What were the Identified Weaknesses in the Assessment? What strategies/action steps were written to target these weaknesses? MYR Results: What was the Level of Implementation? Did we meet benchmarks? What Data Supports that we have been effective in increasing student achievement? G 1. Goal: Increase Reading Achievement: By the end of the 2011-12 school year, we will increase the number of students meeting proficiency standards in reading for grades 3-5 on spring 2011 ARMT from: 3rd grade - 88% to 92% 4th grade - 87% to 91% 5th grade 94% to 95% Special Education: 43% to 92% - 3rd grade, 36% to 91% - 4th grade, and 60% to 92% - 5th grade AS 1: Direct, Explicit Instruction/Cycle of Instruction Description: Implement direct, explicit instruction through whole and small groups for all students daily, focusing on targeted reading skills. AS2: Vocabulary Development Description: All K-5 and Sped teachers will increase vocabulary development by incorporating essential vocabulary in all content areas daily. AS3: Student Intervention Description: All K-5 and Sped students identified at-risk using the matrix will receive Tier II and Tier III instruction daily. Tier III students will be pulled out on a daily basis for intervention by the Reading Coach and/or special education teachers. Full Partial No Yes Somewhat No 4/6 classes were engaged and actively teaching. Cycle of Instruction was being implemented. This review consisted of a random sample of 6 classes. In 2/6 classes, Cycle of Instruction was not evident. These teachers will be conferenced with individually. Administrator does not feel this is indicative of daily classroom procedures. ARMT data will be analyzed when received. By the end of the 2011-12 school year, we will increase the Description of Strategy: K-5 and special education teachers will collaborate Full Partial No Yes Somewhat No
number of students meeting proficiency standards in math for grades 3-5 on spring 2011 ARMT from: 3rd grade – 92% to 93% 4th grade – 70% to 89% 5th grade – 98% to 99% focusing on math skills for all students, including at-risk and special education students. AS 1: Action Step(s): Direct, Explicit Instruction Description : Implement direct, explicit instruction through whole and small groups for all students daily, focusing on targeted math skills. Strategy: Data Analysis Description: Al K-5 and special education teachers will utilize data to drive instruction for all students AS1: Grade Level Meetings Description: K-5 and special education teachers will meet weekly to review data, identify mastered standards, and develop appropriate instruction for those students not mastering standards. Strategy: Differentiated Instruction AS1: Small Group Instruction Description: using data, K-5 and special education teachers will develop an intervention plan and target specific non-mastered skills in a small group environment for an additional 20 minutes daily. eCIP Team’s review was not during math instruction. However, informal walkthroughs do indicate 100% of our teachers are implementing small group instruction based on needs identified through data meetings and grade level analysis of classroom assessments. ARMT data will be analyzed when received. Culture Goal: Tardies and Early Dismissals Attendance rate for students has increased from 96% in 2009-10 to 97% Strategy: Reduce Tardies and Early Dismissals AS1: Generate List of StudentsDescription: All homeroom teachers will analyze attendance data and generate a list of students with 4 or more tardies and/or 3 or Full Partial No Yes Somewhat 2011-12 year end INOW data No