Brevard County Public Schools School Improvement Plan 2013-2014 RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Process Data Analysis from multiple data sources: assessment that supports the need for improvement-Examples may be, but are NOT limited to survey data, walk-through data, minutes from PLC’s or Dept. Mtgs. Move away from talking about every single data source and determine your rationale. Much like the PGP, what is your focus and why?) Considerations/Examples: What are the areas of success? Where are concerns? What trends do you see? What kind of data are you looking at within your school? What data do you use for teacher practice? How are teachers planning? Are plans Standards Driven? Are Essential Questions meaningful? What do CWT tell you about instruction? How will you monitor the depth of implementation? FCAT Results (2011-2013) Utilizing 2013 School Grade and FCAT 2.0 data MILA students and teachers demonstrated the most success on the science proficiency rate (+17%) and percentage of lowest 25% making learning gains in math (+8%). The learning gains for the lowest 25% in reading and math have continued to increase in reading over the past three years. The school decreased the overall grade points from 479 points to 452, a decrease of 27 points. Reading proficiency declined 2%, and math proficiency declined 5%. Writing proficiency showed the greatest decrease, declining 46%. It should be noted that the required score for proficiency target on FCAT 2013 increased from 3.0 to 3.5. Had the required score remained the same, our students would have scored similarly to the previous year and MILA would have earned the school grade of a B. During preplanning, our teachers examined 2013 FCAT 2.0 scores by school, level and class. The instructional analysis worksheet was completed using three years of FCAT data for each grade level. Below is a snapshot utilizing the Instructional Analysis tool for 2013 reading and math scores, it was determined that the majority of our student proficiency levels fall within the following:
and aligning quality lessons and assessments of Common Core State Standards 1b. Lack of familiarity with depth and complexity of Common Core State Standards October-May from The Common Core Lesson Book. - Classroom walkthroughs and observations of teachers implementing lessons from The Common Core Lesson Book in reading and writing. 2 a. Lack of Components in Lesson Plans 2.b. Lesson and activities do not reflect high probability strategies (cannot dictate format of lesson plans per contract). 2.a. Provide teachers with a preview of the online planning tool planbookedu.com and the Differentiated Planning Tool from the website to assist teachers in developing effective lesson plans aligned with best practices. Teachers and Administration September-May -Teachers currently using the online planning tool or the Differentiated Planning Tool will share at PLTs and a faculty meeting. 3. Absence of Differentiated Instruction in Reading and Math. 3.a. of Differentiated Instruction Professional Development. Administration, Literacy Coach and Title 1 Team September-May - Lesson plans - Look fors during observations - student work samples EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection-begin with the end in mind. Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the of implementation of professional practices throughout the school) do you want your teachers to be? What tools will you use to measure the implementation of your strategies? How will you measure the change in adult behavior? What tool will be used to measure progress throughout the year? Use real percentages and numbers. Qualitative At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, a teacher survey was used to identify the teachers’ perception and implementation level of instructional practices aligned with Common Core. Two positive areas indicated by the teachers include: