continuous improvement plans juanita learning community · continuous improvement plans juanita...

ContinuousImprovementPlans

JUANITALEARNINGCOMMUNITY2012‐2013

Bell Elementary School

Frost Elementary School

Juanita Elementary School

Keller Elementary School

Muir Elementary School

Sandburg Elementary School

Thoreau Elementary School

Finn Hill Middle School

Kamiakin Middle School

Juanita High School

Community School

Discovery Community School

Environmental & Adventure School

Futures

International Community School

CIP#4Draft8.13.12 Page1

Continuous Improvement Plan Bell Elementary CIP 2012‐2013

Purpose: The Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) plan provides opportunity for the

school staff to reflect and analyze results from the previous year’s SMART goals. The

process uses the Planning, Learning, Implementation and Evaluation (PLIE) model, a Cycle

of Inquiry, to improve learning for all students.

Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis:

Class of 2020‐ current 5th graders

2011‐2012 SMART Goals

Reading Math Writing

73% 70% 80%

Results:

Year Reading Math Science Writing

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 62.8% 15% 65.2% 12% NA % %

2011‐3rd 73% 12% 51.4% 10% NA NA


2011‐2012 SMART Goals:

Reading Math

75% 75%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 61.6% 12% 48.2% 14.1% NA NA

Class of 2022‐ current 3rd graders


Year EOY Reading DIBELS Benchmark

Math Science Writing

2012‐ 2nd 75%

NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 72%

NA NA NA

2010‐ K 53%

NA NA NA

Class of 2023‐ current 2nd graders



2012‐ 1st 76% NA NA NA

2011‐ K 68%

NA NA NA

Class of 2024‐ current 1st graders



2012‐ K 65%

NA NA NA

School‐wide Analysis of Multiple Measures

Briefly explain school‐wide systems used to improve student achievement in each of the following content areas:

Reading: Walk to Read, Safety Net, ELL, reading more novels, creating own questions/assessments, SRA, scholastic news, buddy reading, teaching in groups, MSP practice

Math: Envision, Safety Net, IXL, Headsprout, math club, making own assessments, parent pull out groups, small group teaching, Sundae math, 5 min timing, MSP practice

Writing: ELL support, very structured teaching, small group teaching, MSP practice

Science: Parent support, Science club, small groups, hands‐on learning, science stories

Sub‐Group Analysis

Which school‐wide sub‐group/s creates opportunities for celebration or cause for concern (e.g.


Gender, Ethnicity, ELL, Special Education, SES)? Please provide examples and explanations.

Celebrations: MSP scores for reading improved in grades 3 and 5, MSP scores for math improved in grades 3 and 5, Ell students seem to progressively score higher on tests results, 90% met proficiency goals (AYPS) Concerns: MSP scores in both reading and math declined in 4th grade, Students with low reading scores seem to be students who are struggling in other subject areas, an increase in the number of students with little parental support overall, sped students are not meeting proficiency goals in reading or math (AYPS)

B. Perception Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis

Year Goal Area #1 From‐ To Percentage Goal Area #2 From – To Percentage

2012 Goal Area: Teacher’s receive regular feedback From 48.72% (includes “don’t agree at all” and “agree slightly”) to 24%

Goal Area: Staff members trust one another From 41.03% (includes “don’t agree at all” and “agree slightly”) to 21%

2011 No record of goals from previous principal No record of goals from previous principal

2010 No record of goals from previous principal No record of goals from previous principal

Analysis of Perception Data

Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals?

Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13:

A. Performance Goals – Statements (Current year’s work)

“Class of" Reading


From: To: From: To: Baseline Baseline

2020‐ 5th 66% 71% 62% 70% 70% NA


2021 ‐4th 73.6% 81% 57% 77% NA 73%

2022‐ 3rd

67% 80% 71% 79% NA NA

2023‐2nd

62% 78% NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

66% 70% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

53% 70% NA NA NA NA

Challenge Goal:

This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard on the MSP in grades 3, 4, and 5 in a particular content area.

Grades 3‐5: Identify content area From To

Reading Grades 3‐5 Math Grades 3‐5

27% exceed proficient 26% exceed proficient

32% exceed proficient 30% exceed proficient

Perception Goals:

Year Goal Area #1 From/To Percentage Goal Area #2 From/To Percentage

2012‐2013 I believe it is critical for teacher’s receive regular feedback From 48.72% (includes “don’t agree at all” and “agree slightly”) to 24%

I believe it is essential for staff members trust one another From 41.03% (includes “don’t agree at all” and “agree slightly”) to 21%

Process Summary

Highlight building‐wide strategies to meet goals in reading, math, science and writing:

Reading:

Math:

Science:

Writing:

Highlight use of technology to improve student learning:

We will use Haiku to collaborate within teams, inform parents, and support student learning.


Highlight steps to involve of staff, students, parents, families, and community:

We will use Haiku to collaborate within teams, inform and involve parents, and support student learning.

We will provide parent education courses

Highlight process for progress monitoring, describing what assessments you will use throughout the year:

Within our newly developed PLC culture, collaborative teams analyze assessment data and set individualized student goals based on the following assessments:

MSP

Dibels

CDSAs

End of Topic Assessments Collaborative teams analyze assessment data and set individualized student goals based on the following assessments:

Highlight strategies to address the PLC questions #3 and #4:

Question number 3:

Weekly collaboration in grade level teams regarding student progress

New safetynet “push in model” we are trying this year to support students who don’t get it

New sped ed “push in model” when possible to support students who don’t get it

Homework club after school Question 4:

Intentional differentiation strategies per unit of study at each grade level

Homework club after school

Bell Elementary AMO Targets

Building Subgroup Name Subject Baseline CE

Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

BELL ELEMENTARY All math 207 135 65.217 68.1 71.0 73.9 76.8 79.7 82.6 2.9

BELL ELEMENTARY All reading 207 165 79.710 81.4 83.1 84.8 86.5 88.2 89.9 1.7

BELL ELEMENTARY American Indian math

BELL ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

BELL ELEMENTARY Asian math 39 28 71.795 74.1 76.5 78.8 81.2 83.5 85.9 2.4

BELL ELEMENTARY Asian reading 39 30 76.923 78.8 80.8 82.7 84.6 86.5 88.5 1.9

BELL ELEMENTARY Black math

BELL ELEMENTARY Black reading

BELL ELEMENTARY Hispanic math 22 12 54.545 58.3 62.1 65.9 69.7 73.5 77.3 3.8

BELL ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading 22 14 63.636 66.7 69.7 72.7 75.8 78.8 81.8 3.0

BELL ELEMENTARY White math 122 81 66.393 69.2 72.0 74.8 77.6 80.4 83.2 2.8

BELL ELEMENTARY White reading 122 102 83.607 85.0 86.3 87.7 89.1 90.4 91.8 1.4

BELL ELEMENTARY Limited English math 24 6 25.000 31.3 37.5 43.8 50.0 56.3 62.5 6.3

BELL ELEMENTARY Limited English reading 24 10 41.667 46.5 51.4 56.3 61.1 66.0 70.8 4.9

BELL ELEMENTARY Special Education math 42 8 19.048 25.8 32.5 39.3 46.0 52.8 59.5 6.7

BELL ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 42 16 38.095 43.3 48.4 53.6 58.7 63.9 69.0 5.2

BELL ELEMENTARY Low Income math 55 28 50.909 55.0 59.1 63.2 67.3 71.4 75.5 4.1

BELL ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 55 37 67.273 70.0 72.7 75.5 78.2 80.9 83.6 2.7

BELL ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

BELL ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

BELL ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math

BELL ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012

Purpo

schoo

proce

of Inq

Part 1: 20

A. Data

2011‐201

Reading The curreClass of 2increase sproficiencfrom 86%measured2010‐11 Mas measuschool’s Rfor the 20school ye

Results:

Year

2012‐4th

2011‐3rd

ose: The Co

ol staff to re

ess uses the

quiry, to imp

011‐2012 Re

Summary, R

12 SMART G

ent grade 020 will student cy scores % as d by their MSP, to 89% red by our Reading MSP 011‐12 ar.

Profici

36% (1

28% (1

CoRo

ntinuous Im

eflect and an

Planning, L

prove learni

eflection Go

Reflection, a

C

Goals

Math Currently, 5graders memath on thMathematBy the end school yearof 4th gradestandard inas measureMathemat

Reading

ient ExceedProfici

8) 36% (1

3) 51% (2

ontinuous Imobert Frost E

mprovement

nalyze result

earning, Imp

ing for all st

oals: Due to D

and Analysis

Class of 2020

58% of 4th et standard inhe 2011 ics MSP. of the 2011‐r, at least 84%ers will meet n mathematiced by the 201ics MSP.

ds ient

Profic

18) 42% (2

24) 28% (1

mprovementElementary C

Process (CIP

ts from the

plementatio

udents.

DSS by Octo

s:

0‐ current 5t

Writing

n

12 %

cs 12

The curof 2020studentscores fclassrooof 64% measurschool’for the year.

Math

ient ExceeProfic

21) 32% (1

14) 19% (

t Process PlaCIP 2012‐20

P) plan prov

previous ye

on and Evalu

ober 12, 2012

th graders

g rrent grade C0 will increaset proficiency from current om performato 73% as red by our s Writing MS2011‐12 scho

Scien

eds cient

NA

16) NA

10) NA

an 13

vides opport

ar’s SMART

uation (PLIE

2

lass e

ance

P ool

nce

Profic

48% (

NA

tunity for th

T goals. The

) model, a C

Writing

ient ExceeProfi

(24) 26%

Page1

he

Cycle

eds cient

(13)

CIP8.2012 Page2



Reading Math The current grade Class of 2021 will increase student proficiency scores from current classroom performance of 49% at standard to 72% as measured by our school’s Reading MSP for the 2011‐12 school year.

The current grade Class of 2021 will increase student proficiency scores from current classroom performance of 58% to 77% as measured by our school’s Math MSP for the 2011‐12 school year.

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 47% (26) 29% (16) 43% (24)

20% (11)

NA NA




2012‐ 2nd 76%

NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 86%

NA NA NA

2010‐ K 83%

NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 70% (47) NA NA NA

2011‐ K 49% (33)

NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page3




2012‐ K 67% (50)

NA NA NA



Reading: Safety Net schedule revision to provide additional Intervention Support for classrooms grades 3‐5 in addition to Safety Net services

Flexible Reading Groups K‐2 (Walk‐to‐read) Safety Net services Watch Dog and parent helpers read one‐on‐one with targeted students

Flexible reading based on the BRI at intermediate grades Special Education Resource instruction for all grades Accelerated Reader

Time For Kids Magazine for intermediate students ELL Services PLC Collaboration for all grade levels through common planning time and

LEAP/meeting schedules

Math: Special Education Resource instruction for all grades Safety Net services for intermediate grades Safety Net schedule revision to provide additional Intervention Support for

classrooms grades 3‐5 in addition to Safety Net services to target computation, vocabulary, and word problem analysis

ELL services targeting content‐area vocabulary

Watch Dog and parent helpers practice number sense one‐on‐one

Re‐formatting of enVision assessments to accommodate student needs Xtra Math and online resources (enrichment) Math Olympics to provide additional practice and enrichment

PLC Collaboration for all grade levels through common planning time and LEAP/meeting schedules

Writing: 6 Traits writing strategies at multiple grade levels Safety Net schedule revision to provide additional Intervention Support for 4th grade

targeting Organization, Revision, and Editing

Writing in content areas (Science and Social Studies) Use of Netbooks/technology, including Word, PowerPoint, OneNote, and Photo

Story to teach organization and facilitate the writing process

PLC Collaboration for all grade levels through common planning time and

CIP8.2012 Page4

LEAP/meeting schedules

Science: ELL, Safety Net, and Special Education services targeting content‐area vocabulary

Reading test items aloud for science response sheets and the CDSA

Instruction of Investigative format writing

Supplementary materials (i.e. Puzzlewise)

OSPI practice test

PLC Collaboration for all grade levels through common planning time and LEAP/meeting schedules


Which school‐wide sub‐group/s creates opportunities for celebration or cause for concern (e.g. Gender, Ethnicity, ELL, Special Education, SES)? Please provide examples and explanations.

Celebrations

2nd Grade o Minimal gender gap in Reading:

Female students 27/32 at Benchmark Male students 27/29 at Benchmark

4th Grade o 27 out of 44 students who have been in our district for more than 3 years passed math o 34 out of 44 students who have been in our district for more than 3 years passed

reading o All 5 Asian students passed math o 4 out of 5 Asian students passed reading

Concerns

Kindergarten o ELL students tend to score very low on Fall BOY DIBELS

3rd o ELL students tend to perform lower in math than in reading where they receive

more focused ELL support o All four Hispanic girls receive Safety Net services.

o Eight out of twelve Hispanic boys receive Safety Net and/or IEP services o All five of African American students receive Safety Net services.

4th o Overall reading scores went down from 3rd to 4th grade for all groups o Only 3 out of 7 Hispanic students were at standard for the Reading MSP o Only 9 out of 21 Hispanic students were at standard for the Math MSP

5th o 8 out of 15 students not at standard in Math from non‐English speaking families

CIP8.2012 Page5



2012 COLLABORATION/COMMUNICATIONS The Frost staff will develop and implement strategies for results‐centered collaboration in teams across grade levels to help increase student learning.

MONITORING OF TEACHING AND LEARNING Teachers will receive regular feedback on how they are doing and will provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices

2011 COLLABORATION The staff will work across grade level teams to help increase student learning.

MONITORING OF TEACHING AND LEARNING Teachers receive feedback from other staff help improve their instructional practice.

Analysis of Perception Data—2011‐12


Why these goal areas were selected

Staff reviewed Perception Survey data to determine relative areas of growth.

Through discussion of reasoning behind responses, our staff was able to clarify needs and recommend actionable goals and interventions.

Actions taken to achieve these goals Participation in PLC Conference August 2011 and August 2012

All‐staff book study of Learning By Doing by Richard DuFour et al

All certificated staff assigned to a collaborative team for results‐based collaboration

Development of Specialist, Staff Meeting and LEAP schedules to include results‐based Collaborative Time

LEAP professional development focus on collaboration and PLC strategies

Revision of master schedule to include “sacred” grade‐level instructional blocks for both literacy and mathematics

Revision of Intervention Specialist schedules to include targeted collaborative intervention time

Development of ongoing staff and student feedback, recognition, and celebration in support of PLC Cultural Shift needs

Standing Vertical Leadership Team meetings to facilitate communication and shared decision making

Ongoing informal classroom visits with feedback

Continue staff learning walks and classroom visits

CIP8.2012 Page6

Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13: Due to DSS by November 16, 2012 Performance Goals – Statements (Current year’s work)




2020‐ 5th 72% 80% 74% 80% 83% NA

2021 ‐4th 76% 83% 63% 71% NA 74%

2022‐ 3rd

NA

72% NA 71% NA NA

2023‐2nd

70% 73% NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

67% 72% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

50% 73% NA NA NA NA

Challenge Goal: This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard (from 3 to 4) on the MSP in grades 3, 4, and 5 in a particular content area.


Reading

3rd NA 26%

4th 26% 30%

5th 36% 42%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 FREQUENT MONITORING OF LEARNING AND TEACHING: Teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing

From 52% to 57% (Agree Mostly/Completely)

HIGH LEVELS OF COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION: The staff works in teams across grade levels to help increase student learning

From 67% to 72% (Agree mostly/completely)

Process Summary


Literacy

Small, flexible reading groups K‐2 (Walk to Read).

