1 Team LINE: Lawrence Initiative— No Excuses The Lawrence School BIT Presentation September 22,...
-
Upload
bartholomew-wilson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Team LINE: Lawrence Initiative— No Excuses The Lawrence School BIT Presentation September 22,...
1
Team LINE:Lawrence Initiative—
No Excuses
The Lawrence SchoolBIT Presentation
September 22, 2006
2
A little BIT that tells a lot A little BIT that tells a lot about Lawrence…about Lawrence…
A little BIT that tells a lot A little BIT that tells a lot about Lawrence…about Lawrence…
3
• Enza MacriPrincipal
• Amy RumbergerLA Consultant
• Eve FioricaInternal Literacy Facilitator
• Kristen BradleyExternal Literacy Facilitator
• Katie SeifertSpecial Education Teacher
• Susan Malecky Speech/Language Pathologist
• Lisbeth SciannaDEAL Teacher
• Sue Imai Kindergarten Teacher
• Sue Shippee Lopez Grade 1 Teacher
• Karen Share Grade 2 Teacher
• Carrie Nelson Grade 3 Teacher
• Erin DeToroGrade 4 Teacher
• Nancy Santostefano Grade 5 Teacher
• Marisa Frisk ESL Teacher
Building Instructional Team
4
The Lawrence School Mission Statement
The Lawrence School is a partnership of diverse learners,
educators, families and community members that instill an abiding love of learning, a passion to promote high achievement of
academic skills and emotional self-awareness necessary to become
respectful contributors to the community.
5
The Lawrence Schoolat a glance… 2005/2006
Diverse Needs:• 30% Eligible for
Free/Reduced Meals• 15% Special Education• 9% ESL
144 Female
204 Male
338 Total Students
A MulticulturalCommunity:
• Asian American 14%• Black 24%• Hispanic 14%• White 47%• American Indian 2
students
97% Participation in Parent/Teacher Conferences
Total Retentions:
2005-06: 1 (K)
2004-05: 12 (K-1)
6
The Lawrence SchoolPopulation
RegularEducation
ESL
SpecialEducation
DEAL
75%
10%
6%9%
7
Dominant LanguagesESL Students
Number of Students Language16 Spanish
2 Cambodian
2 Polish
2 Bengali
1 Chinese
1 Hindi
3 Pushto
3 Filipino
4 Turkish
1 Burmese
1 Twi
8
Attendance2004-2005
Number and Percent of StudentsExceeding 10 Absences
2005-2006Number and Percent of Students
Exceeding 10 Absences
Gr. K 26 46%
Gr. 1 26 43%
Gr. 2 5 13%
Gr. 3 19 31%
Gr. 4 15 32%
Gr. 5 16 32%
TOTAL 107 37%
Gr. K 28 40%
Gr. 1 23 40%
Gr. 2 30 44%
Gr. 3 13 30%
Gr. 4 21 30%
Gr. 5 14 29%
TOTAL 129 37%
STAFF ATTENDANCE: Average days absent: 7 days Two maternity leaves
One extended medical leave – school year 2005/2006
9
Student Mobility 2005-2006Total Percent Change
Grade 04/05 05/06
K 35% 31%
1 43% 47%
2 66% 31%
3 40% 33%
4 36% 41%
5 32% 36%
School 42% 37%
10
The Lawrence School Positive Behavioral Supports
Decreased Conduct Reports
Decreased Suspensions
40% 66%
•Foster behavioral expectations based on mutual respect •Continue implementation of Second Step Social Skills program•Utilize student behavioral conduct reports and reflections sheets•Showcase student achievement through bulletin board recognition •Promote student achievement at school-wide assemblies• Provide extra rewards for students “caught being good”•Present students with awards on a monthly basis at school assemblies
Decrease in Behavioral Referrals and Suspensions from September
2005 through June 2006
11
The Lawrence School Four Step Process
2005-2006
Grade
Level
Number of Students in Four Step Process
Number of Students
Dismissed
Number of Students
Referred to Special
Education
Number of Students
Identified as Special
Education
K 10 4 1 1
1 6 5 1 1
2 12 5 1 0
3 2 1 2 0
4 6 5 1 1
5 3 1 0 0
Total 39 21 6 3
12
Grade LevelAssessments
13
Kindergarten through Fifth GradeAssessments
Standardized Assessments
•Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 3rd Edition (K)•Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (K-3)•TerraNova (1-3)•Connecticut Mastery Tests (3-5) •Blue Ribbon Assessments (5) •LAS Links (K-5)
Additional Assessments
