School Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?) All teachers at Christa McAuliffe Elementary will use standards based instruction focusing on use of strong essential questions which will lead to rigor and improved student achievement in all curriculum areas. Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives) Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible Timetable Budget In-Process Measure 1. Lack of consistency in All teachers will post the essential questions in classrooms and refer to them during instruction. All classroom teachers August – May 2013 - 2014 Administrative, district and peer mentor observations 2. Lack of full implementation Scheduling through out the day ( administrators and Leadership teams) 2. Continue to utilize with fidelity strategies from Classroom Instruction that by Robert Marzano, Teach Like a Champion by Doug Lemov, and Moving Schoosl: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders, by Max Thompson, and BEST trainings, which tie into the highly effective teaching practices needed to implement CCSS and NGSSS. Our main focus will be on Advanced Graphic Organizers and summarization Throughout the school and curriculum areas this year. All instructional staff August – May Administrative observations Administrative walk- throughs a data collection tool “ Classroom Walk –Through” software designed to monitor the use of our SIP Instructional Strategies Peer observations 3. Lack of 3. Provide SMART Time instruction, All instructional staff August – May Teacher observations and classroom walk 2014 2014
consistency including the use of summarization and Graphic Organizers including Thinking Maps, and extended thinking question with fidelity to provide differentiated enrichment and intervention instruction for all students K-6th throughs 4. Lack of knowledge of Response to Intervention 4. Conduct K-6th MTSS meetings to discuss and document student progress and response to interventions. Guidance counselor Classroom teachers Principal Reading and Math Coaches AP August – May Meeting notes 5. Lack of knowledge of Response to Intervention 5. Conduct K-6th Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST) meetings as needed to refer students who have received interventions but are not making adequate progress for further evaluation and determine who may qualify for GSP or enrichment. IPST Team August - May Meeting Referral paperwork SMART time data IPST and MTSS 6. Lack of consistency 6. Discuss grade level formative assessments in grade level PLCs to ensure consistency across each grade level and to modify assessments to test higher order thinking skills as required by CCSS. All teachers Principal Leadership team Launch teams AP Literacy coach Title 1 math and science teacher August – May Classroom walk throughs Teacher observations PLC meeting notes
Teachers will be required to bring updated data notebooks to PLCs 7. Lack of consistency Data Notebooks will be kept by all students teachers August – May Administrative observations Administrative Walk Throughs and follow up discussions Peer observations 8. Lack of knowledge “Look fors” and “Ask Abouts” will be shared with instructional Essential questions, Advanced graphic organizers, summarization and Higher order questions , standards based instruction All instructional staff August – May Administrators and Leadership Team will with instructional staff Data will be collected during walk- throughs, formal and informal observations Administrators and Peer Mentors will take the standards in hand when doing the walks throughs to insure standards based instruction is being done in the classrooms. 9. Lack of knowledge “Look Fors” in teachers’ lesson plans will be: Essential questions for the lesson High order questions Graphic organizer and summarization activities related to the lesson Administrators Peer mentors August – May 2013- 2014 Administrators will look at lesson plans during walk throughs. Administrators will randomly ask for teachers’ lesson plans Use the essential questions rubric Lack or knowledge Focus on regular timely feedback with teacher regarding student All instructional staff August – May Meeting notes.PLC and Kid Talk, Data notebooks Administrative observations and
achievement on district assessments walk through notes provided to all teachers 11. Lack Of knowledge Training on Higher Questioning by Rick Dillon on our October 4th PDD day and follow up on PDD Wednesdays All instructional staff October 4, 2013 Sign in sheets, evaluation forms and final projects 12. Lack of consistency and knowledge On going training on DATA analysis, CCSS across the curriculum and INDV file All instructional staff August 20, 2013 Neyda Francis shared the INDV file with all teachers. Review data at PLC meetings twice a month from August – May 2013-14 Sign in sheets, use of information in teachers’ data notebooks 13. Lack of knowledge Reading coach and district resource teachers will model lessons for math, reading and writing All teachers August – May Observation in-service records and discussion notes. District resource teachers have been scheduled for PDD, walk throughs and PLC meetings EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school) Essential questions for both reading and math will be posted and referred to throughout the lesson in classroom. These will be the “Look Fors” during administrative walk throughs, using the essential question rubric designed by the McAuliffe Leadership team based on the Max Thompson’s rubric. Teacher surveys will be developed and distributed assessing teachers’ working knowledge of Essential Questions. (pre, and post surveys). According to our first survey done September 19, 2013, 11% of our classroom teachers indicated they had an understanding of essential questions. Our expectation is that 90% of our classroom teachers will indicate on the post survey that they have an understanding of essential questions and how to use them to drive instruction. Classroom Walk through data from the first month of school indicated that 22% of our classroom teachers had essential questions posted in their classrooms. However, none of them were referring to them during instruction at that time. It is expected that by May of
Subgroup Percent Tested Reading R- % Scoring 2012 R-% Scoring 2013 HP in Reading Target AMO Met Target R Safe Harbor, Reading Improving, Reading or Declining, Reading Reading Tested Math ALL STDS 100% 63% 61% n 71 n n no yes yes 99% AME INDIAN NA ASIAN NA B/AA 100% 49% 52% n 69% no no yes no no 100% 100% 66% 64% n 62% yes NA NA na na 100% WHITE 100% 67% 66% n 74% no no no yes yes 99% ELL 100% 50% 51% n 63% no no yes no no 100% SWD 100% 41% 30% n 48% no no n yes yes 99% FRL 100% 55% 56% n 64% no no yes no no 100% Math Subgroup M-% Scoring 2012 M % Scoring 2013 HP Qualifying in Math Target AMO Math Met Target Math Safe Harbor, Math Math or Declining, Math Declining, Math LG Pts for Low 25% Reading LG Pts for Low 25% Math ALL STDS 61% 55% N 67% no no no yes yes 79 65 AME INDIAN na ASIAN na B/AA 40% 38% N 58% no no no yes yes 70% 58% N 70% no no no yes yes 66% 62% N 69% no no no yes yes ELL 61% 34% N 71% no no no yes yes SWD 35% 24% N 44% no no no yes yes FRL 56% 49% N 63% no no no yes yes Other ALL STDS Graduation Rate, 2010 Graduation Rate, 2011 Writing % Target AMO Reading, Target AMO Math, Target AMO 2015 Target AMO Math, 2015 Target AMO Reading, 2016 Target AMO Math, 2016 Target AMO Reading, 2017 Target AMO Math, 2017 AME INDIAN na ASIAN na
B/AA 52% 72% 62% 75% 66% 78% 70% 82% 75% 50% 66% 73% 69% 76% 73% 79% 77% 82% WHITE 39% 77% 72% 79% 75% 82% 78% 85% 82% ELL 44% 66% 74% 70% 77% 74% 80% 78% 83% SWD 28% 54% 50% 59% 55% 64% 61% 69% 67% FRL 41% 68% 66% 71% 70% 75% 74% 79% 78% School Grade Year School Grade Number of Pts. Earned School Gr. Change to Current Yr. School Letter Grade 2011 584 0 A 2012 515 -1 B 2013 490 -1 C