Kindernet Title 1 Kindergarten Intervention Program for targeted kindergarten students

Before‐school Title 1 intervention class for targeted students in Reading and Writing

ELL scheduling aligned to K‐2 school‐wide Walk‐to‐Read program

CIP8.2012 Page7

Integration of Read Well and Read Naturally Curriculum Resources

Safety Net intervention reading groups for strategic/intensive students in fluency, phonics, and comprehension

Parent volunteers assigned to in‐class instructional support o Listening to students read for fluency practice and decoding o Small‐group and individual math facts review

Watch DOGS parent involvement program o Providing in‐class instructional support

Time For Kids for non‐fiction reading support

Accelerated Reader K‐5 for reading comprehension and literacy promotion

Targeted writing instruction on Organization and Conventions Mathematics

Before‐school Title 1 intervention class for targeted students focusing on math facts and fluency

Modification of LWSD math assessment materials to provide accommodations for students to more easily read problems and alternative space for response

Reading strategies for mathematics o Teaching math vocabulary for all students o Reading problems aloud to all students to ensure understanding o Math vocabulary instruction for ELL students through ELL program

Implementing classroom strategies for additional practice and instruction for math facts and mathematical fluency

XtraMath online math facts program for enrichment/review at school and home

Targeted classroom preteach/reteach strategies Science

Curriculum‐based vocabulary instruction for ELL students

Science Fair focused on developing and testing hypotheses and documenting the scientific process

Focus on embedding scientific process and writing strategies in all science instruction Additional Intervention

School wide schedules designed to support instructional programs o Uninterrupted instructional blocks for Reading and Mathematics o Specialist time scheduled by grade level to occur at the same time each day to

support instructional blocks o Common planning time provided for each grade level to allow for regular and

ongoing PLC collaboration o Instructional Assistant assignments revised, reducing clerical and production

work to provide more in‐class support o Lunch/Recess schedule revised this year to shorten duration of the K‐5 block,

recapturing an additional 30 minutes of instructional time

CIP8.2012 Page8

o Revised Safety Net scheduling providing additional Intervention support for classrooms K‐5 in support of school wide PLC practices for Mathematics and Writing

o Intervention specialist schedules (ELL, Safety Net, SpEd) aligned to reduce instances of students missing core instruction to receive intervention services

Revised meeting schedules and agendas to focus primarily on instructional strategies, programmatic decision making, and professional collaboration focusing on student results

Revised weekly staff communication (Monday Memo) to include regular focus items on Professional Growth, instructional research, and best practices

Targeted professional development in the implementation of PLC strategies o PLC Conference participation by representatives of every instructional team,

including Grade Levels, Curriculum Specialists, Special Education, and Safety Net (August 2012)

o Use of Learning by Doing (book for every teacher) and Power of PLC videos for LEAP activities

o Revision of meeting schedules to provide time and guidance for professional collaboration around student work and results

Safety Net/Title 1 Program Review and professional development to guide programmatic revisions

o Data Teams training for all Title 1 teachers o Participation in 90/90/90 Conference in December 2012


Literacy Progress Monitoring with DIBELS

Headsprout for strategic and intensive students (K‐2)

Accelerated reader for reading comprehension practice

Regular use of netbooks o Online resources for math facts, science, reading, and vocabulary

Starfall Ebooks Xtramath Study Jams Khan Academy

o Games and activities that reinforce skills in all areas o Writing process, including revising, editing, and publishing using Microsoft Office o Writing organization using PowerPoint and Photostory

EnVision o Envision multimedia for instruction and engagement o Intervention Episodes o Envision Online for home use

OneNote for student collaboration and organization

CIP8.2012 Page9

Daily use of ActivClassroom resources, including ActivStudio, Activotes, and document cameras to support direct instruction, instant‐assessment, and student engagement

Voice Amplification classroom systems used by teachers to support student engagement

Skyward online grade books

Haiku Learning Management System to support instruction, collaboration, and communication

o Identified as a PGE goal for all 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade teams


Regular communication with families o Weekly Tuesday Bulletin, Online and print o Weekly teacher/classroom newsletters o Teacher Websites K‐5 in place with planned Haiku integration and migration

Parent and Community Nights, including Title 1 Curriculum Nights, WatchDOG Nights, Science Fair, and PTSA family events

Parent Access Online o Including Online Grade Books and student information services o Targeted promotion of the system and support for families to access

Online assignments and instructional resources through EnVision and Haiku

Take‐home reading programs o Book Bear o AR

Additional Online resources available for home access o Headsprout o Type To Learn o EnVision o Haiku o Math websites for reteaching and enrichment, including Xtramath and Khan

Academy

Daily communication with individual families for academics and behavior, including Star Charts/Links, daily quick‐check reports, and detailed documentation

Strong PTSA involvement, including 100% staff membership, regular staff participation in PTSA meetings, and monthly meetings with the principal and PTSA leadership

Collaboration with PTSA to provide after school enrichment programs

Ongoing recruitment of Parent Volunteers for in‐class instructional support for Reading and Math skills

Collaboration with Kingsgate Library to promote local library services and events in support of literacy, language acquisition, and homework support

WatchDOGS program promoting daily volunteering from fathers and other male role models for support around the school

Art Docent program

Community Ceramics program with local artists

CIP8.2012 Page10


DIBEL progress monitoring in Reading

Read Well Assessment Use of district and curriculum‐based assessment resources, including CDSAs, district

Writing prompts, Reading theme tests, Selection Tests, and Envision Quick Checks PLC Team structures to support development of common formative assessments in

Math and Writing and regular team collaboration cycle of development, instruction, review, and response


PLC Question 3

Students are identified at the start of the year by district and curriculum based assessments, with teaching teams identifying appropriate classroom intervention strategies and pull‐out services.

Before‐school Title 1 intervention class for targeted students focusing on reading, writing, and fluency with math facts

Strategic annual and ongoing review by staff of student IEPs, 504 plans, and student health plans to ensure proper provision of classroom accommodations

Targeted pull‐out interventions through Safety Net for students performing below standard in reading, writing, and mathematics

Target multiple learning styles.

Small group instruction for targeted guided reading and math

Use of parent volunteers to provide additional small group and individual practice for math fact automaticity and reading decoding/fluency

Student collaboration and groupings to provide peer support and modeling

Flexible ability grouping for reading and mathematics

Teacher tutoring through lunch recess study groups and open library schedules

Regular use of reteaching and remediation resources from LWSD curriculum programs

Revised Safety Net scheduling providing additional Intervention support for classrooms K‐5 in support of school wide PLC practices for Mathematics and Writing

Partnership with Kingsgate Library to promote homework and tutoring services

Tutoring from Kamiakin Middle School students

Online resources for use at home and at school for reteaching and additional practice

In‐building Learning Walks to allow staff to observe effective practices currently in place

Staff‐provided professional development and peer‐support

PLC Question 4:

Flexible reading and math groups allow students to do work at their level

CIP8.2012 Page11

o In primary, this includes teaming with upper grade to meet readiness/needs.

Enrichment activities are provided for students o LWSD Curriculum‐based resources, including EnVision Enrichment o Online resources, including AR, XtraMath, Khan Academy, and interactive web

resources o Teacher/team created resources

Ongoing review of student performance data to identify which individual students are performing at or above standard, guiding planning and teaching strategies

Leveled reading resources and challenge novel studies

Multi‐age enrichment programs o Math Olympiad o Science Fair

Frost Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

FROST ELEMENTARY All math 216 154 71.296 73.7 76.1 78.5 80.9 83.3 85.6 2.4

FROST ELEMENTARY All reading 215 174 80.930 82.5 84.1 85.7 87.3 88.9 90.5 1.6

FROST ELEMENTARY American Indian math

FROST ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

FROST ELEMENTARY Asian math 23 18 78.261 80.1 81.9 83.7 85.5 87.3 89.1 1.8

FROST ELEMENTARY Asian reading 23 21 91.304 92.0 92.8 93.5 94.2 94.9 95.7 0.7

FROST ELEMENTARY Black math

FROST ELEMENTARY Black reading

FROST ELEMENTARY Hispanic math 38 20 52.632 56.6 60.5 64.5 68.4 72.4 76.3 3.9

FROST ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading 38 26 68.421 71.1 73.7 76.3 78.9 81.6 84.2 2.6

FROST ELEMENTARY White math 133 102 76.692 78.6 80.6 82.5 84.5 86.4 88.3 1.9

FROST ELEMENTARY White reading 132 107 81.061 82.6 84.2 85.8 87.4 89.0 90.5 1.6

FROST ELEMENTARY Limited English math

FROST ELEMENTARY Limited English reading

FROST ELEMENTARY Special Education math

FROST ELEMENTARY Special Education reading

FROST ELEMENTARY Low Income math 56 29 51.786 55.8 59.8 63.8 67.9 71.9 75.9 4.0

FROST ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 56 38 67.857 70.5 73.2 75.9 78.6 81.2 83.9 2.7

FROST ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

FROST ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

FROST ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math

FROST ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Juanita Elementary CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: Due to DSS by October 12, 2012

A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis:




88% 87% 73%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 37.3% 41.5% 24% 56% NA 59% 29.4%

2011‐3rd 34 % 52.8% 30.2% 58.5% NA NA



Reading Math

87% 78%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 35% 45% 27% 51% NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page2




2012‐ 2nd 84% NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 78% NA NA NA

2010‐ K 100% NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 81% NA NA NA

2011‐ K 88% NA NA NA




2012‐ K 98% NA NA NA



Reading: Book Bag Program

Book Exchange

Read Naturally

Differentiated Reading

Reading Buddies

Safety Net

Summer Reading

Read at home accountability (parent signs)

Placement tests –Data Walls

Differentiation

Reading Intervention Strategies (LEAP)

Reading Analyze Data

Modify Instruction

Integrate reading practice into other subjects

CIP8.2012 Page3

Reading volunteers

Non‐fiction reading (supplemental)

Guided Reading

Book Clubs

Reading Group

Dads & doughnuts

Global Reading Challenge

Living History Museum – Report Research

Partnership with UW Bothell – literacy teachers

Book Fair

Walk to Read

Math: Integrate tech with home/school connection through IXL

Close examination of State Standards

Xtra Math

enVision Games

Math enVision instruction and differentiated via work pages and games

Small group Safety Net with Gail Moss

Math Club

Math CDSAS

Math Volunteers

Placement tests – Data Walls – Differentiation

enVision Enrichment Pages/Activities

Differentiated Math Groups

Writing: Writing Journals

Step‐up‐to‐Writing across grade levels

Writing CDSA’s

Storybird

Norming of Writing CDSA Scoring

Agreed upon Writing Sequencing

Living History Museum – Colonial Report

Author’s Tea

Science: Science Journals for specific units

LEAP science presentation to staff on science procedure writing

Outdoor Education school teaches life science standards

Instructed using Foss Kits (spiral curriculum)

Differentiated science lessons depending on skill pre‐assessment & CDSAs

Arboretum

Use of OSPI Release Items

Science focus groups – working on writing conclusions and procedures

Science Videos that review science content

Science Fair (Student complete science experiment projects

Toy Maker Workshops

Integration into other subjects (reading/writing/math/art) – apply to other content

Science field trips (i.e. Museum of Flight, Zoo)

Close examination of State Standards

Puzzlewise home/school science program to enhance science content acquisition

CIP8.2012 Page4



Celebration:

Hispanic Students were above target for their sub group in both Reading & Math

Reading Target was 77.7% and Proficiency was 80%

Math Target was 73.5% and Proficiency was 84.2%

Special Education Students were above target for their sub group in both Reading & Math

Reading Target was 38.9% and Proficiency was 42.9%

Math Target was 38.9% and Proficiency was 46.7% Cause for Concern:

Low Income Students were below target for their sub group in both Reading & Math

Reading Target was 73.6% and Proficiency was 72.9%

Math Target was 74.1% and Proficiency was 67.6%



2012 The percentage of staff who believe parents are involved at school will increase from 40% to 50%.

The percentage of staff who feel free to express their ideas and opinions with one another will increase from 51% to 75%.

2011 The percentage of staff members who agree that school administrators consider various viewpoints when making decisions will increase from 54% to 80%.

The percentage of staff members that agree completely that staff members trust one another will increase from 31% to 41%.

2010 The total number of staff who believe all students can learn complex concepts will increase from 67% to 80%.

The total number of staff who believe all students are consistently challenged by a rigorous continuum will increase from 72% to 80%.


Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals? For the 2011-2012 school year, staff selected goals around parent involvement and staff being able to express their opinions with one another. These goals were selected because they were the lowest data points in the Nine Characteristics Data and showed the most significant areas for improvement. Actions taken to achieve the parent involvement goal included an effort to make volunteer work more meaningful through Small RTI Reading Groups and Watch DOGS; added new activities that would attract parent volunteers with different skill sets, like Bird House

CIP8.2012 Page5

Building, Science Fair, and labor in the Arboretum. Actions taken to achieve the goal included taking the whole staff to an offsite retreat to build relationships, celebrate successes, and increase awareness of personalities and various communication styles; encouraged social opportunities for the staff, and included everyone in building leadership for a trimester. To provide opportunities for all staff to be heard during meetings, we frequently have small group discussions before sharing with the whole group.

Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13: Due to DSS by November 16, 2012 Performance Goals – Statements (Current year’s work)




2020‐ 5th 85% 88% 75% 80% 90% NA

2021 ‐4th 82% 89% 78% 83% NA 86%

2022‐ 3rd

NA 88% NA 89% NA NA

2023‐2nd

81% 85% NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

98% 100% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

91% 95% NA NA NA NA

Challenge Goal: This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard (from 3 to 4) on

the MSP in grades 3, 4, and 5 in a particular content area.


Math 54.6% 60%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 Many parents are involved as volunteers at the school will increase from 42% to 50%.

Staff routinely work together to plan what will be taught will increase from 78% to 84%.

Process Summary

Highlight building‐wide strategies to meet goals in reading, math, science and writing: To meet goals in reading, math, science, and writing this year we have an intentional and dedicated focus on ensuring that our students master the Washington State standards, strategic intervention in

CIP8.2012 Page6

math and reading, and targeted assistance for individual students. We will continue to implement all best practices that we have found effective in the past and in addition, increase differentiation through leveled grouping at each grade level. Highlight use of technology to improve student learning:

We will improve student learning through the use of technology by more intentional use of online resources from enVision and IXL, integrating the use of Netbooks into every content area, collaboratively using the Data Dashboard to inform instructional practice, and conducting an analysis of the efficacy of current software programs.

Highlight steps to involve staff, students, parents, families, and community:

MSP Data analysis and goal setting with staff

MSP Data Talk – Coffee with the Principal

Parent & community volunteers actively support student learning in the classroom

Watch DOGS program to bring in positive male volunteers

PTSA Science Assembly

Professional Development and PLC student focus during LEAP


Meet in PLCs to analyze student data, norm grading practice, and generate ideas for changes in pedagogical approach.

Assessments used throughout the year: District CDSAs Ongoing Curriculum‐based Formative & Summative Assessments DIBELS Progress Monitoring enVision Quick Checks & End of Topic Assessments

Readwell Unit Tests and Houghton Mifflin Unit Tests


Differentiation in the general education classroom

Leveled small group instruction in reading (K‐2) and in math (3‐5)

Safety Net

ELL

Dedicated Instructional Assistant time to provide small group instruction

Juanita Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

JUANITA ELEMENTARY All math 207 169 81.643 83.2 84.7 86.2 87.8 89.3 90.8 1.5

JUANITA ELEMENTARY All reading 203 176 86.700 87.8 88.9 90.0 91.1 92.2 93.4 1.1

JUANITA ELEMENTARY American Indian math

JUANITA ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Asian math 30 29 96.667 96.9 97.2 97.5 97.8 98.1 98.3 0.3

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Asian reading 29 26 89.655 90.5 91.4 92.2 93.1 94.0 94.8 0.9

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Black math

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Black reading

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Hispanic math 38 27 71.053 73.5 75.9 78.3 80.7 83.1 85.5 2.4

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading 37 28 75.676 77.7 79.7 81.8 83.8 85.8 87.8 2.0

JUANITA ELEMENTARY White math 104 87 83.654 85.0 86.4 87.7 89.1 90.5 91.8 1.4

JUANITA ELEMENTARY White reading 102 92 90.196 91.0 91.8 92.6 93.5 94.3 95.1 0.8

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Limited English math

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Limited English reading

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Special Education math 21 7 33.333 38.9 44.4 50.0 55.6 61.1 66.7 5.6

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 21 7 33.333 38.9 44.4 50.0 55.6 61.1 66.7 5.6

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Low Income math 53 38 71.698 74.1 76.4 78.8 81.1 83.5 85.8 2.4

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 52 37 71.154 73.6 76.0 78.4 80.8 83.2 85.6 2.4

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math 26 20 76.923 78.8 80.8 82.7 84.6 86.5 88.5 1.9

JUANITA ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading 26 23 88.462 89.4 90.4 91.3 92.3 93.3 94.2 1.0

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Keller Elementary CIP 2012‐2013










Analysis – 70% to 73%

Number sense – 52% to 55%

Content, organization, style – 78% to 80%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 30% 48% 13% 44% NA 31% 42%

2011‐3rd 28% 52% 38% 18% NA NA



Reading Math Percentage of fourth graders scoring at proficiency or higher in reading analysis will increase from 70% to 73% by spring 2012 as measured by the MSP.

Percentage of fourth graders scoring at proficiency or higher in number sense will increase from 52% to 55% by spring 2012 as measured by the MSP.

CIP8.2012 Page2

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 28% 52% 30% 49% NA NA




2012‐ 2nd 79%

NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 83%

NA NA NA

2010‐ K 83%

NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 90%

NA NA NA

2011‐ K 77%

NA NA NA




2012‐ K 63%

NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page3



Reading: Ability grouping using small groups. Curriculum: ReadWell & comprehension strategies. Scott Foresman, Guided Reading, Read Naturally, CAFÉ.

Math: Curriculum: Envision Math Enrichment: IXL

Writing: Curriculum: Lucy Calkins Units of Study & Step Up to Writing, Six Traits, units of study

Science: Curriculum: Foss & Additional Practice with Science Processes.