•Kindergarten Check List (K)•Concepts About Print (K)•DIAL-3 (K)•Developmental Reading Assessment (K-3)•Running Records (K-5)•Portfolio Assessment (K-5)•Writing Prompts (K-5)•District Spelling Assessments (1-5)•Houghton Mifflin Assessments (K-5)•McGraw Hill Math Assessments (1-5)
14
English Language Proficiency Assessment
15
English Language LearnersEnglish Language Proficiency Assessment
0102030405060708090
100
B egi nni ng E ar l y
I nter medi ate
I nter medi ateP r ofi c i ent A bove
P r ofi c i ent
Kindergarten through Grade Five Students
Overall Proficiency2005-2006
16
Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestPPVT-III
17
KindergartenPeabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 2005-2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fall Winter Spring
Extremely Low Moderate Low Average
Moderate Low Moderate High Extreme High
18
DIBELSDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
19
KindergartenDIBELS 2005-2006
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Initial Sound Fluency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Letter Naming Fluency
20
KindergartenDIBELS 2005-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Nonsense Word Fluency
21
First GradeDIBELS 2005-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
Deficit Emerging Established
Letter Naming Fluency
01020
304050
6070
80
90100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
22
First GradeDIBELS 2005-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
Deficit Emerging Established
Nonsense Word Fluency
01020
304050
6070
80
90100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Oral Reading Fluency
23
Second GradeDIBELS 2005-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Nonsense Word Fluency
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Oral Reading Fluency
24
Third GradeDIBELS 2005-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fall Winter Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
Oral Reading Fluency
25
TerraNova
26
First Grade TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
010
2030
4050
6070
8090
100
O C BU AT WM WC
2005 2006
AT: Analyze TextBU: Basic UnderstandingEEM: Evaluate and Extend MeaningIRS: Identify Reading StrategiesMW: Multimeaning WordsOC: Oral ComprehensionWC: Words in ContextWM: Word Meaning
27
Second GradeTerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
0
20
40
60
80
100
BU AT EEM IRS WM MW WC
2005 2006
AT: Analyze TextBU: Basic UnderstandingEEM: Evaluate and Extend MeaningIRS: Identify Reading StrategiesMW: Multimeaning WordsOC: Oral ComprehensionWC: Words in ContextWM: Word Meaning
28
Third Grade TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
010
2030
40
5060
7080
90
100
BU AT EEM IRS WM MW WC
2005 2006
AT: Analyze TextBU: Basic UnderstandingEEM: Evaluate and Extend MeaningIRS: Identify Reading StrategiesMW: Multimeaning WordsOC: Oral ComprehensionWC: Words in ContextWM: Word Meaning
29
Houghton Mifflin Assessments
30
Houghton Mifflin Theme Assessments
Kindergarten through Grade Five Average Scores 2005-2006
Grade
Level
Integrated Theme Test
Theme Skills Test
K 77 82
1 85 91
2 79 74
3 74 70
4 80 81
5 68 80
31
Connecticut Mastery Tests
32
Connecticut Mastery TestsReading
33
Connecticut Mastery Test
0
10
2030
40
5060
7080
90
100
BelowBasic
Basic Proficient Goal Advanced
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Total Reading2005-2006
34
Connecticut Mastery TestDegrees of Reading Power
2005-2006Grade Level
Lawrence
Average Unit Score
Middletown
Average Unit Score
State
Goal
Grade 3 45.5 45.4 47
Grade 4 56.4 58.2 54
Grade 5 60.1 59.2 58
35
Connecticut Mastery Test
0102030405060708090
100
Forming a
General
Understanding
Developing
Interpretation
Making
Reader/ Text
Connections
Examing the
Content and
Structure
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Reading Comprehension Content Strands
2005-2006
36
Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Reading
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Forming aGeneral
Understanding
