School Strategic Plan Presentation

Report
School Strategic Plan
Presentation
August 30, 2013
9:30 AM
School: Austell Elementary School
Principal: Dr. Marvin Bynes
JuneSeptember
School Strategic
Plan
Presentations and
Review
January
Mid-Year Update:
Formative Data,
What's Working
and What Needs
to Change/Shift
Celebrations and Achievements
2013-2014
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 CriterionReferenced 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 Students
63 Employed Staff Members
58% African-Americans
10 Teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree
18% Latino-Americans
19 Teachers with a Master’s Degree
17% White/Caucasian–Americans
05% Multiracial
8 Teachers with Advanced Degrees
Years of Experience
10 Years = 16 Staff Members
Over 10 Years of Experience = 21 Staff
Members
Stakeholder Survey
97% Curriculum Approval
95% Assessment Approval
98% Instruction Approval
98% Planning & Organizing
98% Professional Learning
98% Leadership
97% Culture
97% Overall
Program Participation
62 % General Education Students
10% EIP Students
05% Gifted Students
15% Students with Disabilities
Data Update: CRCT Data by Class
Spring 2013 CRCT Results by Class
Students 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 Level
Students 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 Building
Grades 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 CRCT
Students Exceeded
Grade Levels
ELA
Reading
Math
Sci
SS
Third Grade
19%
37%
27%
18%
15%
CCRPI
Benchmark
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)
Third Grade
(650)
Fourth Grade
(750)
Fifth Grade
(850)
School Total
Reading
CCRPI
Benchmark
52%
86..4%
59%
N/A
60%
87.8%
57%
Data Update: Percentage of Students
at/above 50th Percentile
Year
Test
2012-2013
ITBS
Year
Test
2012-2013
ITBS
FALL MATH ITBS 2012
Grade Three
Number of
Students with
Grade
NPR Complete
Composite Plus
Computation
Score
3
53
FALL MATH ITBS 2012
Grade Five
Number of
Students with
Grade
NPR Complete
Composite Plus
Computation
Score
5
54
Number of
Students At or
Above 50th
Percentile
25
Number of
Students At or
Above 50th
Percentile
22
Percentage
47%
Percentage
40%
Data Update: Math Gap Analysis
Gap Analysis – CRCT Math Scale Score
Year
Tested
Offset
(30%)
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Gap
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
NA
NA
NA
175
NA
NA
NA
53
NA
NA
NA
851
NA
NA
NA
809
NA
NA
NA
42
Data Update: Benchmark Assessments
Common Core Mathematics Benchmark Assessments 2013
Grade
Austell
Cobb County Schools
Area
Quarter 2
Average %
Score
Quarter 3
Average % Score
Quarter 2
Average % Score
Quarter 3
Average Scores
Quarter 2
Average % Score
Quarter 3
Average % 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 CRCT
How to Accomplish Results
More in-depth training for guided reading, utilizing more nonfiction 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 Tests
Professional 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 Design
Curriculum Maps
Essential Questions
Unpacking Standards
Big Ideas
Picasso Resources
Use of Instructional Framework
Researched-Based Planning Based
on Common Core Curriculum
Workshop Models
Student Conferencing
Collaborative Conversations
Collaborative Team Planning
Using Data
Team Planning Common Core
Curriculum
District Lab Classrooms
Rubric Development for Common
Core Curriculum
Weekly Team Meetings
Data collection and discussions
Differentiation/Flexible
Grouping
ESOL/Target/Inclusion Classes
Whole Group, Small Group, and
Individual Instruction
Meeting IEP Accommodations
Ongoing Assessments for Flexible
Grouping
Framework for
School Success
Rigor /Relevance
Building Relationships
High Expectations
Differentiated Instruction
Student-Centered Instruction
Integration of Content Areas
Workshop Models
Engaged Learning
SOAR (Cara Shores)
Weekly and Monthly Newsletters
Daily Behavior Sheets
Academic Nights
PTA/Family Involvement
Parent Conferences
Balanced Assessments
Benchmarks
DRA’s
Rubrics for Math & Language Arts
Teacher Commentary
Teacher/Student Feedback
County Report Cards
Purposeful Integration of
Technology
Computer Lab
Lap Top Carts
Smart Boards
ELMOs
Educational Software
Educational Websites
Framework for
School Success
Instructional Environment
Academic Centers
Print Enriched Environment
Standards, EQs, and
Student Work Posted
Workshop Models Posted
Instructional Rubrics Posted
Common Core Libraries
Artifacts Posted
Use of Researched-Based
Strategies
Common Core Standards
Pacing Guides
Unpacking Standards
Professional Learning Literature
CCSD and GADOE Frameworks
Support Needed: Tier II Support
I.
District Support
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 researchedbased 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.
RIGOR
ENGAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIPS

similar documents