Math

Student Group

Proficiency

Target Met Target Proficienc

y Target Met Target

Met 95% Participation Target

Met 95% Participation Target

All 81.7 82.6 Below 67.5 69.3 Below On/Above On/Above American Indian

No Students

No Students

No Students

No Students

Asian 87.0 87.5 Below 73.9 91.7 Below On/Above On/Above Pacific Islander

N<Required

N<Required

N<Required

N<Required

Black N<Require

d N<Require

d N<Require

d N<Require

d Hispanic 71.4 48.7 On/Above 38.1 45.0 Below On/Above On/Above White 84.9 90.8 Below 72.3 74.0 Below On/Above On/Above Two or More Races

77.3 82.4 Below 72.7 61.2 On/Above On/Above On/Above

Limited English

N<Required

N<Required

N<Required

N<Required

Special Education

50.0 45.4 On/Above 31.1 25.8 On/Above On/Above On/Above

Low Income 70.1 63.6 On/Above 53.7 54.2 Below On/Above On/Above

Other Indicator

On/Above

In the resource room, students work in small groups with other students of similar skill levels. Students are taught using research‐based direct instruction curriculum. Students are learning school skills that will help in their success both in their general education classroom and in the resource room.

CIP8.2012 Page4



2012 Teachers use effective strategies to help low‐performing students meet high academic standards. Score 3.11

School administrators consider various viewpoints when making decisions. Score 2.95

2011 Our staff focus this year will include work on Marzano’s “What works in Classroom Instruction”. We will spend LEAP time learning as a staff the techniques for improving our instruction

We have developed a new Team (BIT‐Building Intervention Team) to review behavior issues with individual student problems. It may involve parents if needed.

2010 Increase the total number of staff who believes all students can learn complex concepts from last year’s 75% total to 90% this year as measured by the Staff Nine Characteristics Survey.



These were the lowest scoring areas for our school. We focused on each goal and developed strategies to improve in those areas. With each goal we worked with our Building Leadership

Team to put into place plans and review performance in each area.

CIP8.2012 Page5

Keller Elementary Performance Goals – Statements for 2012‐13




2020‐ 5th 78% 81% 57% 60% 78% NA

2021 ‐4th 76% 77% in Reading Analysis

77% 78% in Problem Solving

NA Increase from79% to 80% on Content, Organization and Style

2022‐ 3rd

NA Percentage of third graders scoring at proficiency or higher in analysis will increase by at least three percent from August 2012 to June 2013 as measured by Houghton Mifflin Theme Skills Tests and district summative assessments administered throughout the year as well as measured by MSP administered in May 2013.

NA Percentage of third graders scoring at proficiency or higher in number sense/algebraic sense and problem solving/reasoning will increase by at least three percent by June 2013 as measured by MSP administered May 2013 and envision summative assessment.

NA NA

2023‐2nd NA Percentage of NA NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page6

Second Graders scoring at proficiency or higher in fluency will increase from 84% to 86% by the end of the 2012‐2013 school year as measured by the DIBELS assessment in October 2012 and June 2013.

2024‐ 1st

NA Percentage of first graders scoring at or above grade level in nonsense word fluency will increase from 65% to 85% as measured by the DIBELS assessment administered as a baseline assessment in September and a final assessment in June 2013.

NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

NA The percentage of Kindergarten students scoring at

NA NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page7

proficiency or higher on Letter Naming Fluency will increase from 68% to 90% as administered by the DIBELS assessment.

Challenge Goal: This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard (from 3 to 4) on the MSP in grades 3, 4, and 5 in a particular content area.


5th grade Math ‐ Focus on problem‐solving and reasoning strand 4th grade Reading 3rd grade Math ‐ Percentage of third graders scoring at proficiency or higher in number sense/algebraic sense and problem solving/reasoning

44% 46% at Level 4 NA

47% 47% at Level 4 Increase by at least three percent by June 2013 as measured by MSP administered May 2013 and envision summative assessment.

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 All students are consistently challenged by rigorous curriculum – from 2.63 to 3.0

Teachers provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices – from 2.75 to 3.0

CIP8.2012 Page8

Process Summary


Ability grouping using small groups, Read‐Well & comprehension strategies, Scott Foresman, Guided Reading, Read Naturally, CAFÉ, Envision Math Enrichment, IXL , Lucy Calkins Units of Study & Step Up to Writing, Six Traits, units of study, Foss & Additional Practice with Science Processes.


Technology is incorporated within instruction in all classrooms in all content areas

Netbooks are used within the writing process, to support access to envision and TCI resources, for academic games, reading resources, etc…

Collaboration between our technology team and staff providing professional training in several areas: Data Dashboard, web design, Haiku


PTA involvement in classrooms and providing resources to classes, Newsletters, Reading Family nights on a monthly basis, Classroom volunteers


Envision math assessments for end of units, Read Well assessments, District CDSA’s, Teacher designed formative/summative assessments, Dibbles Progress Monitoring


Differentiating instruction within classroom instruction, ELL grouping and pull out, Safety Net instruction in reading and math, Leveled grouping in reading and math

Keller Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

KELLER ELEMENTARY All math 200 133 66.500 69.3 72.1 74.9 77.7 80.5 83.3 2.8

KELLER ELEMENTARY All reading 200 162 81.000 82.6 84.2 85.8 87.3 88.9 90.5 1.6

KELLER ELEMENTARY American Indian math

KELLER ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

KELLER ELEMENTARY Asian math 22 20 90.909 91.7 92.4 93.2 93.9 94.7 95.5 0.8

KELLER ELEMENTARY Asian reading 22 19 86.364 87.5 88.6 89.8 90.9 92.0 93.2 1.1

KELLER ELEMENTARY Black math

KELLER ELEMENTARY Black reading

KELLER ELEMENTARY Hispanic math 25 10 40.000 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 5.0

KELLER ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading 25 11 44.000 48.7 53.3 58.0 62.7 67.3 72.0 4.7

KELLER ELEMENTARY White math 120 86 71.667 74.0 76.4 78.8 81.1 83.5 85.8 2.4

KELLER ELEMENTARY White reading 120 108 90.000 90.8 91.7 92.5 93.3 94.2 95.0 0.8

KELLER ELEMENTARY Limited English math

KELLER ELEMENTARY Limited English reading

KELLER ELEMENTARY Special Education math 42 8 19.048 25.8 32.5 39.3 46.0 52.8 59.5 6.7

KELLER ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 42 17 40.476 45.4 50.4 55.4 60.3 65.3 70.2 5.0

KELLER ELEMENTARY Low Income math 58 29 50.000 54.2 58.3 62.5 66.7 70.8 75.0 4.2

KELLER ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 58 35 60.345 63.6 67.0 70.3 73.6 76.9 80.2 3.3

KELLER ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

KELLER ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

KELLER ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math 26 15 57.692 61.2 64.7 68.3 71.8 75.3 78.8 3.5

KELLER ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading 26 21 80.769 82.4 84.0 85.6 87.2 88.8 90.4 1.6

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan John Muir Elementary CIP 2012‐2013









Reading Math Writing Grade 4, Class of 2020 from 69% at standard as measured by their performance on their Grade 3 Reading MSP to 73% at standard on their Grade 4 2012 Reading MSP.

Grade 4, Class of 2020 from 50.8 at standard as measured by their performance on their Grade 3 Math MSP to 62% at standard on their Grade 4 2012 Math MSP.

Grade 4, Class of 2020 from 70.3% of Class of 2019 students at standard on the Grade 4 Spring 2011 Writing MSP to 73% of Class of 2020 at standard on the Spring 2012 Writing MSP.

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 22/35% 25/ 40% 15/ 24% 17/ 27% NA 32/ 51% 15/ 25%

2011‐3rd 16/ 28% 24/ 41% 21/ 36% 9/ 16% NA NA



Reading Math Grade 3, Class of 2021 will achieve 60% of students at standard as measured by the spring Grade 3 2012 Reading MSP

Grade 3, Class of 2021 52% of students will be at standard as measured by the spring Grade 3 2012 Math MSP.

CIP8.2012 Page2

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 29% 29% 29% 19% NA NA




2012‐ 2nd 80% Benchmark 8% Strategic 8% Intensive

NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 87% Benchmark 7% Strategic 6% Intensive

NA NA NA

2010‐ K 87% Benchmark 17% Strategic 6% Intensive

NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 71% Benchmark 22% Strategic 7% Intensive

NA NA NA

2011‐ K Benchmark Strategic Intensive

NA NA NA


CIP8.2012 Page3



2012‐ K 94% Benchmark 4% Strategic 2% Intensive

NA NA NA



Reading: SN resources were allocated to provide extended day learning for specifically targeted students, using research based curriculum materials, and taught by skilled reading teachers.

Literacy block of instruction is scheduled with highest priority and is required to be 90‐120 minutes per day for each student and SN students receiving additional time based on need and resources available.

Classified staffing is scheduled to provide additional small group instruction.

Reading assessment data was used to carefully identify students to receive Tier 2 instruction with curriculum designed to focus on specific skills.

Students not at benchmark on the BOY universal screening tool were given diagnostic assessments such as the HM Core Phonic Assessment or the TOWRE, to determine targeted instruction in Tier 2 (double dip) groups done outside of the core literacy time.

Computer assisted learning programs were used with specifically targeted students and usage was monitored for fidelity of use and measurable progress.

Grades 3‐6 did daily reading fluency and repeated readings, test taking skills, and work with academic vocabulary enabled students to perform better on the MSP reading assessment.

The JME library coordinated a school‐wide program to encourage increased independent reading by all students. The JME Read‐A‐Million program resulted in students recording over two million pages read over the course of the school year.

Grade level teams in collaboration with the SN team regularly conducted data team meetings to review the results of universal screenings, progress monitoring data, and curriculum based assessments and then group students appropriately for instruction.

Each student was required to set very specific reading goals based on BOY reading assessments and then were expected to monitor their own progress.

Continued staff effort was made to increase the amount of writing done in all classes in all subjects.

CIP8.2012 Page4

Walk to Read was used in grades K‐3 so all students to be grouped by instructional levels and targeted instruction.

K‐5 teachers participated in PD to review the importance of fluency instruction and effective methods for building fluency.

A thorough, independent audit of the JME reading program was conducted by The Consortium on Reading Excellence.

Parent and community volunteers were used to target DIBELS and fluency skills.

Math: All K‐6 general ed classrooms were required to allocate at least one hour per day to math instruction.

All staff reviewed the envision 4 part lesson plan during LEAP time.

Grade level teams did collaborative scoring for end of topic assessments.

SN resources were allocated to provide extended day math groups so that tier 2 instruction could happen without pulling students from the core math time.

Walk to Math was used in targeted grade levels.

Extended day math was provided as a double dip for 14 targeted students of which 12 passed the MSP.

Additional SN resources were dedicated to math.

ELL teachers provided additional support in math vocabulary.

Computer assisted learning programs were used with far more consistency to build basic math fluency skills.

Parent volunteers were used more extensively in targeted grades to build math fluency skills.

Writing: As a result of a mult‐year commitment to training staff in the 90/90/90 research by Douglas Reeves, all general ed teachers made a commitment to increase the amount of writing all students did across the academic day.

Each grade level was required to determine a set time each day for writing instruction separate from reading instruction.

Collaborative scoring of 4 writing assessments using the LWSD rubrics throughout the year allowed teachers to compare student work and determine effective strategies of instruction.

Science: Focused teaching of science vocabulary.

ELL teachers provided additional focus on science vocabulary and the scientific process.

Systematic and explicit teaching of science conclusion and procedure writing improved science scores.

We have increased the amount of writing through the use of science journals.

CIP8.2012 Page5



Based on review of spring 2012 MSP/EOY Data:

Each grade level cohort group achieved the SMART goals set on the 2011/2012 CIP with the exception of 3rd Grade math which missed the goal by 1 percentage point.

The JME Grade 6 Class of 2018 students scored the highest percentage of students at proficiency in reading ever in the history of the school at 93.3 %. This percentage was among the highest in the district and was significantly better than many schools with significantly lower numbers of SES students and students who were previously served in ELL. This cohort group had many students who started kindergarten not having any English skills.

Cohort data on the MSP for 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th all showed growth from 2011 to 2012 MSP. For example, the Class of 2018 improved in reading from 86.4% at standard on the Sp 2011 MSP to 93.3% at standard on the Sp 2012 MSP.

In Grades 4, 5, and 6 on the spring 2012 Reading MSP the % of students scoring level 4 was significantly higher than the % of students scoring level 3. For example, of the Class of 2019 students, 50% score at level 4, and 30% score at level 3. The % of 3rd grade students scoring level 3 and level 4 was statistically even.

A significant number of ELL/Low SES students who had not previously passed the MSP, passed the spring 2012 reading MSP, or came very close to passing. A number of students who started kindergarten at JME not speaking a word of English or able to identify a single letter of the alphabet finally passed the reading MSP.

According to the WA State Report Card Annual Measurable Objective Proficiency Detail report Asian students in both reading and math scored 4.8% below the annual target. Specifically our 3rd and 5th grade Asian students scored significantly below the annual AMO target.

No student who is both ELL and Special Ed demonstrated proficiency on the MSP.

No student who is ELL/Low SES/SpEd demonstrated proficiency on the MSP.

51/54 (94.4%) of kinder students were at benchmark on the EOY DIBELS an improvement from 32/54 (59.2%) at benchmark on BOY DIBELS.



2012 7. Focused Professional Development A strong emphasis is placed on training staff in areas of most need. Feedback from learning and teaching focuses extensive and ongoing professional development. The support is also aligned with the school or district vision and objectives.

9. High Level of Family & Community Involvement There is a sense that all have a responsibility to educate students, not just teachers and school staff. Families, businesses, social service agencies, and community colleges/universities play a vital role in this

CIP8.2012 Page6

During the 2011/2012 school year the certificated staff at JME will increase the total percentage of staff who agree mostly or agree completely that staff members get help in the areas they need to improve from 76% to 95% as measured by the spring 2012 Nine Characteristics of Highly Effective Schools Survey.

Staff will work collaboratively to determine a process for input and feedback on both professional development and staff development that targets areas of highest identified need.

effort. During the 2011/2012 school year the certificated staff at JME will increase the total percentage of staff who agree completely that the school provides ample information to families about how to help students succeed in school from 33% to 60% as measured by the spring 2012 Nine Characteristics of Highly Effective Schools Survey. Staff will work collaboratively to increase our capacity to engage parents in the education of their children.

2011 Characteristic #2 Standards and Expectations: All students are consistently challenged by a rigorous curriculum Increase the total number of staff who agree mostly or agree completely that all students are consistently challenged by a rigorous curriculum to 100%.

Characteristic #7 A strong emphasis is placed on training staff in areas of most need Increase the total number of staff who agree completely to 55% as measured by the Staff Nine Characteristics Survey that staff members get help in the areas they need to improve.

2010 2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students.

Teachers and staff believe that all students can learn and meet high standards. While recognizing that some students must overcome significant barriers, these obstacles are not seen as insurmountable. Students are offered an ambitious and rigorous course of study.

4 High Levels of Collaboration and Communication.

There is strong teamwork among teachers across all grades and with other staff. Everybody is involved and connected to each other, including parents and members of the community, to identify problems and work on solutions.


Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals? Focused Professional Development and High Level of Family & Community Involvement were selected as goals based on the analysis of our spring 2011 Nine Characteristics survey. Not only were these two areas that the survey showed opportunity to improve staff perception, but there was strong consensus that improvement in these areas would lead to improved student achievement.

CIP8.2012 Page7

Continued staff development on effective implementation of RTI. Team of teachers attended the National Title 1 Conference in Seattle and presented to

all staff A team of teachers attended the 90/90/90 Conference in Universal City, California and

then presented to all staff. A thorough audit of reading instructional practices was conducted by CORE-Consortium

on Reading Excellence to determine how best to focus staff development in reading. All staff were provided a copy of the CORE Sourcebook. Staff development was provided in reading fluency. Targeted/individual professional development was provided based on observation data. Resources were allocated to provide two staff members to initiate a parent engagement

program. A targeted survey was conducted to collect information and determine areas of focus

for parent engagement. Staff development in parent engagement was provided. Staff made focused effort to engage certain groups of parents with important

achievement data. LINKS volunteers, Rotary volunteers, and community volunteers were used to a greater

degree to support teaching and learning. Principal did targeted professional development in the area of parent engagement. Accessed and used regularly with all staff the Harvard Family Engagement materials.

CIP8.2012 Page8

Continuous Improvement Process Plan

John Muir Elementary CIP 2012‐2013





Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13: Due to DSS by November 16, 2012





2020‐ 5th 70% 74% 49% 53% 51% NA

2021 ‐4th 55% 60% 41% 45% NA 60%

2022‐ 3rd

NA 56% NA 55% NA NA

2023‐2nd

DIBELS Intensive22% Strategic‐13% Benchmark‐65%

20%

13% 67%

NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

85% at standard in NWF 92% at standard in NWF

NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

63% @ Benchmark on BOY FSF

85% @ Benchmark on FSF in January 85% @ Benchmark on PSF at EOY

NA NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page9

Challenge Goal:



Spring 2013 MSP Reading 39.6% at Level 4 41% at Level 4

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 Many parents are involved as volunteers at JME from 21.5% of certificated staff who agree mostly or agree completely to 35% who agree mostly or agree completely.