Developing anInterpretation
MakingReader/TextConnections
Examine theContent and
Structure
DRP
Blue Ribbon
2006 CMT
37
Connecticut Mastery TestsWriting
38
Connecticut Mastery Test
0102030405060
708090
100
BelowBasic
Basic Proficient Goal Advanced
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Total Writing2005-2006
39
Connecticut Mastery Test
Direct Assessment of Writing2005-2006
Grade Level
LawrenceAverage
Holistic Score
MiddletownAverage
Holistic Score
State
Goal
Grade 3 7.9 7.6 8
Grade 4 8.6 8.8 8
Grade 5 8.1 7.6 8
40
Connecticut Mastery TestEditing and Revising
2005-2006Percent Mastered by Content Strand
Grade Level
Lawrence
Composing/Revising
Lawrence
Editing
Middletown
Composing/ Revising
Middletown
Editing
State
Goal
Grade 3
19% 73% 25% 69% 12/16
Grade 4
47% 63% 50% 67% 12/16
Grade 5
53% 51% 55% 55% 14/16
41
Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Editing and Revising
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Composing/Revising Editing
Blue Ribbon
2006 CMT
42
Connecticut Mastery TestsMath
43
Connecticut Mastery Test
0102030405060
708090
100
BelowBasic
Basic Proficient Goal Advanced
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Mathematics2005-2006
44
Challenges in MathGrade 3
Strand 10 Numerical Estimation Strategies
62%
Strand 15 Approximating Measures
41%
Strand 25 Mathematical Applications
27%
45
Challenges in MathGrade 4
Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents
33%
Strand 11 Estimating Solutions to Problems
36%
Strand 16 Customary and Metric Measures
31%
Strand 25 Mathematical Applications
38%
46
Challenges in MathGrade 5
Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents
55%
Strand 17 Geometric Shapes and Properties
53%
Strand 24 Algebraic Concepts 40%
47
Grade 5 Comparison of Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Math
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Blue Ribbon 2006 CMTs
Numerical andProportionalreasoning
Geometry andMeasurment
Probability andStatistics
AlgebraicFunctions
IntegratedUnderstandings
48
Connecticut Mastery TestsSubgroups:
Reading
49
CMT Reading Performance for ELL Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 0% 11% 0% 43.4%
4 0% 0% 0% 16.7%
5 0% 12.5% 0% 0%
50
CMT Reading Performance for Special Education Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 0% 3.8% 0% 7.7%
4 10% 8.2% 0% 12.2%
5 0% 6.8% 0% 8.5%
51
CMT Reading Performance for Hispanic Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 40% 17.4% 20% 21.7%
4 14% 17.4% 21.4% 39.1%
5 0% 11.8% 25% 27.5%
52
CMT Reading Performance for Black Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 50% 18.3% 12.5% 29.2%
4 8.3% 17.5% 25% 23.8%
5 0% 18% 16.7% 15%
53
CMT Reading Performance for White Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 10% 12% 60% 61.6%
4 16.1% 20.5% 64.5% 43.6%
5 3.8% 18.6% 73.1% 34.9%
54
Connecticut Mastery TestsSubgroups:
Writing
55
CMT Writing Performance for ELL Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 0% 20% 50% 40%
4 28.6% 41.7% 0% 16.7%
5 66.7% 22.2% 0% 55.6%
56
CMT Writing Performance for Special Education Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 0% 16.1% 0% 12.9%
4 0% 8.7% 0% 17.4%
5 28.6% 14.6% 0% 14.6%
57
CMT Writing Performance for Hispanic Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 20% 33.3% 60% 27.8%
4 21.4% 29.8% 14.3% 46.8%
5 75% 35.6% 0% 33.3%
58
CMT Writing Performance for Black Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 42.9% 23.3% 57.1% 37.7%
4 16.7% 26.3% 33.3% 41.1%
5 16.7% 22% 50% 59.5%
59
CMT Writing Performance for White Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 21.1% 16.3% 73.7% 59.2%
4 14.3% 12.4% 83.9% 75.6%
5 25% 18.3% 69.2% 69.5%
60
Connecticut Mastery TestsSubgroups:
Math
61
CMT Math Performance for ELL Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 50% 44% 0% 11%
4 14.3% 25% 0% 25%
5 33.3% 50% 33.3% 12.5%
62
CMT Math Performance for Special Education Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 0% 11.5% 0% 19.2%
