used as a part of
the PD.
.
SMART Goal 2
Subject Area: Mathematics
School Name:
Target Population- based on
Dick Scobee Elementary
All students at Dick Scobee Elementary
demographic, discipline and attendance
data analysis:
Our Reality-based on assessment
data analysis:
Our SMART Goal-based on
target population and your reality:
Student population significantly changes which is reflected in fluctuating test scores from year to year.
However, the number of students who speak a second language at home continues to increase.
The average percent of students in grades 3 -5 meeting and/or exceeding standard based on
the state math test will increase from 70.5% in 2013 to 79.3% in 2016. (Average of 3% per
year)
Action Plan
Action Steps
Evidence of
Implementation
Evidence
of Impact
Sequential- what comes first?
( 3-5 Action Steps)
Implement Balance Math in
kindergarten through fifth.
10-15 minutes daily of fact fact
fluency practice
15-20 minutes daily of targeted
review
30 minutes daily for instruction
of new content
This should be explicit
33 |
Teachers will
provide 10-15
minutes of math
fact practice
and/or instruction
every day, five
days a week.
Teachers will
administer a timed
fact fluency
assessment once a
Student
math scores
for MAPS,
MSP, and
monthly fact
fluency
assessments
will
improve.
Resources
Examples include:
PLC, Building 21,
CEE data, Power
Standards
Responsibilities
Master schedule
will allow for the
time necessary to
implement.
Principal – will observe
via drop-ins the
implementation of this
dedicated time.
Building 21 hours
SIP/BLT - will discuss
and review needs for
sustainability and
necessary adjustments
Staff Meetings
Personnel to
record data
Teachers – will
implement, assess, and
Professional
Development
Building 21 hours used in
August for training from
Brendan Jeffreys
Brendan Jeffreys will provide
modeling at every grade level
first through fifth at least one
time. These sessions will be
videotaped for future training
and fidelity checks.
instruction with modeling,
guided practice, and repetition
through choral response and
writing.
Implement high yield strategies
for acquiring academic and Tier
II vocabulary in mathematics for
grades K-5.
month and submit
to the principal.
Grade level teams
will
collaboratively
identify Tier II
and academic
vocabulary in
mathematics.
Grade level
identified
vocabulary will be
reviewed cross
grade level/all
staff.
All teachers will
implement and
regularly use a
consistent format
for introduction of
high yield
academic words.
Teachers will
implement a cycle
of continuous
review of
academic and Tier
II vocabulary.
Teachers will
incorporate the
34 |
review assessment
results
Student
math scores
for MAPS,
MSP, and
monthly fact
fluency
assessments
will
improve.
PLC Time/
Building 21
August In-service/
Staff Meetings
Principal
Grade Level Teams will
identify/develop
common phrases and
Ongoing Coaching hand motions for the
identified math
vocabulary words.
SIP/BLT will work to
ensure that the
instructional phrases
and hand motions are
consistent across the
building.
Building 21 hours used in
August for training from
Brendan Jeffreys
Brendan Jeffreys will
provide modeling at every
grade level first through
fifth at least one time.
These sessions will be
videotaped for future
training and fidelity checks.
structured use of
academic
vocabulary into
their lessons.
Teachers will
incorporate
academic
vocabulary in
grade level
common
assessments.
35 |
SMART Goal 3
Subject Area: Environment
School Name:
Dick Scobee Elementary
Target Population- based on
All students at Dick Scobee Elementary
demographic, discipline and attendance
data analysis:
Our Reality-based on assessment
data analysis:
Our SMART Goal-based on
The number of ODR’s (Office Discipline Referrals) for the 2011-2012 school year were 413 (2.4 per/day). The
number of ODR’s for the 2012-2013 school year were 396 (2.23 per/day). This is a decrease of 17 (.4.5%).
Our goal is to reduce ODR’s to 200 (1.13 per/day) over the next three years.
target population and your reality:
Action Plan
Action Steps
Evidence of
Implementation
Evidence of
Impact
Sequential- what comes first?
( 3-5 Action Steps)
Consider explicitly
teach/implement Tier I
classroom based
strategies in all K-5
classrooms
Teachers recognize and
acknowledge students
using Tier I strategies.
Use of Tier I strategies by
staff are observed during
classroom visits.
Staff will review office
referral data 4 times a
year??
Office referrals
will decrease
based on
Skyward
reporting tool.
Student
achievement
scores will go up
on all
assessments.
Students
36 |
Resources
Examples include:
PLC, Building 21,
CEE data, Power
Standards
Staff Meetings
Building 21 Hours
(time above used
for reviewing and
discussing
discipline data)
Responsibilities
Professional
Development
Principal will
monitor, observe,
coach with
feedback
District PBIS Leadership
Team will provide
training, survey tools, and
feedback
BLT/SIP will
review and analyze
data 4 times a year.
They will plan for
next steps and
identify needs
Training will be provided
during staff meetings, and
Building 21
Teachers will
demonstrate use
of Tier I
strategies to self
manage behavior.
implement and
review data 4 times
a year.
Discipline officer
will provide data
Students
demonstrate an
increase in time
on task.
Year 2:
Focus and training on
improving the level of
collaboration of grade
level teams, cross-grade
level teams, and whole
staff.
Certificated staff will
attend and participate in
retreat events.
Grade level teams and
specialists will plan for
and share the lead of staff
meetings (with a focus on
celebrations)
There will be follow up to
the themes and training of
retreat throughout the
year.
37 |
Levels of trust
among staff as
measured by
CEE data will
increase.
Building 21 Hours
Work will be
continued via staff
meetings.
A sub-committee
will work under the
principal to plan,
communicate and
gain buy-in.
This will be accomplished
through a retreat-style
training.
Planning Implementation Calendar
Timeline for Planning Process
School Leadership Team Meetings:
DATE
10-2-2012
10-12-2012
10-16-2012
10-19-2012
11-6-2012
11-9-2012
38 |
TASK
SIP Overview w/ BLT
Mini Data Carousels with
Committees
 Review data
 Write objective
statements as a result
of the data
 Identify other data that
would be useful for
next review
All Staff Data Carousel
 Whole staff review of
data and review of
committee’s
statements
 Write additional
statements
Committee Chairs begin the
process of facilitating:
 Review all statements
 Consolidate and
categorize
 Prioritize
 Narrative Statement
 Proposed SMART
Goal
Agree on SMART Goals as a
staff
 Committees will
present their proposed
SMART Goal and get
consensus
Committees begin research
and action steps (due 1-292013)
 Research and design
TIME
BLT
Waiver Day
Staff Meeting plus Building
Hours
Own Time (TBD)
Staff Meeting
Own Time (TBD)
11-27-2012
1-29-2013
2-5-2013
2-26-2013
3-11-2013
8-2013
10-2013
39 |
the action steps that
will help meet our goal
 Determine necessary
resources, delivery
model, etc
 (maybe we are already
doing it?)
Look at finished examples of
other buildings’ SIP
documents
 We will look at a
variety of formats to
help us identify one for
us
Committees present action
steps to whole staff
 Each committee will
present their portion of
the plan to the whole
staff.
Final Review
Final Presentation
SIP Work
 First Action Steps
Meet with DSL to receive
edits
Meet with Pili Wolfe for
consultation of revisions
necessary and review of plan.
BLT
Staff Meeting
BLT
Staff Meeting
Waiver Day
Principal Time