Teachers provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices from 71.4% who agree mostly or agree completely to 80% who agree mostly or agree completely.

Process Summary


CORE (Consortium on Reading Excellence) training for all certificated staff will improve instructional skills in reading and writing. This will also positively impact vocabulary instruction in math and science.

Use of the data dashboard to inform planning and preparation for all students in all 4 disciplines.

More targeted use of computer assisted learning programs including Lexia for reading, Rosetta Stone for language acquisition, Headsprout for early literacy skills, and IXL for math computational fluency.

Parent Volunteers to provide additional guided practice of early literacy skills which will result in high percentage of kinders.

K‐5 common use of Phonics Q charts/program to improve decoding skills.

Continued application of SIOP training to improve learning for ELL’s

Continued use of Walk to Read in K‐3 to target phonics skills.

Data Team Training for 4th and 5th grade team will improve the use of data to refine effective instructional practices. Will lead to more responsive teaching and learning through the use of short cycle common formative assessments.

Continued targeted instruction delivered to identified students in extended day programs.

Collaborative scoring of enVision end of topic and free response assessments to refine instruction.


CIP8.2012 Page10

Lexia Learning is being used with targeted students in grades 1‐5.

Headsprout is being used with all Kinder students

IXL to improve computational fluency through individualized repeated practice.

Grade levels have developed common flip charts for use on the ActivBoard.

4/5 Team are using netbooks to deliver a before school computer assisted learning program.


Parent volunteers are helping to facilitate before school computer assisted learning.

Parent volunteers are delivering targeted guided practice with early literacy skill work in all three kinder classes.

Use of email distribution lists to deliver daily/weekly curriculum updates.

ELL Family Night at the Kingsgate KCL branch. Coordinated with the children’s librarian to introduce parents to the range of resources available including citizenship classes, adult language classes, and early literacy programs.

Huge and active Nourishing Network program involving both community and parent donors to provide weekly food support to JME families in need.

Rotary involvement in our Book Buddies/Math Buddies program.

Family Literacy Night to promote parent awareness of how they can support literacy at home.

SN/Title 1 Parent Information Night.

Student led conferences

A full schedule of PTSA sponsored community building events including: ice cream social, Fall Festival, Family Dance Night, and Family Movie Nights.


JME uses the ReadWell end of unit assessments to measure student progress and to determine the need for any adjustments in placement in the program. These are kept by each grade level team and reviewed at grade level data team meetings.

Collaborative scoring of CDSA’s

All enVision end of topic assessments are reviewed by grade level teams.

DIBELS and TRC are done K‐5 as a universal screening three times during the year and progress monitoring with DIBELS is done every two weeks for intensive and once per month for strategic students.

BURST assessments/monitoring is used to measure progress of students in our Kinder Intervention Program.


enVision math provides differentiated independent practice.

Extended day programs target students who require remediation.

Computer assisted learning programs are all self‐paced and responsive to the skill level of the student.

SN staff are using research based curriculum such as Reading Mastery to accelerate

CIP8.2012 Page11

student achievement.

Grade level teams meet almost daily to insure instruction is differentiated to the degree possible.

High achieving readers in grade 3 meet daily with our librarian for targeted skill development.

Data team meetings are used to determine proper placement of students at their instructional level in grades k‐3 using Walk To Read.

SN staff provide SDI to meet IEP goals and double dip groups in reading and math.

Guided reading groups/small group instructional groups are used in grades 2‐5 differentiate reading instruction.

Muir Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

MUIR ELEMENTARY All math 221 125 56.561 60.2 63.8 67.4 71.0 74.7 78.3 3.6

MUIR ELEMENTARY All reading 222 165 74.324 76.5 78.6 80.7 82.9 85.0 87.2 2.1

MUIR ELEMENTARY American Indian math

MUIR ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

MUIR ELEMENTARY Asian math 77 46 59.740 63.1 66.5 69.8 73.2 76.5 79.9 3.4

MUIR ELEMENTARY Asian reading 77 59 76.623 78.6 80.5 82.5 84.4 86.4 88.3 1.9

MUIR ELEMENTARY Black math

MUIR ELEMENTARY Black reading

MUIR ELEMENTARY Hispanic math 39 14 35.897 41.2 46.6 51.9 57.3 62.6 67.9 5.3

MUIR ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading 39 18 46.154 50.6 55.1 59.6 64.1 68.6 73.1 4.5

MUIR ELEMENTARY White math 89 55 61.798 65.0 68.2 71.3 74.5 77.7 80.9 3.2

MUIR ELEMENTARY White reading 90 73 81.111 82.7 84.3 85.8 87.4 89.0 90.6 1.6

MUIR ELEMENTARY Limited English math 37 4 10.811 18.2 25.7 33.1 40.5 48.0 55.4 7.4

MUIR ELEMENTARY Limited English reading 37 6 16.216 23.2 30.2 37.2 44.1 51.1 58.1 7.0

MUIR ELEMENTARY Special Education math 41 4 9.756 17.3 24.8 32.3 39.8 47.4 54.9 7.5

MUIR ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 41 9 21.951 28.5 35.0 41.5 48.0 54.5 61.0 6.5

MUIR ELEMENTARY Low Income math 93 42 45.161 49.7 54.3 58.9 63.4 68.0 72.6 4.6

MUIR ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 94 57 60.638 63.9 67.2 70.5 73.8 77.0 80.3 3.3

MUIR ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

MUIR ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

MUIR ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math

MUIR ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading


Continuous Improvement Process Plan Sandburg Elementary CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis:




83% 79% 74%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 49% 35% 48% 32% NA 37% 37%

2011‐3rd 48.1% 37.7% 32.5% 41.6% NA NA



Reading Math

78% 70%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 44% 34% 31% 39% NA NA





2012‐ 2nd 84.8% NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 83% NA NA NA

2010‐ K 90.2% NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 93.6%

NA NA NA

2011‐ K 88.6%

NA NA NA




2012‐ K 90.74% NA NA NA



Reading: Safety Net Special Education Battle of the Books Book Rodeo Read Across America Read Aloud SSR

Math: Safety Net Special Education Xtra Math Explorations in Math with Math Club grades 1‐4 IXL Math Math Olympiad


Math Game Books Math Parent Night

Writing: Special Education, including Occupational Therapy and Speech/Communication

Science: FOSS Science Kits Science Fair/Expo PTSA Assembly



Sandburg Elementary has cause for celebration among most subgroups. Ethnicity, ELL, Special Education, and Low Income sub groups performed at or above targeted objectives in reading and math for both achievement and participation. 50% of our students with special education services met or exceeded standard in math. 44% of those students met or exceeded standard in reading. Gender differences are an area of concern. In reading and math, girls outperformed boys by a 10% spread. This difference is similar to district gender subgroup performance. Although it represents a small cohort, a much greater difference was noted in writing. In writing, 90% of 4th grade girls met standard but only 63% of boys met standard. The district average for boys meeting or exceeding standard in writing is 70%.

A. Perception Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis


2012 The number of staff responding Agree Mostly or Agree Completely to the question, “The school uses a system to obtain a variety of perspectives when making decisions,” will increase from 76% to 85% as measured by the 2012 9 Characteristics Survey.

The number of staff responding Agree Mostly or Agree Completely to the question, “Student discipline problems are managed well,” will increase from 57% to 76% as measured by the 2012 9 Characteristics Survey.

2011 Historical Perception Data unavailable Historical Perception Data unavailable




Teachers reflected on the findings of the 9 Characteristics Perception Survey, identifying two


goal areas with the potential to create significant improvement in the culture of the school. The staff recognized the value of obtaining a variety of perspectives when making decisions. A committee was formed to create a shared decision making model. The committee compared decision making models from other elementary schools in the district, gathered feedback from all staff members, and implemented use of the final plan. Despite this effort, the perception data reflected a drop in confidence from 76% to 66%. The management of student discipline issues was the second area of focus. Perception data show a drop in confidence from 57% to 28%. It is likely that these scores are a reflection of the significant change the community was undergoing in terms of a transition to a new facility and new leadership.






2020‐ 5th 83% 87% 76% 79% 59% at Standard on Report Card

NA

2021 ‐4th 78% 79% 70% 71% NA 74%

2022‐ 3rd

78% 80% NA NA NA

2023‐2nd

79% 90% NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

73% 96% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

70% 90% NA NA NA NA

Challenge Goal:

This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard on the MSP in grades 3, 4, and 5 in a particular content area. Given the growing math culture, Carl Sandburg teachers selected math as the area of focus for the challenge goal.


Math Grades 3‐5 34% exceeding 38% exceeding


standard in grades 4 and 5; 5% exceeding standard in 3rd grade

standard in grades 3‐5

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 The number of staff responding Agree Mostly or Agree Completely to the question, “The staff shares a common understanding of what the school wants to achieve”, will increase from 57% to 72% as measured by the 2013 Nine Characteristics Survey.

The number of staff responding Agree Mostly or Agree Completely to the question, “Professional development activities are consistent with school goals”, will increase from 42.8% to 61% as measured by the 2013 Nine Characteristics Survey.

Process Summary


Research based strategies that are used across all grade levels and in all content areas include:

Building vocabulary using teacher explanation, student explanation, and student representation.

Students working together in small groups.

Activation of prior knowledge through cues and questions.

Massed and distributed practice.

Setting learning targets (goals) in student friendly language

Frequent use of engagement strategies to capture student attention As a staff, we have committed to the following structures and expectations that will facilitate student progress:

Weekly grade level team meetings and quarterly vertical team meetings

Agreements on timely, common formative assessments in reading, math, science, and writing.

Weekly data team meetings that follow a Cycle of Inquiry. This year the focus is on data review and collaborative instructional planning based on individual student performance in the content area of Writing.

Additional strategies specific to each content area include:

Reading: Safety Net, Special Education, SSR, small group instruction provided through daily Instructional Assistants for grades 1 and 2. (Activities: Battle of the Books, Read Across America, Book Rodeo)

Math: Safety Net, Special Education, Explorations in Math with Math Club grades 1‐5 (Activities: Math Olympiad, Math Challenge Board, Math Family Night, math game books)


Science: FOSS Science kits (Activities: Science Fair/Expo, PTSA Assembly)

Writing: Special Education, grade level teams selected common formative assessments and meet to review new data monthly. Teachers emphasize common structure, curriculum, and vocabulary through the use of Writer’s Workshop, CAFÉ, Daily 5.


Reading: RAZ‐kids computer reading for kids (K) Math: IXL Math, Envision Writing: Word (to complete pre‐write, write, revise, edit, publish), Co:Writer word prediction and talking word processor for identified students with SDI. Active Votes

Highlight steps to involve staff, students, parents, families, and community:

All certificated staff participated in the development of the CIP and SMART Goals. Together, we reviewed MSP and report card as indicators of student learning outcomes and reviewed our perception data from The Nine Characteristics survey. We gained familiarity with the Data Dashboard and included this as a resource to mine for data to support our CIP and SMART goals. Surveys and voting are used regularly to assure that all staff members contribute to decision making and to identify areas needing action. Weekly newsletters from the principal, Curriculum Night, Meet and Greet, Grand Opening Celebration and Open House are venues giving parents an opportunity to learn about teaching, learning, and assessment. Monthly coffee chats with the principal give parents an informal setting to talk about topics of their own choosing. Teachers also provide classroom newsletters, websites, and blogs. Activities designed to strengthen parents as partners in education include Family Math Night, Math Adventures, Math Challenge Board, Family Reading Night, Reflections Celebration, and varied opportunities for volunteering in the classroom, from home, during the school day and non‐school hours.


Reading: DIBELS, CBM, 1:1 reading with students. Math: Volunteers for math facts, CDSA, Envision End of Unit and (select) Quick Checks. Science: CDSA Writing: CDSA, 1:1 conferences with students.


How will we respond when some students don’t learn it?

Safety Net, increase small group instruction, reteach, How will we respond when some students already know?

Extension activities such as application of math concepts to new situations in story problems

Sandburg Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY All math 272 196 72.059 74.4 76.7 79.0 81.4 83.7 86.0 2.3

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY All reading 271 217 80.074 81.7 83.4 85.1 86.7 88.4 90.0 1.7

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY American Indian math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Asian math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Asian reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Black math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Black reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Hispanic math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY White math 227 163 71.806 74.2 76.5 78.9 81.2 83.6 85.9 2.3

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY White reading 226 181 80.088 81.7 83.4 85.1 86.7 88.4 90.0 1.7

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Limited English math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Limited English reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Special Education math 39 12 30.769 36.5 42.3 48.1 53.8 59.6 65.4 5.8

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 39 16 41.026 45.9 50.9 55.8 60.7 65.6 70.5 4.9

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Low Income math 25 12 48.000 52.3 56.7 61.0 65.3 69.7 74.0 4.3

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 25 15 60.000 63.3 66.7 70.0 73.3 76.7 80.0 3.3

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math

SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading


Continuous Improvement Process Thoreau Elementary CIP 2012‐2013

Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis:




69% 71% NA

B. Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐6th 35% 37% 31% 39%

2011‐5rd 33% 44% 33% 32% 24% 44%

2010‐4rd 25% 50% 26% 28% 37% 39%



Reading Math Science

78% 71% 78%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐5th 23% 54% 38% 30% 16% 60%

2011‐4rd 46% 28% 30% 33% 44% 39%

2010‐3rd 33% 55% 49% 18%





88% 76% 85%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 47% 33% 22% 49% NA NA 40% 33%

2011‐3rd 17% 71% 27% 46% NA NA NA NA



Reading Math

80% 81%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 39% 43% 33% 34% NA NA



Math CDSA 4 3

Science Writing CDSAContent 4 3

Writing ContentGrades 4 3

2012‐ 2nd 94%

44% 56% 11% 36% 36% 58%

2011‐ 1st 94%

50% 47% 47% 33% 47% 50%

2010‐ K 90%




Math Number Grades 4 3

Science Writing CDSA Content 4 3

Writing Content Grades 4 3

2012‐ 1st 84%

57% 39% 4% 52% 37% 59%

2011‐ K 75%

49% 46% 20% 63%



Reading Phonemic 4 3

Reading Phonics 4 3

Reading Comp 4 3

2012‐ K 84% 71% 26% 57% 38% 20% 72%



Reading: Intermediate: Novel studies were a focus for several grade levels Use of flexible grouping in grades 3 and 4 Grade level comprehension strategies were primary focus of instruction Common grade level agreements for summative assessments PLC work regarding data drive flexible grouping Beginning to focus on choice within literature studies Vocabulary instruction intentional within different content area Primary: Flexible grouping within individual classrooms and across classrooms Utilizing aids and volunteers to make smaller direct instruction groups SN for struggling students Daily repetition for basic skills and strategies

Math: Intermediate: New envision curriculum provides comprehensive math program that more closely aligns with standards Focus on differentiation for both lower performing and high achieving students Ongoing formative and summative assessment helped identify student progress And adjust along the way Transfer opportunities included in the curriculum helped ensure the opportunities for


higher level thinking Next steps: Need for fluency work for computation Transfer opportunities Primary: Level grouping in math to differentiate for high and low performing students Quick checks and appropriate related homework routine practice

Writing: School wide focus: Intermediate: Emphasis on writing process to publication Expanding common language, common use of resources available, Began conducting readings and research on best practice within literacy, explicitly writing Agreed upon use and analysis of summative district assessments Worked in grade level bands to review CDSA scores and determine next steps Integrated writing into other content areas Primary: Writing across curriculum Writing focus for daily practice and the writing process Beginning to incorporate technology within the writing process Writing celebrations were a routine practice in all primary grades Next steps: School wide commitment to workshop format/ best practice in literacy instruction Focus on persuasive writing in all grade levels

Science: Intermediate: Supplemental resources were used to enhance scientific vocabulary and understanding of systems Every kit was taught fully, every lesson Emphasis on group work, problem based learning, guided discovery (agency) Primary: Science journals in all primary grades Labeling, development of vocabulary, practical use Next Step: Scientific process is a focus in all grade levels




New AMO reading targets were met for Asians, AMO math targets were met for Asian and Special Education groups. AMO reading targets were not met for: all, white, special education, and low income; AMO math targets were not met for all, white, and low income.

MDIS math program is working to help teachers diagnose student strengths and weaknesses so that instruction can be targeted

Special education envision program supports skills alongside the general education math curriculum

Classroom teachers are providing in‐class small group instruction based on ability levels across grade levels.