4 0% 32.7% 20% 12.2%
5 0% 24.1% 0% 8.6%
63
CMT Math Performance for Hispanic Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 20% 22.7% 40% 49.6%
4 14.3% 17% 21.4% 46.8%
5 25% 30.8% 25% 28.8%
64
CMT Math Performance for Black Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 50% 22.8% 12.5% 49.6%
4 8.3% 32.6% 28.4% 33.3%
5 16.7% 23.4% 33.3% 31%
65
CMT Math Performance for White Students
2006
Grade Level
Proficient Lawrence
Proficient
Middletown
At/Above Goal
Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
3 20% 23.1% 65% 62%
4 16.1% 24.2% 61.3% 61.1%
5 19.2% 21.8% 65.4% 59.3%
66
Connecticut Mastery TestsSubgroups:
Students Receiving Free and Reduced
67
Grade 3 StudentsFull Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Below Basic/Basic At/ Above Goal
Free and Reduced
Below Basic/Basic At/ Above Goal
Math: Lawrence 17.8% 53.6% 33.3% 33.3%
Middletown 16.6% 64.2% 42.8% 29.5%
Reading: Lawrence 28.6% 50% 44.4% 11.1%
Middletown 24.2% 61.6% 56.9% 26.3%
Writing: Lawrence 3.7% 77.8% 12.5% 50%
Middletown 9.2% 70.5% 32.7% 59.2%
68
Grade 4 StudentsFull Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Below Basic/Basic At/Above Goal
Free and Reduced
Below Basic/Basic At/Above Goal
Math: Lawrence 34.7% 49% 46.6% 40.0%
Middletown 16.6% 64.2% 42.8% 29.5%
Reading: Lawrence 30.6% 55.1% 60.3% 26.7%
Middletown 24.4% 61.6% 56.9% 26.3%
Writing: Lawrence 18.3% 63.3% 53.3% 40%
Middletown 9.2% 70.5% 32.7% 59.2%
69
Grade 5 StudentsFull Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Below Basic/Basic At/ Above Goal
Free and Reduced
Below Basic/Basic At/ Above Goal
Math: Lawrence 14.7% 64.7% 53.9% 30.8%
Middletown 18.8% 61.7% 40.9% 28.9%
Reading: Lawrence 29.4% 67.6% 76.9% 23.1%
Middletown 29.7% 60.5% 60.4% 20.8%
Writing: Lawrence 8.8% 73.5% 38.5% 23.1%
Middletown
11.2% 66.2% 24% 32.7%
70
Successes
71
Implementing Houghton Mifflin
Lawrence School implemented a research based core program in kindergarten through fifth grade to deliver effective instruction in five key areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension and fluency.
Successes
72
• Created consistency among teachers and grade levels• Increased TerraNova results from 2005 to 2006 in grades one though
three• Increased DIBELS results from 2005 to 2006 in Kindergarten through
grade three
Documented SuccessImplementing Houghton Mifflin
Grade LNF PSF NWF ORF
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
K 72 89 61 92 60 85
1 51 81 80 94 60 80 69 83
2 30 46 59 59
3 40 62
73
Expected Further GrowthImplementing Houghton Mifflin
• Scores will continue to increase
• Administer all required Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
• Complete all themes
74
Interventions
Successes
• Use benchmark assessments to assess all Kindergarten through grade three students
• Conduct Intervention Meetings– ELF, ILF and classroom teacher meet every eight weeks – Create measurable objectives for Tier Two and Three students– Develop instructional strategies to achieve goals– Administer progress monitoring assessments during eight week
cycle to guide and adjust instruction– Meet again in eight weeks to analyze progress and revise goals
and instructional strategies– Continue cycle throughout school year
• Reading First Literacy Tutor provides additional interventions
75
Documented SuccessInterventions
Kindergarten 75
Grade One 89
Grade Two 41
Grade Three 45
Total 63
Percentage of Students Meeting Intervention Goal
76
Expected Further GrowthInterventions
• Extend Intervention Meetings to grades four and five
• Include Special Education Teacher and Speech and Language Pathologist in Intervention Meetings
• Use analysis of DRA scores to include comprehension goals
77
Writing Prompts
Successes
Lawrence School students in grades three through five received writing instruction through Houghton Mifflin and Empowering Writers; through the use of these programs students’ holistic score average range has been 7.9 – 8.6.