C. Perception Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis


2012 Staff awareness that all students can learn complex concepts from 41% to 50% who agree completely. 2012 Survey Results: 32% agree completely 78% agree mostly and completely

Increase the number of staff who agree completely that the school collaborates and communicates to make decisions and solve problems from 82% to 95%. 2012 Perception Data: 64% agree completely 96% agree mostly/ completely

2011 Increase staff awareness that all students can learn complex concepts based on developmental levels from 20% to 60% who agree completely, as measured by the spring 2011 Nine Characteristics survey. 2011 Perception Data: 41% agree completely 88% agree mostly and completely

Increase the number of staff who agree completely that they work in teams across grade levels to increase student learning from 53% to 80%, as measured by the spring 2011 Nine Characteristics survey. 2011 Perception Data: 47 % agree completely 94% agree mostly and completely

2010 Increase staff awareness that all students can learn complex concepts based on developmental levels from 26% to 70% who agree completely, as measured by the spring 2010 Nine Characteristics survey.

Increase the number of staff who agree completely to routinely work together to plan quality learning/lessons for all students from 22% to 60%, as measured by the spring 2010 Nine Characteristics survey.


2010 Perception Data: 80% agree mostly/ completely

2011 Perception Data: 94% agree mostly/completely


Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals? Goal number one was selected for as a district wide perception goal. Teachers continue to struggle with the wording of the question. They believe that some students have learning challenges that make it impossible for them to meet the same achievement levels as other students. Actions:

Teachers agreed upon sacred reading and math times which allowed special education and safety net teachers to schedule students accordingly, which provided “double dips” in reading and math instruction

Teachers discussed grade level wide strategies for each level of performance; 4,3,2,1 when addressing learning needs in PLC conversations

Use of common grade level assessments and instructional adjustments for all students within the general education classroom

Goal 2 was selected because the staff continues to believe that conducting our work collaboratively is the most effective strategy. The goal was to continue to build opportunities and routine practices school wide. Actions:

Grade level bands were established to accommodate multiple splits

Collaborative time was built into Wednesday LEAP time and Staff Meeting time

First and second grade teachers shared students to best meet instructional needs of the group

Common formative assessments were agreed upon at each grade level for all content areas

CIP plan included ongoing scheduled LEAP time to be used to calibrate writing and analyze scores

Data walls were kept for each grade level






2020‐ 5th 80% 88% 71% 80% 78% NA


2021 ‐4th 82% 84% 65% 75% NA 65% organization

2022‐ 3rd

82% 84% 67% 70% NA NA

2023‐2nd

73% 1st grd EOY ORF

73% 2nd grd EOY ORF

NA NA NA NA

2024‐ 1st

65% Comp

75% Comp

NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

83% 83% maintain according to benchmark

NA NA NA NA

Challenge Goal:



Grades 3‐5: Math 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade

34% 49% 30%

40% 51% 35%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 Increase the number of staff who believes that classroom activities are intellectually stimulating from 36% who agree completely to 46% who agree completely based on the Nine Characteristics Survey.

Increase the number of staff who believes that teachers modify their instructional practices based on classroom assessment from 64% who agree completely to 85% who agree completely based on the Nine Characteristics Survey.

2012‐2013 Increase the percentage of staff who rate the schools “emphasis on learning and teachers ability to collaboratively agree upon curriculum focuses on what students are expected to learn from 50% who score between 8‐10 to 75% as

Decrease the percentage of staff who rate that they are on curriculum overload from 88% scoring between 1‐7 to 60% based on the PLC continuum Tracking and Assessing Cultural Shifts.


measured by the PLC continuum Tracking and Assessing Cultural Shifts.

Process Summary


All grade levels have agreed to collaborate and agree on common language, structure, and instructional best practice in the delivery of reading and writing instruction

Staff commitment to PLC time; use of data to determine whether or not strategies are working

Use of enrichment and support blocks built into the 4th/5th grade schedules on a weekly basis

Agreed upon grade level common assessments in all content areas

PLC Learning Walks to support one another in the implementation of readers/writers workshop

Commitment to attend PLC conference in August 2013


Technology is incorporated within instruction in all classrooms in all content areas

Netbooks are used within the writing process, to support access to envision and TCI resources, for academic games, reading resources, etc…

Collaboration between librarian and classroom teachers in providing instruction in the use of data bases for research purposes


Frog News updates

PTA meeting presentations

Classroom newsletter share outs

Grade level writing celebrations


Common grade level formative assessments

Staff agreement to use grade level CDSA’s

Ongoing PLC time built into LEAP calendar

Writing CDSA calibration and analysis time built into LEAP calendar

Benchmark review of data using Data Dashboard scheduled in February LEAP


Grade levels will document progress using PLC agenda templates which answer each of the 4 questions

Staff is working to identify and utilize assessments that will help them determine whether or not the interventions they are incorporating are working

Questioning and discussion strategies are a best practice focus for staff (feedback during informal principal observations)


Differentiated grouping in reading and writing instruction in all grade levels (guided reading and writing groups, student conferencing)

Thoreau Elementary AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

THOREAU ELEMENTARY All math 217 149 68.664 71.3 73.9 76.5 79.1 81.7 84.3 2.6

THOREAU ELEMENTARY All reading 217 172 79.263 81.0 82.7 84.4 86.2 87.9 89.6 1.7

THOREAU ELEMENTARY American Indian math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY American Indian reading

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Asian math 22 20 90.909 91.7 92.4 93.2 93.9 94.7 95.5 0.8

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Asian reading 22 20 90.909 91.7 92.4 93.2 93.9 94.7 95.5 0.8

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Black math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Black reading

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Hispanic math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Hispanic reading

THOREAU ELEMENTARY White math 162 113 69.753 72.3 74.8 77.3 79.8 82.4 84.9 2.5

THOREAU ELEMENTARY White reading 162 131 80.864 82.5 84.1 85.6 87.2 88.8 90.4 1.6

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Limited English math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Limited English reading

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Special Education math 30 7 23.333 29.7 36.1 42.5 48.9 55.3 61.7 6.4

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Special Education reading 30 11 36.667 41.9 47.2 52.5 57.8 63.1 68.3 5.3

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Low Income math 46 21 45.652 50.2 54.7 59.2 63.8 68.3 72.8 4.5

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Low Income reading 46 26 56.522 60.1 63.8 67.4 71.0 74.6 78.3 3.6

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Pacific Islander reading

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Two or More Races math

THOREAU ELEMENTARY Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Finn Hill Middle School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: Due to DSS by October 12, 2012 A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis


2011‐2012 Smart Goals


Grade 7, Class of 2017, will show an Increase from 58% to 75% in students performing at standard, as evidenced by 2011‐2012 Reading MSP

Class of 2017, results will increase from 57.0% to 70% at standard as measured by the 2012 MSP 7th grade.

Grade 7, Class of 2017 will increase from 76.7% to 80% of students performing at standard as evidenced by the 2011‐2012 Writing MSP.

Results: Number of Students: 156‐ 7th, 151 ‐6th, 137 ‐5th – Using “Look Back” Report


Proficient Exceeds Proficient




2012‐7th

30.77/48 50.0/78 39.74/62 37.82/59 NA 57.69/90 24.49/46

2011‐6th

45.0/68 37.0/56 45.03/68 28.48/43 NA NA

2010‐ 5th

26.28/36 53.28/73 39.42/54 17.52/24 39.42/54 7.30/10 NA

CIP8.2012 Page2


2011‐2012 SMART Goals*

Reading Math

NA NA

*In the transition year to Middle Schools, 7th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Results: Number of Students: 158 ‐6th, 146R/145M‐5th, 134R/132M‐4th – Using “Look Back” Report






2012‐6th

40.51/64 36.08/57 34.18/54 38.61/61 NA NA

2011‐5th

33.56/49 38.36/56 39.31/57 23.45/34 31.51/46 34.93/51 NA

2010‐ 4th

35.07/47 40.03/54 33.33/44 26.52/35 NA NA 34.81/47 37.78/51


Goals 2011‐2012 SMART Goals*


NA NA NA


Results: Number of Students: 179‐5th, 160RM/156W‐4th, 147‐3rd – Using “Look Back” Report






2012‐5th

27.37/49 53.63/96 35.75/ 40.78/ 18.44/33 67.04/120 NA

2011‐ 45.0/ 37.5/ 38.75/ 33.75 NA 47.44/ 33.97/

CIP8.2012 Page3

4th

2010‐ 3rd

26.53/ 61.90/ 49.66/ 19.73/ NA NA



Reading: Silent reading every week, reading “just right” books, book talks in library, book drive, Cornell note‐taking strategies, Mandatory Make‐up,

Math: Math tutoring awareness campaign, mandatory make up

Writing: Vocabulary development, use of graphic organizers, daily writing warm‐ups, Mandatory Make‐up

Science: Successful Science Students night for parents; provided multiple opportunities to rewrite each of the parts of the Formal Lab Report (FLR) and required each student to complete 2 FLR’s during the year



Students served through Special Education classes Math: Currently, the math scores of students on IEP’s in the area of math for class of 2017 are at an average of 352. While this is still a Level 1 this is an increase of 7 points compared to last year. The goal for 2012‐13 will focus on increasing the mean score for each grade level by 10 points Reading: Reading scores for students requiring specially‐designed instruction in reading was a mean of 380. The goal for 2012‐13 will be to reach a mean of 385.

The majority of the 7th graders on IEPs passed the Reading MSP. We surmise that the reading

strategies and goals implemented for the 2011‐2012 school year were successful.

We anticipated that some of our 7th grade students would pass the Reading MSP; however,

those students did not pass. They had scored close to 400 on the past few MSPs and we need

to identify additional reading strategies that will help them pass this year. Conversely, there

were a few students who scored below proficient in 2011 who were proficient in 2012. We did

not anticipate this gain because our interventions did not appear to have an impact during

formative and summative assessments.

Reading MSP results for boys and girls were balanced.

CIP8.2012 Page4

B. Perception Data Summary Reflection and Analysis


2012 #4 High Levels of Collaboration and Communication: Increase the total number of staff who believes they have input into the instructional programs required to improve their performance as educators as we transform to FHMS. We anticipate an increase in the perception that the school uses a system to obtain a variety of perspectives when making decisions from 62.5% to 70% on the 2012 survey

#7 Focused Professional Development. A strong emphasis is placed on training teaching staff in preparation for our transition to middle school – including appropriate models of instruction Ensuring staff get help in areas they need to improve ‐ Increase from 62.5% to 70%; Ensuring that professional development activities are consistent with school goals‐ Increase from 59.5% to 70%

2011 #2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students: Increase the total number of staff who believes all students can learn complex concepts from last year’s 56% to 70% as measured by the Nine Characteristics Survey.

#4 High Levels of Collaboration and Communication: Increase the total number of staff who believes the school uses a system to obtain a variety of perspectives when making decisions from last year’s 64% to 75% as measured by the Nine Characteristics Survey.

#2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students: Increase the total number of staff who believes all students are consistently challenged by a rigorous curriculum from last year’s 75% to 80% as measured by the Nine Characteristics Survey.


#2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students: Increase the percentage of students who report regularly using a planner from 54% (currently) to 75% by June 16. This goal will be measured by an identical follow‐up survey to be administered in June.

2010 #2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students: Increase the total number of staff who believes all students can learn complex concepts from last year’s 56% to 70% as measured by the Nine Characteristics Survey.


#2 High Standards and Expectations for All

CIP8.2012 Page5

Students: Increase the total number of staff who believes all students are consistently challenged by a rigorous curriculum from last year’s 75% to 80% as measured by the Nine Characteristics Survey.

#2 High Standards and Expectations for All Students: Increase the percentage of students who report regularly using a planner from 54% (currently) to 75% by June 16. This goal will be measured by an identical follow‐up survey to be administered in June.



2012: We selected goals that focused on supporting our staff as we prepared for the transformation from junior high to middle school. Goal 1: It was critical that staff were consulted on all major decisions regarding the development of a middle school – from bell schedule and course offerings to classroom clustering by grade level and access to materials. We used a variety of decision making strategies, including using our decision making model, to ensure that we were able to obtain a variety of perspectives and disseminate that information prior to making decisions that impacted the building. As a building, the staff perceived the difference and our rating on gathering perspectives climbed from 62.5% to 76.7% (our goal was to increase to 70%). Goal 2: Adding a new grade level to our school, providing block periods, infusing differentiation and honors into our LA/SS classes, and expecting rigor and challenge in every class meant that we needed to provide our staff with professional development opportunities throughout the year. We attempted to ensure that LEAP and staff meeting time was spent exploring instructional strategies. Staff realized we were attempting to get PD (our perception data rose from 62.5% to 80.6%) but they also felt that sometimes PD activities were not consistent with school goals (our perception data only rose .5% ‐ from 59.5% to 60% where our goal was 70%).

CIP8.2012 Page6


Performance Goals – statements (Current year’s work)

“Class of" Reading Math Science Writing

From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To:

2017‐ 8th 81% 85% 77% 85% 78% 80% NA

2018 ‐7th 71% 75% 72% 80% NA 71% 77%

2019‐ 6th 77% 82% 76% 85% NA NA

Challenge Goal:

This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard on the MSP in grades 6,

7, and 8 in a particular content area.


Math grades 6‐8

A mean of 39% of students exceeding standard.

A mean of 42% of students exceeding standard.

Reading: 6th grade Reading: 7th grade Reading: 8th grade Writing: 7th grade

51% 33% 50% 37%

55% 37% 55% 40%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 #4 High Levels of Collaboration and Communication: We plan to continue our work to increase the total number of staff who believes they have input into the instructional programs

#7 Focused Professional Development. A strong emphasis is placed on training our teaching staff in preparation to transition from percentages and grades to Standards‐Based Assessment. Ensuring

CIP8.2012 Page7

required to improve their performance as educators as we transform our assessment structure from grades to Standards‐Based assessment as well as input on more structural aspects of the school (e.g. bell schedule). We anticipate an increase in the perception that the school uses a system to obtain a variety of perspectives when making decisions from 76.7% to 80% on the 2012 survey

staff get help in areas they need to improve ‐ Increase from 70% to 80% Ensuring that professional development activities are consistent with school goals‐ Increase from 70%‐80%

Process Summary


Use of a variety of informational text across all curriculums to reinforce reading strategies. Reading strategies are posted in our classrooms and throughout the school and on a literacy Haiku page open to all staff.

Writing across the curriculum include All School Write, Formal Lab Reports

Consistent use of note‐taking strategies such as Cornell Notes and margin notes in their classes, and graphic organizers.

Transparent use of Bloom’s taxonomy to create question stems and assessments using higher levels of thinking.

Mandatory Makeup (after school help staffed by teachers) is available to students missing assignments in all core subjects

Weekly Math tutoring available to all students

Assemblies focused on math (Pi Day), Science (Exploring Jobs), and LA/SS (Read Across America)

Student‐parent‐community evenings focused on curriculum (Math Night, Read Across America, Successful Students, International Cuisine)

After school clubs emphasizing core subject skill development include TSA, FCCLA, Math Olympiad,


All teachers committed to use of Haiku to improve student access to daily work, homework, and enrichment opportunities as well as communication opportunities with students and parents

Netbook deployment provides teachers opportunity to use technology in classrooms daily – including research, writing, analysis, and note‐taking

MyAccess and Turn‐it‐In.com provide opportunities for immediate feedback for writing

CIP8.2012 Page8

Haiku pages for collaboration on common assignments within subject areas and interdisciplinary curriculum, and will share successes at staff meetings

Science teachers are using Vernier Science probe ware such as force and temperature probes to gather data in labs and for Formal Lab Reports. Students are able to use new microscopes to capture enlarged pictures of plant and animal cells .

Students use net books in class for lab simulation activities through Phet.com to study science topics such as atoms, solubility, populations, and chemical reactions.


Use of Haiku and Standard Score to communicate with parents

After school/Evening events require staff and parent involvement (Making Successful Science Students night, science camping trip, math tutoring, Math Olympiad and Math Night, Read Across America, Drama Club, 7th grade Passion Project and 8th grade REACH project ) .


Implementation of CMP assessments, District Writing Assessment, MSP practice, CDSA/CBAs, Formal Lab Reports

Exit slips for formative assessments on weekly basis, and weekly homework quizzes

Co‐teaching classes will also be monitoring IEP goals for specific students.


Question 3

Attendance at Mandatory Makeup (Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) and Math tutoring on regular basis

Use formative assessment to target/reteach concepts, differentiate curriculum, and teach to multiple learning styles through the use of manipulatives, graphic organizers, and Cornell notes.

Teachers will consult with special education teacher and coordinate with safety net teachers and general education math teachers to problem solve misunderstandings of concepts taught.

Collaboration among disciplines to implement reading strategies for informational texts and their application for solving problems.

Opportunity to re‐write sections of Formal Lab Reports Question 4

Teachers will provide enrichment links on Haiku

Teachers will host extracurricular activities such as Math Olympiad.

Students will be provided with extension ACE problems “Champion Questions” and MSP challenge problems.