78
Grade Level
Average Holistic Score
State Goal
Grade 3 7.9 8
Grade 4 8.6 8
Grade 5 8.1 8
Documented Success Writing Prompts
79
Expected Further GrowthWriting Prompts
• Empowering Writers will be implemented in grade two and will continue to be incorporated in grades three through five
• Holistically scored prompts will be given four times a year
• Incorporate a multi-sensory approach to teaching writing
• Increase the amount of opportunities for students to respond to text in writing
80
Phonemic Awareness
Successes
Students’ success with phonemic awareness is directly related to their ability to read and spell; teachers have explicitly and systematically taught phonemic awareness skills in Kindergarten through first grade resulting in growth in this area.
81
Grade
Level
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
Kindergarten 61 92
First Grade 80 94
Percent of Established Students on the DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Assessment
Percent
Growth
31
14
SuccessesPhonemic Awareness
DIBELS
82
Expected Further GrowthPhonemic Awareness
• Continue further growth so that all Kindergarten students meet the established benchmark by spring
• Progress Monitor all students not meeting benchmark goals
83
Professional Development
Successes
Literacy Coaches and Language Arts Consultant provided professional development to improve student achievement and create a professional learning community.
84
SuccessesProfessional Development
District Professional Development Days• Systematic and Explicit Instruction• Differentiating Instruction• Phonics, Comprehension and • Intervention • Differentiating Phonics Instruction
Grade Level Meetings• Data Analysis• Consultancy Protocol• Phonics Instruction• Text Appropriation• Bloom’s Taxonomy• Differentiating Instruction• CMT Preparation• Fluency• Phonemic Awareness
Book Clubs• Work Stations/Centers• Vocabulary• Comprehension• Phonics• ELL
Coaching and Modeling Instruction• Provided support for all
Professional Development goals• Four-Step Process
Literacy Team Meetings• Materials• School-wide literacy initiatives• Analysis of data
85
Expected Further GrowthProfessional Development
• Continue to build a professional learning environment through data teams, round table discussions, book clubs, articles and on going professional development
• Refine goals based on analysis of school data
86
Challenges
87
Goal One:
Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension
Students in grades one through five will improve reading comprehension scores, specifically Making Reader/Text Connections and Examining the Content Structure, by 10-15% based on TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and CMT (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.
Challenges
88
Special Education Goal:
Improving Reading Comprehension
After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their comprehension of Strand 1 in order to increase scores by 10%.
Challenges
89
• Intervention Meetings will include comprehension goals for Tier Two and Three students not meeting benchmarks
• Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’ independent use of comprehension strategies
• Provide explicit instruction in Making Reader/Text Connections and Examining the Content and Structure
• Disseminate the alignment of Houghton Mifflin targeted skills with CMT strands
• Improve students’ written response to text through frequent use of teacher modeling, rubrics and conferencing
• Increase students’ opportunities for responding to text in writing• Increase amount of independent reading at students’ levels• Continue support for comprehension instruction through modeling and
coaching by literacy coaches and Language Arts Consultant• Utilize techniques from Strategies That Work by Stephanie Harvey and
Anne Goudvis and Mosaic of Thought by Ellin Oliver Keene and Susan Zimmermann (previously read during Lawrence School book club)
• Create and implement a scope and sequence for in-depth teaching of comprehension strategies throughout the year in grade three; if results are successful, this strategy will be extended throughout Kindergarten through fifth grade
Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Reading Comprehension
90
• Consult between general education teachers, special education and pupil personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming
• Provide test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures
• Continue test preparation in test taking strategies • Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing environments
and sessions• Increase student background knowledge to aid in comprehension of materials that are presented
(fiction and nonfiction)• Utilize levels of questioning to aid in the increase in students’ level of comprehension and
application• Conduct comprehension mini lessons that incorporate various reading strategies that are
explicitly taught using multiple intelligences• Build vocabulary of tier two words and multi-meaning words• Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’ independent use of
comprehension strategies• Implement SLAM strategy when writing a response to text• Provide direct instruction in strategies including highlighting text, finding key information,
supporting ideas for using the text to support a response either written or oral• Instruct in the use of graphic organizers to aid in comprehension of materials• Provide direct instruction of comprehension strategies at students’ reading level• Continue direct and multi-sensory instruction in decoding of text• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Reading Comprehension for
Special Education Students
91
• DRA
• Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
• TerraNova
• CMT
AssessmentsImproving Students’ Reading
Comprehension
92
Goal Two:
Improving Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge
Kindergarten through Fifth grade students’ vocabulary scores will increase by 10-15% as measured by Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Kindergarten), TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and CMT’s (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.