Honors contract available in LA/SS (including differentiation, layering of rigor in projects and assessments)

Teaching techniques (Socratic Seminar and project‐based curriculum) allows students to show their learning in many ways

Finn Hill Middle School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG All math 253 157 62.055 65.2 68.4 71.5 74.7 77.9 81.0 3.2

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG All reading 253 178 70.356 72.8 75.3 77.8 80.2 82.7 85.2 2.5

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG American Indian math

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG American Indian reading

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Asian math 20 16 80.000 81.7 83.3 85.0 86.7 88.3 90.0 1.7

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Asian reading 20 16 80.000 81.7 83.3 85.0 86.7 88.3 90.0 1.7

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Black math

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Black reading

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Hispanic math 25 14 56.000 59.7 63.3 67.0 70.7 74.3 78.0 3.7

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Hispanic reading 25 16 64.000 67.0 70.0 73.0 76.0 79.0 82.0 3.0

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG White math 185 116 62.703 65.8 68.9 72.0 75.1 78.2 81.4 3.1

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG White reading 185 129 69.730 72.3 74.8 77.3 79.8 82.3 84.9 2.5

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Limited English math

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Limited English reading

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Special Education math 38 5 13.158 20.4 27.6 34.9 42.1 49.3 56.6 7.2

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Special Education reading 38 14 36.842 42.1 47.4 52.6 57.9 63.2 68.4 5.3

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Low Income math 48 22 45.833 50.3 54.9 59.4 63.9 68.4 72.9 4.5

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Low Income reading 48 29 60.417 63.7 67.0 70.3 73.6 76.9 80.2 3.3

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Pacific Islander math

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Pacific Islander reading

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Two or More Races math

FINN HILL JUNIOR HIG Two or More Races reading

KamiakinCIP2012‐2013 page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Kamiakin Middle School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis



Reading Math Writing Grade 8, Class of 2017 from

63% at standard as measured by their 6th grade Reading MSP to 80% at standard as measured by this year’s MSP Results: MSP = 74% at or above standard

Grade 8, Class of 2017, examining students that had not reached standard on the MSP (levels 1 & 2). Increasing the MSP scores by 10 points or more, moving a majority of level 2’s to level 3, meeting standard. Of the 48 8

th grade students at Levels 1& 2, we have the following:

56% of the students increased their score

23% moved from Level 2 to Level 3

10% moved from Level 1 to Level 2

Grade 8, Class of 2017 from 17% scoring at level 2 on their Organization measured by their 8th grade On Demand Writing Assessment to less than 14% at level 2 Results: On the 2

nd “On Demand Writing” assessment in the category of organization, 12% were at Level 2 and a corresponding increase was seen for students meeting standard.

Results:






2012‐7th

32% 42% 29% 34% NA 46% 27%

2011‐6th

48% 31% 33% 32% NA NA

2010‐ 5th

25% 52% 32% 10% 32% 10% NA




Reading Math

NA NA *In the transition year to Middle Schools, 7th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Results:






2012‐6th

42% 43% 42% 33% NA NA

2011‐5th

36% 45% 47% 25% 29% 38% NA

2010‐ 4th

34% 44% 38% 26% NA 38% 35%




NA NA NA *In the transition year to Middle Schools, 6th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Results:






2012‐5th

34% 44% 33% 34% 34% 41% NA

2011‐4th

44% 30% 33% 29% NA 38% 35%

2010‐ 3rd

32% 42% 38% 14% NA NA




Reading: Safety Net Reading/Writing 7/8

Safety Net Reading/Writing 9

Homework club

Achievement Guide

Frequent practices tests on informational text/literary text

Department sharing of reading strategies

Sharing of lessons on style and writing

Common grade time for “On Demand” writing prompt

Math: Safety Net Math (Cognitive Tutor)

Tracking progress of students @ Level 1 & 2

Homework club

Homeroom help time

Achievement Guide

Writing: Safety Net Reading/Writing 7/8

Safety Net Reading/Writing 9

Homework club

Achievement Guide

Science: Mandatory missed work time

Achievement Guide




“Class of 2015" Reading Math

From: To: From: To:

2015‐ 8th Hispanic Students

50% 54% Actual growth was to 56% = +6%


2015‐ 8th Special Education students


19% 26% Actual loss was to 12% = ‐7%

2015‐ 8th Low Income students


34% 40% Actual growth was 40% = +6%

For the class of 2015, our current 8th graders, we were pleased to see the growth made by our Hispanic population. We believe an effective ELL teacher and professional development that addressed teacher’s need to focus specific effort toward this group paid off. For this particular group of students, as well as the class of 2016, we will be directing resources and efforts toward our special education math population.


From: To: From: To:


57% 61% There was a 0% growth. No change from 57%

48% 52% significant decline to 26% = ‐22%


35% 40% Significant decline to 21% = loss of 19%

13% 20% Significant decline to 4% = loss of 9%


58% 62% There was significant growth to 66% = a gain of 8%

50% 54% Decline to 44% or a loss of 6%

With our 7th graders we are particularly concerned about math potential and skill building. The Math/Science team has spent all of September reviewing our curriculum and efforts to address all three sub groups. We recently purchased IXL math software, put together a binder of vocabulary, symbols, test prep questions and state released items which will be worked in to the curriculum for all math teachers at Kamiakin.




2012 Kamiakin Junior High will increase overall Characteristic #4 percentages in the particular areas that relate to staff and collegial relations. “Collaboration/Communication”.

Uses a system to obtain a variety of perspectives when making decisions: 2011 = 54% 2012 = 48%

Teachers discuss teaching issues on a regular basis: 2011 = 51% 2012 = 69%

Staff members work together to solve problems related to school issues: 2011 = 54% 2012 = 61%

Staff works in teams across grade levels to help increase student learning: 2011 = 42% 2012 = 54%

Staff routinely work together to plan what will be taught : 2011 = 45% 2012 = 38%

#3 Leadership d) School administrators consider various viewpoints when making decisions: 63% back to 73% or higher 2011 = 63% 2012 = 60%

2011 Increase from 72% to 80% the total number of staff that agree mostly or completely that the school provides ample information to families about how to help students succeed in school as measured by the Staff Nine Characteristics survey given Spring 2011.

Increase from 65% to 80% the total number of staff that agree mostly or completely that teachers use effective strategies to help low‐performing students meet high academic needs as measured by the Staff Nine Characteristics survey given Spring 2011.


Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals? Utilizing the “Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools” we expect to see the percentages in the six question areas of #3 Leadership to increase. Particularly the question that asks about school administrators considering various viewpoints when making decisions. We scored a 73% in that area in 2010. We also expect more of our colleagues and teachers at Kamiakin to become active participants and leaders in professional development activities. Interestingly, given the results from the Spring 2011 survey we scored lower on all the aspects of leadership. Of concern was the 63% in the area of “School Administrators consider various viewpoints when making decisions.” We were surprised by this result and determined to sit down with our staff and discuss the results and corresponding reasons why this may be the case. We took the morning of our Spring LEAP time and met as a collective staff. At the conclusion, it became clear to the administration that the issues were not exclusively about leadership, but more about the


#1 Collaboration/Communication between administration and staff AND colleague to colleague #2 Relationships between colleagues and how this was perceived by others and the administration. We determined to set our goals specifically to address those two areas as part of our 2011‐2012 CIP plan. As we set out toward our goal of creating a middle school that would be specifically designed for the students of our community and Kamiakin, we were very deliberate about inviting all staff from Kamiakin, as well as intermediate staff from our feeder elementary schools. We wanted to consider all viewpoints and let everyone be heard. This was about creating a school for the students of Kamiakin, not about the staff. Our collaboration and communication was good, leading to most of the categories on that section of the survey reflecting net positive gains. Interestingly we dropped 3% from 63% to 60% when asked about whether the administration considers various viewpoints when making decisions. We attribute this in part to the very difficult decisions we made as a staff regarding our middle school program and the effect on teaching assignments. We are anxious to discover how this year progresses with our new middle school.


Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13:




2017‐ 8th 74% 79% 63% 66% 42% 60% NA

2018 ‐7th 85% 86% 72% 78% NA 73% 78%

2019‐ 6th 78% 81% 67% 70% NA NA

Performance Goals – Sub Groups statements (Current year’s work)


From: To: From: To:


57% 61% 44% 49%


33% 39% 17% 24%


59% 62% 55% 59%


Challenge Goal:

This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard on the MSP in grades 6, 7, and 8

in a particular content area.


Reading grades 6‐8 43% 54%

Math grades 6‐8 33% 38%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 Goal area #4. Collaboration/Communications Continuing the same theme we saw from last year. We expect to the see the percentage of staff that “staff routinely work together to plan what will be taught” to go from 38% to 50% of our staff that agree mostly to completely.

Goal area #6: Monitoring of Teaching and Learning We expect to see: “teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing” to go from 40% to 50% of our staff. “Teachers provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices” to go from 30% to 50% of our staff that agree mostly to completely.

Process Summary


Achievement Guide staff, student, parent sharing of MSP data, grades and progress throughout the school year

6th grade common plan time

6th grade use of a “directed elective” we call our challenge block. We specifically sought out students that could use intervention and enrichment to address all needs.

Homework & Mandatory makeup time: various departments utilize time before or after school to provide necessary help and/or makeup opportunities

MSP reading strands: Pie charts to better understand particular strand information

Lessons for Persuasive Writing: Specific directed lessons/learning to help address persuasive writing


Powerpoints: OSPI specific for Persuasive wirting & district shared materials specific to the skill of elaboration

Common scope & sequence

Reading Strategy Day

Math Resource Notebook: Math department put together a “resource notebook” that covers MSP vocabulary, mathematics symbols, sample MSP & EOC problems for all of the math teachers in the building.


Software programs: Math: Carnegie Learning, IXL, End of Course state released items, MSP released items, etc. Science: Explore Learning, Starry Night

Netbooks: We were among the early adopters of the 1:1 technology for use by department. Our Science & LA/SS teachers have been utilizing the netbooks for the last two years.


Achievement Guide provided to students at the halfway point of every quarter. Pre‐populated data on MSP total scores and strand data. Teachers provide grades and guidance, as well as learning plans for those students that did not meet standard on MSP. Achievement Guides are then taken home for a parent signature and returned.

Mandatory make‐up: LA/SS and Math/Science started using “mandatory makeup” as part of the expectation for students. Teachers share time hosting students in the library after or before school for students that have incomplete work.

Homeroom: We will use homeroom time on Friday’s to ensure student work is completed.


Mathematics 6th grade: (3) Common District Summative Assessments, classroom formative and summative assessments

Mathematics 7th/8th grade: (2) Common District Summative Assessments, classroom formative and summative assessments

Science 6th grade: (3) Common District Summative Assessments, classroom formative and summative assessements

Science 7th/8th grade: (3) Common District Summative Assessments, classroom formative and summative assessments

Language Arts/Social Studies: Classroom Based Assessments, writing assessments, classroom formative & summative assessments

PE/Health: Classroom based assessments, classroom formative & summative assessments

Language Arts: “On demand” Fall writing assignment (expository) as “pre‐test” for student ability, followed up with a Spring “on demand” writing assessment to assess growth

Language Arts: Spring CBA as formative assessment for persuasive writing



6th grade “challenge block” during 6th period. Each student has the opportunity to receive remdiation/skill help or enrichment depending upon their individual need

7th/8th grade via teacher utilization of the data dashboard track MSP scores of students to address individual need.

7th/8th grade are working via department groups to address the “Honors Program” at each curriculum.

Database: for all students NOT at standard, tracking assessment scores, MSP scores and grades for the 2012‐2013 school year.

Kamiakin Middle School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH All math 327 190 58.104 61.6 65.1 68.6 72.1 75.6 79.1 3.5

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH All reading 326 233 71.472 73.8 76.2 78.6 81.0 83.4 85.7 2.4

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH American Indian math

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH American Indian reading

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Asian math 51 27 52.941 56.9 60.8 64.7 68.6 72.5 76.5 3.9

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Asian reading 51 34 66.667 69.4 72.2 75.0 77.8 80.6 83.3 2.8

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Black math

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Black reading

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Hispanic math 41 17 41.463 46.3 51.2 56.1 61.0 65.9 70.7 4.9

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Hispanic reading 41 23 56.098 59.8 63.4 67.1 70.7 74.4 78.0 3.7

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH White math 209 134 64.115 67.1 70.1 73.1 76.1 79.1 82.1 3.0

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH White reading 208 162 77.885 79.7 81.6 83.4 85.3 87.1 88.9 1.8

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Limited English math

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Limited English reading

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Special Education math 40 5 12.500 19.8 27.1 34.4 41.7 49.0 56.3 7.3

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Special Education reading 40 13 32.500 38.1 43.8 49.4 55.0 60.6 66.3 5.6

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Low Income math 78 35 44.872 49.5 54.1 58.7 63.2 67.8 72.4 4.6

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Low Income reading 78 44 56.410 60.0 63.7 67.3 70.9 74.6 78.2 3.6

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Pacific Islander math

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Pacific Islander reading

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Two or More Races math

KAMIAKIN JUNIOR HIGH Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Juanita High School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Goals: Due to DSS by October 12, 2012 A. Data Summary, Look‐back, Reflection and Analysis

Class of 2012

Year On Time Graduation percentage of entire class

2012 99.4%

2011‐2012 SMART Goals were set for the class of 2014 only in Reading/Writing/Math/Science


On track for graduation (based on 2012 Spring EOY results)

Reading Math *Science Writing Graduation Requirements

Credits

N: 322 322 322 322 314 314 Percent: 87.9% 82.3% 52.5% 90.7% 92.4% 54.1% Source: The Reading, Math, Science, and Writing data were taken from the CIA/CAA Database. The graduation requirements and credit data were taken from the LWSD Data Dashboard. *Science: The numbers above reflect the percentage of seniors who have either passed the science HSPE or its replacement, the Biology EOC exam in prior school years. Neither exam is required for graduation for the class of 2013.

CIP8.2012 Page2



Reading Math Science Writing

From 81.4% at standard to 91% standard in eleventh grade as measured by the HSPE

Alg.: 61% of students will pass EOC Algebra

From 44.7% at standard in to 71% at standard in eleventh grade as measured by the EOC Biology exam.

From 86.5% at standard to 90% standard in eleventh grade as measured by the HSPE exam.

Geo.: 50% of students will pass EOC geometry

Spring 2012 Results

Year Reading *Math Science Writing Proficient Exceeds

Proficient Proficient Exceeds



Proficient

2012 ‐ 10th 18.1% 67.5%

Alg.: 28.7%

Alg.: 27.9%

Bio: 33.2%

Bio 31.1%

43.4% 43.4% Geo.: 3.8%

Geo.: 16.6%

Source: CAA/CIA Database *Math EOC requirement: 293 of the 373 students (78.6%) have met the math requirement (Proficient (32.2%) or Exceeds Proficient (46.4%) on one exam – Algebra EOC, Geometry EOC, or Portland (6 students)). **Biology EOC: 241 of the 373 students (64.6%) have met the Biology EOC requirement (1 student through BIOB, 6 through Portland)

The math numbers in the 9th grade come from Query. They were found by looking at the students in the Juanita HS feeder pattern: EAS, Finn Hill JH, and Kamiakin JH. Some of these students may not have matriculated to JHS.

Results from previous two years

2011 ‐ 9th

NA NA Alg.: 26.8%

Alg.: 33.0%

Bio: NA

Bio: NA

NA

Geo: 1.6%

Geo: 18.5%

2010‐ 8th 26.4% 50.0%

Alg.: NA

Alg.: NA

MSP: 39.4%

MSP: 31.2%

NA

Geo.: NA

Geo: NA

Math: In 8th grade 32.8% were Proficient and 23.8% Exceeded Proficiency on the math MSP exam.

CIP8.2012 Page3


2011‐2012 SMART Goals: *In the transition year to High Schools, 10th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Reading Math Writing Science

NA Alg.: NA NA Bio.: NA

Geo.: NA

Spring 2012 Results






2012‐9th

NA Alg.: 38.4%

Alg.: 31.7%

Bio: 6.7%

Bio: 22.1%

NA

Geo.: 9.2%

Geo.: 31.4%


2011‐8th 25.5% 55.9%

Alg.: 22.5%

Alg.: 26.2%

MSP: 35.6%

MSP: 38.1%

NA

Geo.: 2.2%

Geo.: 20.3%

2010‐ 7th 25.6% 49.3% MSP: 41.1%

MSP: 26.5%

NA NA 40.3% 35.8%


Goals 2011‐2012 SMART Goals**In the transition year to High Schools, 9th graders will not have SMART goals

listed Reading

Math

Writing

Science


Geo.: NA

Spring 2012 Results

CIP8.2012 Page4






2012‐8th

23.5% 53.8%

Alg.: 28.2%

Alg.: 30.5%

MSP: 43.9%

MSP: 34.8%

NA

Geo.: 1.7%

Geo.: 14.7%

Source: OSPI CAA/CIA Database *Source: EAS / Finn Hill JH / Kamiakin JH / Juanita HS Query data *Math EOC requirement: 56 of the 348 students (16.1%) have passed both the Algebra EOC and Geometry EOC, which is a graduation requirement beginning with the Class of 2015.