Challenges
93
• Implement explicit vocabulary instruction of two to three tier two words per week based on text selection from Houghton Mifflin
• Support additional vocabulary instruction in Kindergarten through consultation with Speech and Language Pathologist
• Create vocabulary word walls• Engage in daily oral language exercises• Increase the amount of independent reading at students’
reading levels• Continue support for vocabulary instruction through
modeling and coaching by Literacy Coaches and Language Arts Consultant
• Revisit Isabel Beck’s Bringing Words to Life to enhance teaching strategies
Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge
94
• Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
• TerraNova
• Daily work samples
• Informal classroom assessments
AssessmentsImproving Students’ Vocabulary
Knowledge
95
Goal Three:
Improving Students’ Reading Fluency
Students in second and third grade will improve fluency scores by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency by May 2007.
Challenges
96
• Implement self-evaluation strategies through the use of a newly created, building developed fluency rubric
• Implement fluency centers where students record and evaluate their reading progress
• Administer progress monitoring assessments to Tier Two and Three students
• Enhance models of fluent reading through use of read alouds, partner reading, echo reading and choral reading
• Utilize Reader’s Theatre to reinforce reading fluency• Continue use of explicit, small group instruction to strengthen
phonics skills• Continue professional development on differentiating phonics
instruction• Continue support for fluency and phonics instruction through
modeling and coaching by literacy coaches and Language Arts Consultant
Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Reading Fluency
97
• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring
• Quick Phonics Screener (Reading First Initiative)
• Fluency Rubrics (Reading First Initiative)
AssessmentsImproving Students’ Reading Fluency
98
Challenges
Goal Four:Improving Students’ Editing and
Revising Skills
Students in grades three through five will improve Composing and Revising and Editing scores by 10-15% as measured by CMT and district writing assessments by May 2007.
99
Special Education Goal:
Improving Editing and Revising Skills
After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their ability to compose, revise and edit a written work in order to increase CMT scores by 10%.
Challenges
100
Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Editing and Revising Skills
• Provide direct instruction in Editing and Revising skills based on test objectives found in CMT Language Arts Handbook
• Utilize mini-lessons found in CMT Language Arts Handbook• Embed CMT language into lessons• Implement district designed sentence combining lessons• Use student work on overheads to revise as a whole group; create center
lessons that reinforce skills• Provide direct instruction of Daily Oral Language program and Empowering
Writers in grades two through five• Continue use of Houghton Mifflin editing and revising lessons• Utilize examples of student prompts, teacher models, self reflection
techniques and writing conferences• Provide writing experiences that are contextualized writing tasks• Use multiple intelligences to support instruction of all learners• Model revision and editing techniques using student work samples• Provide additional opportunities for reinforcement through center activities
and overheads
101
Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Writing Instruction for
Special Education Students• Daily practice in editing and revising of written work, utilizing skills
emphasized in lessons.• Explicit instruction in grammatical structure.• Explicit instruction in orthographic rules and the identification of spelling
errors.• Review of specific vocabulary that will be utilized on the CMT.• Explicit instruction in sequencing of written work.• Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous
basis in alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures.
• Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.• Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within
testing environments and sessions.• Consultation between general education teachers and special education
and pupil personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming.
• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
102
AssessmentsImproving Students’ Editing and
Revising Skills
• Monthly writing prompts
• Reading journals
• Writing journals
• Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
103
Challenges
Goal Five:Improving Students’ Mathematical Skills
Students in grades three through five will improve math scores (grade three: Strands 10,15,25; grade four: Strands 3, 11, 16, 25; grade five: 3, 17, 24) as measured by CMT by May 2007.
104
Special Education Goal:
Improving Estimation
After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their ability to apply numerical estimation strategies to solve a problem in order to increase scores by 10%.
Challenges
105
Strand 10 Numerical Estimation Strategies 62%
Strand 15 Approximating Measures 41%
Strand 25 Mathematical Applications 27%
Grade Three
Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents 33%
Strand 11 Estimating Solutions to Problems 36%
Strand 16 Customary and Metric Measures 31%
Strand 25 Mathematical Applications 38%
Grade Four
Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents 55%
Strand 17 Geometric Shapes and Properties 53%
Strand 24 Algebraic Concepts 40%
Grade Five
CMT Strands to Target
106
• Differentiate instruction based on assessment data• Provide direct instruction in multi-step problems• Develop a common math vocabulary across grade levels• Incorporate use of manipulatives• Implement math journals to increase opportunities for
students to justify and explain answers• Provide direct instruction on justifying and explaining
answers• Provide direct instruction in deleting extraneous
information from problems• Administer and analyze all McGraw Hill assessments
Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Math Instruction
107
• Hands on real world application relating to estimation.• Explicit instruction in the vocabulary used on the CMT that relates to estimation.• Daily practice in estimating.• Explicit instruction on the:
• Justification of an estimation.
• Use a number line to estimate
• Rounding of numbers to aid in estimation.
• Strategies needed to solve estimation problems• Consultation between general education teachers and special education and pupil
personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming.• Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in
alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures.• Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing
environments and sessions.• Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Math Instruction for
Special Education Students
108
• McGraw Hill math assessments
• Math journal
• District assessments
• District CMT binder assessments
• Daily work samples
• Teacher observations
AssessmentsImproving Students’ Math Instruction
109
Challenges
Increase the scores of students who receive ESL services by 5-10% as measured by English Language Proficiency Assessment, DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007
Goal Six Address Needs of:
English Language Learners
110
• Provide explicit instruction in language acquisition skills• Provide hands-on real world application to enhance
instruction• Utilize technology to foster language growth and
development through the Rosetta Stone program• Continue to implement non-verbal communication skills• Consult with classroom teacher to support ELL students’ • Provide opportunities to practice pragmatic language and
cultural relevant experiences• Continue to foster parent involvement• Utilize Multiple Intelligences to reach ELL students
Instructional StrategiesAddress Needs of:
English Language Learners
111
Assessments Address Needs of:
English Language Learners
• English Language Proficiency Assessment
• DIBELS, TerraNova, DRA, CMT, Blue Ribbon
• District assessments
• Portfolio review
• Anecdotal notes
112
Challenges
• Increase the scores of students who receive free and reduced lunch by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007
• Increase scores of minority students by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007
Goal Seven Address Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic Status Minority Populations
113
• Offer multiple parent workshops which include free babysitting to encourage all parents to attend
• Pilot Parent Involvement Initiative based on Wesley School’s model• Provide parents with multiple opportunities for reading at home with
their children: nightly on-level reading, books on tape with cassette players, home-school connection literacy activities
• Implement PTA parent email list; identify parents who do and do not have email access
• Promote web-based parent support page• Provide bussing for evening school activities
Instructional StrategiesAddress Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic StatusMinority Populations
114
• Parent attendance and involvement in activities
• Parent feedback evaluations
• Student assessments: DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova, DRA, running records, journals, daily work samples
AssessmentsAddress Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic StatusMinority Populations
115
““Children are likely to live up to Children are likely to live up to what you believe of them.” what you believe of them.”
---Lady Bird Johnson---Lady Bird Johnson
““It is the supreme art of the It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative teacher to awaken joy in creative
expression and knowledge.” expression and knowledge.”
---Albert Einstein---Albert Einstein
116
The end of the L.I.N.E.