2011‐7th

26.8% 36.0%

Alg: 4.2%

Alg.: 18.0%

NA

45.5% 31.3% MSP: 32.7%

MSP: 26.3%

2010‐ 6th

44.0% 29.0% MSP: 40.9%

MSP: 19.5%

NA NA


Briefly explain school‐wide systems used to improve student success in each of the following areas:

Reading: Safety Net Program; 3 English/Language Arts teachers provide in classroom support, real time support to struggling students

Test preparation in the spring; use HSPE released items along the year

Professional development for the whole staff on dyslexia and motivational strategies

Special education students write a letter to their general education teachers explaining what they are working on and what the teacher could do to assist them

Thursday tutorials

National Honor Society students provide tutorial support on Thursdays

RTI: teaching to standards

Math: Co‐taught (Special education and math teacher) algebra 1 and geometry classes to support struggling students

Alternative algebra 2 class to assist struggling students meet their 3rd credit requirement

Thursday tutorials

The department collaborates on state standards and uses common materials

CIP8.2012 Page5

and assessments throughout the school year.




Math competition teams

Writing: Safety Net Program; 3 English/Language Arts teachers use their planning periods to assist struggling students

Test preparation in the spring; use HSPE release items along the year


Thursday tutorials



Science: PLC work: common pacing guides, some common assessments and common labs. The department collaborates on biology standards and uses common assessments throughout the year.

Biology support for the EOC exam through practice problems on a website, photo stories of different unit vocabulary and tips on answering prompts.

Additional biology support for students who need to take the Biology EOC exam, but are not enrolled in biology: help with critical content during homeroom.


Thursday tutorials



Credits: RTI: teaching to standards

Counselor credit checks and conversations with students

Thursday tutorials

Graduation Requirements

High School and Beyond Plan:

Frequent college presentations and seminars

Field trips to expose student potential career options and post‐secondary careers

WaNIC to expose student potential career options and post‐secondary careers



CIP8.2012 Page6

Special Education:

The percentage of students receiving special education services has increased to 18% of JHS students

We provide frequent professional development on ways to personalize instruction for all students and specifically for our SDI students.

Past seminars topics have included: dyslexia, reading strategies, organizational strategies, and motivational strategies.



2012

#44. Teachers provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%

#41. Teachers modify their instructional practices based on classroom assessment. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%

2011

#49. I have enough opportunities to grow professionally. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%


2010

#14. I believe all students can learn complex concepts. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%




These goals were chosen because of their implication for classroom practice and their relatively lower rating from survey participants. Actions taken to focus on these goals included LEAP afternoon professional development, study professional literature, and common Professional Growth and Evaluation Goals that embedded state standards and classroom assessment practices.

CIP8.2012 Page7

Part 2: Goals for 2012‐13: Due to DSS by November 16, 2012 A. Performance Goals – statements (Current year’s work)

Class of 2013

Reading Math Science Writing Graduation Requirements

Credits On Time Graduation

From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To:

N: 312

Percent 83% 100 74% 100 52% 75% 87% 100 92% 100% 54% 100 99.4% 100%

*The above numbers were taken from the current year’s dashboard. Students must meet all the requirements except Science to graduate.

Class of 2014




N: 367

Percent 80% 85% 8% 77 64% 85% 84% 88 87% 93% 57% 58 100%

*The “From” numbers were taken from the current Dashboard. We used the AMO criteria to arrive at the “To” numbers. We took ½ (100 – [Class of 2013 numbers])/6 to arrive at targets for the Class of 2014.

Class of 2015 & 2016

“Class of" Reading Writing Math Science On Track with Credits

From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To: From: To:

2015‐ 10th N: 350

87%

80%

Alg.25%

Alg.50%

Bio: 30%

Bio: 54%

Geo.

23% Geo.50%

2016‐ 9th N: 341

NA NA Alg. 40%

Alg.55%

Bio: 0%

Bio: 25%

Geo:17%

Geo:38%

*The “From” numbers were taken from the current Dashboard. Students in the Classes of 2015 and 2016 must pass Reading, Writing, Biology EOC, Math EOC 1, and Math EOC 2. We took the gap between where they currently are and 100% and divided this by 3 for sophomores and 4 for freshman.

Challenge Goal: Identify area From To

Many of our incoming students have IEP goals in reading. In order to supplement our common PGE goal of personalization of learning, we will implement professional development on reading strategies across the curriculum.

59% 68%

CIP8.2012 Page8

Of our current seniors (Class of 2013), 63% of students with IEPs met standard on the HSPE reading exam. Of our current juniors (Class of 2014), 59% of students with IEPs met standard on the HSPE reading exam.

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 #26 The staff works in teams across grade levels to help increase student learning. Increase the number of staff who mostly or completely agree with this statement from: 72% 80%

#44 Teachers provide feedback to each other to help improve instructional practices. Increase the number of staff who mostly or completely agree with this statement from: 60% 80%

Process Summary

Highlight building‐wide strategies to meet goals in reading, math, science, writing, graduation requirements, credits, and on‐time graduation:

Reading/Writing: Common assessments, collaborative planning, use of released questions and anchor papers, collaboration on sophomore team on instructional strategies, professional study of pre‐reading strategies, use of formative assessment Math: Use of OSPI Crosswalk documents, common pacing and planning, common assessments, use of formative assessment Science: Use of OSPI released questions, collaborative planning, collaboration on Biology team on instructional strategies, collaboration on Biology standards Graduation requirements/Credits/On‐time graduation: Counselors meet with students individually, Teachers through Rebel Connections connect with students and provide means for academic support in struggling classes, mentor/mentee program provides positive role modeling for incoming students.


Haiku use at high level throughout building, piloting of flipped lessons, phase 1 of SMAS laptop distribution

Highlight steps to involve of staff, students, parents, families, and community in the CIP process:

Use of effective school‐wide decision‐making process and of 9‐characteristics survey in setting CIP goals. Principal Coffee/Teas, PTSA Meetings, student senate and ASB process are used as a means for communication centered on school‐wide goals.


Use of formative and summative assessments, review of classroom grades and passing rates, systematic use of OSPI released test questions, monitoring of progress on level V graduation requirements.

CIP8.2012 Page9


In response to PLC question 3, we have developed an RTI model through our new Rebel Connections program. We also have deeply studied the role of learning targets and formative assessment, and their role in helping students to meet and exceed content standards. In response to PLC question 4, many different strategies for enrichment and extension are in place throughout the building. These take many forms, such as individual research and study, and extension assignments. In our study of the PLC process, we have not undertaken a deep school‐wide study of PLC question 4. To date our focus has been on questions 1, 2 and 3. Our continuing expansion of the Advanced Placement and Cambridge Programs and programmatic responses to PLC question 4.

Juanita High School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

JUANITA HIGH All math 293 223 76.109 78.1 80.1 82.1 84.1 86.1 88.1 2.0

JUANITA HIGH All reading 295 245 83.051 84.5 85.9 87.3 88.7 90.1 91.5 1.4

JUANITA HIGH American Indian math

JUANITA HIGH American Indian reading

JUANITA HIGH Asian math 42 32 76.190 78.2 80.2 82.1 84.1 86.1 88.1 2.0

JUANITA HIGH Asian reading 43 33 76.744 78.7 80.6 82.6 84.5 86.4 88.4 1.9

JUANITA HIGH Black math

JUANITA HIGH Black reading

JUANITA HIGH Hispanic math 33 14 42.424 47.2 52.0 56.8 61.6 66.4 71.2 4.8

JUANITA HIGH Hispanic reading 33 22 66.667 69.4 72.2 75.0 77.8 80.6 83.3 2.8

JUANITA HIGH White math 189 155 82.011 83.5 85.0 86.5 88.0 89.5 91.0 1.5

JUANITA HIGH White reading 191 167 87.435 88.5 89.5 90.6 91.6 92.7 93.7 1.0

JUANITA HIGH Limited English math

JUANITA HIGH Limited English reading

JUANITA HIGH Special Education math 60 23 38.333 43.5 48.6 53.7 58.9 64.0 69.2 5.1

JUANITA HIGH Special Education reading 58 32 55.172 58.9 62.6 66.4 70.1 73.9 77.6 3.7

JUANITA HIGH Low Income math 56 30 53.571 57.4 61.3 65.2 69.0 72.9 76.8 3.9

JUANITA HIGH Low Income reading 56 36 64.286 67.3 70.2 73.2 76.2 79.2 82.1 3.0

JUANITA HIGH Pacific Islander math

JUANITA HIGH Pacific Islander reading

JUANITA HIGH Two or More Races math

JUANITA HIGH Two or More Races reading


Continuous Improvement Process Plan Discovery Community School CIP 2012‐2013









100% 92% 85%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 49% 36% 21% 65% NA 46% 8%

2011‐3rd 42% 42% 48% 34% NA NA



Reading Math

86% 74%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 46% 37% 33% 42% NA NA





2012‐ 2nd 85% NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 83% NA NA NA

2010‐ K 90% NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 93%

NA NA NA

2011‐ K 88%

NA NA NA




2012‐ K 91% NA NA NA











Discovery Community School is comprised of 75 students, with insufficient numbers in subgroups to be identified in the Annual Measureable Objectives. Given the small cohort, the gender differences are considered with caution. In addition, the differences do not persist across grade levels. 5th grade girls outperformed boys by 10% in reading, 15% in writing, 20% in math. However, 4th grade boys outperformed girls in math.









Teachers reflected on the findings of the 9 Characteristics Perception Survey, identifying two goal areas with the potential to create significant improvement in the culture of the school. The staff recognized the value of obtaining a variety of perspectives when making decisions. A committee was formed to create a shared decision making model. The committee compared decision making models from other elementary schools in the district, gathered feedback from all staff members, and implemented use of the final plan. Despite this effort, the perception data reflected a drop in confidence from 76% to 66%. The management of student discipline


issues was the second area of focus. Perception data show a drop in confidence from 57% to 28%. It is likely that these scores are a reflection of the significant change the community was undergoing in terms of a transition to a new facility and new leadership.






2020‐ 5th 93% 100% 69% 92% xx% at Standard on Report Card

NA

2021 ‐4th 93% 100% 86% 100% NA %

2022‐ 3rd

93% 100% NA NA NA

2023‐2nd


2024‐ 1st

xx% at Standard on Report Card or NA

100% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

xx% at Standard on Report

Card or NA

100% NA NA NA NA


Challenge Goal:



Writing Grades 3‐5

8% exceeding standard on MSP


Perception Goals:




Process Summary



















Reading: RAZ‐kids computer reading for kids (K) Math: IXL Math, Envision Writing: Word (to complete pre‐write, write, revise, edit, publish) Active Votes


All certificated staff participated in the development of the CIP and SMART Goals. Together, we reviewed MSP and report card as indicators of student learning outcomes and reviewed our perception data from The Nine Characteristics survey. We gained familiarity with the Data Dashboard and included this as a resource to mine for data to support our CIP and SMART goals. Surveys and voting are used regularly to assure that all staff members contribute to decision making and to identify areas needing action. Weekly newsletters from the principal, Curriculum Night, Meet and Greet, Grand Opening Celebration and Open House are venues giving parents an opportunity to learn about teaching, learning, and assessment. Monthly coffee chats with the principal give parents an informal setting to talk about topics of their own choosing. Teachers also provide classroom newsletters, websites, and blogs. Activities designed to strengthen parents as partners in education include Family Math Night, Math Adventures, Math Challenge Board, Family Reading Night, Reflections Celebration, and varied opportunities for volunteering in the classroom, from home, during the school day and non‐school hours. Family participation is an integral part of Discovery Community School. Volunteerism is an expectation and hours served are monitored.






Extension activities such as application of math concepts to new situations in story


problems.

Community School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

COMMUNITY SCHOOL All math 36 0 .000 8.3 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0 8.3

COMMUNITY SCHOOL All reading 36 1 2.778 10.9 19.0 27.1 35.2 43.3 51.4 8.1

COMMUNITY SCHOOL American Indian math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL American Indian reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Asian math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Asian reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Black math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Black reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Hispanic math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Hispanic reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL White math 29 0 .000 8.3 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0 8.3

COMMUNITY SCHOOL White reading 29 0 .000 8.3 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0 8.3

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Limited English math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Limited English reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Special Education math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Special Education reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Low Income math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Low Income reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Pacific Islander math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Pacific Islander reading

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Two or More Races math

COMMUNITY SCHOOL Two or More Races reading


Continuous Improvement Process Plan Discovery Community School CIP 2012‐2013









100% 92% 85%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

2012‐4th 49% 36% 21% 65% NA 46% 8%

2011‐3rd 42% 42% 48% 34% NA NA



Reading Math

86% 74%

Results:


Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

Proficient

Exceeds Proficient

NA NA

2012‐3rd 46% 37% 33% 42% NA NA





2012‐ 2nd 85% NA NA NA

2011‐ 1st 83% NA NA NA

2010‐ K 90% NA NA NA




2012‐ 1st 93%

NA NA NA

2011‐ K 88%

NA NA NA




2012‐ K 91% NA NA NA











Discovery Community School is comprised of 75 students, with insufficient numbers in subgroups to be identified in the Annual Measureable Objectives. Given the small cohort, the gender differences are considered with caution. In addition, the differences do not persist across grade levels. 5th grade girls outperformed boys by 10% in reading, 15% in writing, 20% in math. However, 4th grade boys outperformed girls in math.









Teachers reflected on the findings of the 9 Characteristics Perception Survey, identifying two goal areas with the potential to create significant improvement in the culture of the school. The staff recognized the value of obtaining a variety of perspectives when making decisions. A committee was formed to create a shared decision making model. The committee compared decision making models from other elementary schools in the district, gathered feedback from all staff members, and implemented use of the final plan. Despite this effort, the perception data reflected a drop in confidence from 76% to 66%. The management of student discipline


issues was the second area of focus. Perception data show a drop in confidence from 57% to 28%. It is likely that these scores are a reflection of the significant change the community was undergoing in terms of a transition to a new facility and new leadership.






2020‐ 5th 93% 100% 69% 92% xx% at Standard on Report Card

NA

2021 ‐4th 93% 100% 86% 100% NA %

2022‐ 3rd

93% 100% NA NA NA

2023‐2nd


2024‐ 1st

xx% at Standard on Report Card or NA

100% NA NA NA NA

2025‐ K

xx% at Standard on Report

Card or NA

100% NA NA NA NA


Challenge Goal:



Writing Grades 3‐5



Perception Goals:




Process Summary



















Reading: RAZ‐kids computer reading for kids (K) Math: IXL Math, Envision Writing: Word (to complete pre‐write, write, revise, edit, publish) Active Votes


All certificated staff participated in the development of the CIP and SMART Goals. Together, we reviewed MSP and report card as indicators of student learning outcomes and reviewed our perception data from The Nine Characteristics survey. We gained familiarity with the Data Dashboard and included this as a resource to mine for data to support our CIP and SMART goals. Surveys and voting are used regularly to assure that all staff members contribute to decision making and to identify areas needing action. Weekly newsletters from the principal, Curriculum Night, Meet and Greet, Grand Opening Celebration and Open House are venues giving parents an opportunity to learn about teaching, learning, and assessment. Monthly coffee chats with the principal give parents an informal setting to talk about topics of their own choosing. Teachers also provide classroom newsletters, websites, and blogs. Activities designed to strengthen parents as partners in education include Family Math Night, Math Adventures, Math Challenge Board, Family Reading Night, Reflections Celebration, and varied opportunities for volunteering in the classroom, from home, during the school day and non‐school hours. Family participation is an integral part of Discovery Community School. Volunteerism is an expectation and hours served are monitored.






Extension activities such as application of math concepts to new situations in story


problems.

Discovery School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

DISCOVERY SCHOOL All math 48 40 83.333 84.7 86.1 87.5 88.9 90.3 91.7 1.4

DISCOVERY SCHOOL All reading 48 46 95.833 96.2 96.5 96.9 97.2 97.6 97.9 0.3

DISCOVERY SCHOOL American Indian math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL American Indian reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Asian math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Asian reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Black math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Black reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Hispanic math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Hispanic reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL White math 34 27 79.412 81.1 82.8 84.6 86.3 88.0 89.7 1.7

DISCOVERY SCHOOL White reading 34 32 94.118 94.6 95.1 95.6 96.1 96.6 97.1 0.5

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Limited English math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Limited English reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Special Education math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Special Education reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Low Income math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Low Income reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Pacific Islander math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Pacific Islander reading

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Two or More Races math

DISCOVERY SCHOOL Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan EAS Middle School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Reflection Goals: Due to DSS by October 12, 2012 A. Data Summary, Reflection, and Analysis

Green = Actual Score above goal; Red = Actual Score below goal.



Reading Math Writing 97% at standard or above (100%)

100% at standard or above (85%)


Results:






2012‐7th

26%

74% 48% 37% NA 32% 68%

2011‐6th

50% 44% 61% 24% NA NA

2010‐ 5th

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page2



Reading Math 85% at standard or above (95%)



Results:






2012‐6th

44% 51% 57% 35% NA NA

2011‐5th

10% 67% 36% 38% 28% 44% NA

2010‐ 4th

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA




NA NA NA *In the transition year to Middle Schools, 6th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Results:






2012‐5th

15% 68% 19% 62% 11% 77% NA

2011‐4th

N/A N/A N/A N/A NA N/A N/A

2010‐ 3rd

N/A N/A N/A N/A NA NA

CIP8.2012 Page3

School‐wide Analysis of Multiple Measures Briefly explain school‐wide systems used to improve student achievement in each of the following content areas:

Reading: The use of literary texts (novels and stories) that support content area themes.

Literacy strategies for interpreting/analyzing and critical thinking in fiction and non‐fiction texts (e.g., note‐taking systems) across all curriculum areas.

School‐wide best practices across the curriculum to increase literacy performance at all grade levels.

Emphasis on Reading as a Process with all students and in all Content Areas.

A school‐wide year‐long reading program to promote reading in all genres.

Use a variety of technologies (e.g., ActivClassroom, netbooks, and Haiku) to engage students in learning.

Students not at standard placed on a Learning Plan developed by the teacher, parent, and student.

Math: Use curriculum materials to engage students in learning and applying the concepts and skills in Probability and Statistics, Measurement, and Geometric Sense; develop skills in these strands in other mathematics units as applicable.

Use of measurement in both science and art classes.

Emphasis on Making Connections in all strands.

Frequent use of models and practice for students to communicate clearly in response to prompts and to explain mathematical processes.

Supplemental curriculum resources that focus on key concepts and skills in all math strands.



Writing: Use writing prompts across the curriculum to generate student writing in district required forms of writing.

Apply various strategies to improve content, organization and style specific to topic, audience and purpose of writing.

Emphasize elaboration strategies in all forms of writing.

Use 6 +1 Traits Scoring Guides and related strategies to increase student competence in all traits.

Emphasize Writing as a Process in all content areas.



CIP8.2012 Page4

Science: Provide frequent opportunities for students to learn and apply targeted communication related to the prompt and to scientifically communicate data analysis.

Develop the vocabulary and understanding of systems across science curricular strands.

Emphasize Inquiry process.

Facilitate student understanding of how individual science concepts interrelate within one or more systems.

Increase opportunities for students to scientifically communicate data analysis.

Align science modules with school‐wide curricular themes.




Which school‐wide sub‐group/s creates opportunities for celebration or cause for concern (e.g. Gender, Ethnicity, ELL, Special Education, SES)? Please provide examples and explanations. Gender: Girls and boys at EAS tend to perform equally well in all areas: Reading, Writing, Math, and Science.

2012 Perception Data Summary Reflection and Analysis


2012 Continue the trend of 100% of EAS staff agreeing mostly or completely with all statements in the Nine Characteristics survey.

Increase perception that teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing from 67% agreeing completely to 100% agreeing completely.

2011 100% of EAS staff agree mostly or completely with all statements under the categories of Vision, Leadership, Monitoring of Teaching & Learning, Learning Environment, and Family & Community Involvement, Standards/Expectations, Alignment to Standards, and Professional Development.

NA

2010 NA NA


Why were these goal areas selected? What actions were taken to achieve these goals? In both the 2011 and 2012 survey, all EAS staff agreed mostly or completely with all statements. The area where some staff indicated “agree mostly” rather than “agree completely” was the perception that teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing. With consistent and adequate feedback by our administration, this area increased to 100% agreeing completely.

CIP8.2012 Page5





2017‐ 8th 100% 100% 81% 85% NA 95% NA

2018 ‐7th 95% 97% 92% 94% NA NA 95%

2019‐ 6th 83% 85% 81% 85% NA NA

Challenge Goal:

This goal is to increase the percentage of students exceeding standard on the MSP in grades 6, 7, and 8

in a particular content area.


Math for grades 6 through 8 ~ 85% 6‐8th school average 90% school average

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 From 83% to 100% EAS staff will completely agree that we know the research basis for instructional strategies being used.

From 86% to 100% EAS staff will completely agree that staff members trust one another.

CIP8.2012 Page6

Process Summary

1) Highlight building‐wide strategies to meet goals in reading, math, science and writing: Reading:Continuetheuseofliteracystrategiesforinterpreting/analyzingandcriticalthinkingin

fictionandnon‐fictiontexts(e.g.,note‐takingsystems)acrossallcurriculumareas. Writing:Continuecrosscurricularemphasisonwritingaswellastheschool‐widefocusonelaboration

techniques. Math:EvaluateMSPresults(stranddata)andfocusonmathstrategiesforimprovementforall

students. Science:EvaluateMSPresults(stranddata)andfocusonsciencestrategiesforimprovementforall

students

2) Highlight use of technology to improve student learning: Integrate use of digital technology to enhance classroom and independent student learning in all classes. (Netbooks and Haiku).

3) Highlight steps to involve staff, students, parents, families, and community: Use Haiku to communicate with and engage students and parents. Continue partnering with parents and community members in our Community Stewardship Program (CSP).

4) Highlight process for progress monitoring, describing what assessments you will use throughout the year:

Identify and share among staff performance and project based assessment strategies used in all classes.

Reading: Summarizing and note‐taking for informational reading assignments; 6 traits of reading strategies for all genres.

Writing: On demand writing samples each trimester; narrative, expository, explanatory, and persuasive essays throughout the school year and across all curriculum areas.

Math: Monitor all students’ math progress over each trimester using classroom based assessments and Star Math Progress Assessments.

Science: Daily journal prompts and use of Activotes to assess student learning.

Spanish: Daily warm‐up activity to assess learning. Weekly quizzes and unit tests.

Art: Ongoing development and review of student portfolio/logbooks to determine progress.

Social Studies: Small group and large group projects in 6 units throughout the year; CBA’s.

Showcase students’ performance and project based assessments through presentations, reports, and displays throughout the school year and in the End of Year Celebration of Student Work.

CIP8.2012 Page7

5) Highlight strategies to address the PLC questions #3 and #4: Interventions teachers will employ when students haven’t demonstrated the expected learning goals:

All classes: Student and parent conferences to focus on learning and organizational strategies. o Reading: Focus students on appropriate reading strategies and selection of material. o Writing: Opportunities to revise, edit, and resubmit written work with guided practice. o Math: Individual remediation and reassessment; additional resources and home practice in areas of

need. o Science: Individual remediation and reassessment. Re‐teaching of concepts as needed. o Spanish: Focus students on appropriate language learning strategies; individual remediation and

reassessment. o Art: Individual guided practice with teacher and peers; opportunities to resubmit work. o Social Studies: Peer partnering; increased use of graphic organizers; preferential seating

Teacher response when students demonstrate that they already have met or surpassed the expected learning goals: In all subject areas at EAS, students are encouraged to elaborate and are given opportunities to extend their learning through choice activities. Competent students have the opportunity to refine and extend their own learning by serving as peer mentors and leaders.

Environmental and Adventure School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE All math 109 93 85.321 86.5 87.8 89.0 90.2 91.4 92.7 1.2

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE All reading 109 99 90.826 91.6 92.4 93.1 93.9 94.6 95.4 0.8

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE American Indian math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE American Indian reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Asian math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Asian reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Black math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Black reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Hispanic math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Hispanic reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE White math 91 78 85.714 86.9 88.1 89.3 90.5 91.7 92.9 1.2

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE White reading 91 82 90.110 90.9 91.8 92.6 93.4 94.2 95.1 0.8

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Limited English math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Limited English reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Special Education math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Special Education reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Low Income math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Low Income reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Pacific Islander math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Pacific Islander reading

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Two or More Races math

ENVIRONMENTAL & ADVE Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan Futures High School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Goals: A. Data Summary, Look‐back, Reflection and Analysis

Class of 2012


2012 56%*

*14 of 48 seniors transferred to other schools prior to June 2012.




Reading Math *Science Writing Graduation Requirements

Credits

N: 34 34 34 34 34 34 Percent: 93% 35% 2.9% 89% 100% 18% Source: The Reading, Math, Science, and Writing data were taken from the CIA/CAA Database. The graduation requirements and credit data were taken from the LWSD Data Dashboard. *Science: The numbers above reflect the percentage of seniors who have either passed the science HSPE or its replacement, the Biology EOC exam. Neither exam is required for graduation.

CIP8.2012 Page2



Reading Math Science Writing

N/A* Alg.: N/A*

N/A* N/A*

Geo.: N/A*

Spring 2012 Results

Year Reading Math Science Writing Proficient Exceeds




Proficient

2012 ‐ 10th

28.6%

42.9%

Alg.: 57.1%

Alg.: 7.1%

Bio: 10%

Bio: 10%

76.9%

23.1%

Geo.: 20%

Geo.: 0%

Source: CAA/CIA Database *Futures School does not serve 9th or 10th grade students. SMART goals do not apply to 11th and 12th grade students who have completed their HSPE and EOC examinations. The math numbers in the 9th grade come from Query. They were found by looking at the students in the Juanita HS feeder pattern: EAS, Finn Hill JH, and Kamiakin JH.


2011 ‐ 9th

NA NA Alg.: 25%

Alg.: 0%

Bio: NA

Bio: NA

NA

Geo: NA

Geo: NA

2010‐ 8th

58%

0%

Alg.: NA

Alg.: NA

MSP: 45%

MSP: 9%

NA

Geo.: NA

Geo: NA

Math: In 8th grade 20% were Proficient and 0% Exceeded Proficiency on the math MSP exam.

Class of 2015‐ current 10th graders*


Reading Math Writing Science


Geo.: NA

Spring 2012 Results


CIP8.2012 Page3





2012‐9th

NA Alg.:

Alg.:

Bio: Bio: NA

Geo.:

Geo.:


2011‐8th

Alg.:

Alg.:

MSP: MSP: NA

Geo.:

Geo.:

2010‐ 7th

MSP: MSP: NA NA

*Futures School does not serve 9th or 10th grade students. These goals apply to 11th and 12th grade students.

Class of 2016‐ current 9th graders*


listed Reading Math Writing Science


Geo.: NA

Spring 2012 Results






2012‐8th

Alg.:

Alg.:

MSP: MSP: NA

Geo.:

Geo.:


2011‐7th

Alg: Alg.: NA

MSP: MSP:

2010‐ 6th

MSP: MSP: NA NA


CIP8.2012 Page4



Reading: Test preparation in the spring: use HSPE release items along the year

Professional development for the whole staff on dyslexia and motivational strategies

Special education teachers write a letter to their general education teachers explaining what they are working on and what the teacher could do to assist them

Thursday tutorials



English classes provide note‐taking skills workshops

Close‐reading group work across curriculum

Math: Alternative Algebra 2 class to assist struggling students meet their 3rd credit requirement

Thursday tutorials

The department collaborates with Juanita High School math department on standards and uses common materials and assessments throughout the school year.




COE assistance

Writing: Test preparation in the spring: use HSPE release items along the year

Graphic organizers provided through English classes


Thursday tutorials



Peer review process via turnitin.com

Science: PLC work: common pacing guides, some common assessments and common labs. The department collaborates with Juanita High School science department on biology standards and uses common assessments throughout the year.

Biology support for the EOC exam through practice problems on a website, photo stories of different unit vocabulary and tips on answering prompts.

Additional biology support for students who need to take the Biology EOC exam, but are not enrolled in biology: help with critical content during

CIP8.2012 Page5

homeroom.


Thursday tutorials



Credits: Accelerated classes for credit retrieval options

6 week course sessions to facilitate schedule flexibility

Credit checks and counselor conversations every 6 weeks

Credit report entered into easy‐to‐read spreadsheet for each student

Thursday tutorials



High School and Beyond Plan:

Frequent college presentations and seminars

Field trips to expose student potential career options and post‐secondary careers

WaNIC to expose student potential career options and post‐secondary careers

Culminating Project and other requirements:

Senior English class includes Level 5 essays and culminating project assistance

Help documents available online



Special Education:

The percentage of students receiving special education services has increased to 19.5% of Futures School students

We provide frequent professional development on ways to personalize instruction for all students and specifically for our SDI students.

Past seminars topics have included: dyslexia, reading strategies, organizational strategies, and motivational strategies.

.

CIP8.2012 Page6

B. Perception Data Summary Reflection and Analysis*


2012


#41. Teachers modify their instructional practices based on classroom assessment. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%

2011



2010

#14. I believe all students can learn complex concepts. Agree Slightly Agree Mostly by 10% Agree Mostly Agree Completely by 10%


*Futures School used Juanita High School perceptual data. Beginning 2012‐2013, Futures School

will conduct its own survey

Analysis of Perception Data*


These goals were chosen because of their implication for classroom practice and their relatively lower rating from survey participants. Actions taken to focus on these goals included LEAP afternoon professional development, study professional literature, and common Professional Growth and Evaluation Goals that embedded state standards and classroom assessment practices.

*Futures School used Juanita High School perceptual data. Beginning 2012‐2013, Futures School

will conduct its own survey

CIP8.2012 Page7


Class of 2013




N: 35

Percent 77% 100 38% 100 9% 50% 86% 100 97% 100% 14% 100 56% 75%

*The above numbers were taken from the current year’s dashboard. Students must meet all the requirements except Science to graduate.

Class of 2014




N: 18

Percent 56% 80% 17% 43 12% 50% 72% 87 67% 98% 11% 58 56% 100%

*The “From” numbers were taken from the current Dashboard. We used the AMO criteria to arrive at the “To” numbers. We took ½ (100 – [Class of 2013 numbers])/6 to arrive at targets for the Class of 2014.

Class of 2015 & 2016



2015‐ 10th N/A*

N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A*

Alg.N/A*

Alg.N/A*

Bio:N/A*

Bio:N/A*

N/A* N/A*

Geo.N/A*

Geo.N/A*

2016‐ 9th N/A*

N/A* N/A* Alg. N/A*

Alg.N/A*

Bio:N/A*

Bio:N/A*

N/A* N/A*

Geo:N/A*

Geo:N/A*


CIP8.2012 Page8

Challenge Goal: Identify area From To

Many of our incoming students have IEP goals in reading. In order to supplement our common PGE goal of personalization of learning, we will implement professional development on reading strategies across the curriculum. Of our current seniors (Class of 2013), 64% of students with IEPs met standard on the HSPE reading exam. Of our current juniors (Class of 2014), 33% of students with IEPs met standard on the HSPE reading exam.

33%

66%

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 Q15. All students are consistently challenged by rigorous curriculum. Increase the number of staff who mostly or completely agree with this statement from: 78.68% 85%

#26 The staff works in teams across grade levels to help increase student learning. Increase the number of staff who mostly or completely agree with this statement from: 72% 80%

Process Summary


Reading/Writing: Common assessments, collaborative planning, use of released questions and anchor papers, collaboration on sophomore team on instructional strategies, professional study of pre‐reading strategies, use of formative assessment Math: Use of OSPI Crosswalk documents, common pacing and planning, common assessments, use of formative assessment Science: Use of OSPI released questions, collaborative planning, collaboration on Biology team on instructional strategies, collaboration on Biology standards Graduation requirements/Credits/On‐time graduation: Counselors meet with students individually, Teachers through Rebel Connections connect with students and provide means for academic support in struggling classes, mentor/mentee program provides positive role modeling for incoming students.

CIP8.2012 Page9


Haiku use at high level throughout building, piloting of flipped lessons, phase 1 of SMAS laptop distribution


Use of effective school‐wide decision‐making process and of 9‐characteristics survey in setting CIP goals. Principal Coffee/Teas, PTSA Meetings, student senate and ASB process are used as a means for communication centered on school‐wide goals.


Use of formative and summative assessments, review of classroom grades and passing rates, systematic use of OSPI released test questions, monitoring of progress on level V graduation requirements.


In response to PLC question 3, we have developed an RTI model through our new Rebel Connections program. We also have deeply studied the role of learning targets and formative assessment, and their role in helping students to meet and exceed content standards. In response to PLC question 4, many different strategies for enrichment and extension are in place throughout the building. These take many forms, such as individual research and study, and extension assignments. In our study of the PLC process, we have not undertaken a deep school‐wide study of PLC question 4. To date our focus has been on questions 1, 2 and 3. Our continuing expansion of the Advanced Placement and Cambridge Programs and programmatic responses to PLC question 4.

Futures AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

FUTURES SCHOOL All math

FUTURES SCHOOL All reading

FUTURES SCHOOL American Indian math

FUTURES SCHOOL American Indian reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Asian math

FUTURES SCHOOL Asian reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Black math

FUTURES SCHOOL Black reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Hispanic math

FUTURES SCHOOL Hispanic reading

FUTURES SCHOOL White math

FUTURES SCHOOL White reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Limited English math

FUTURES SCHOOL Limited English reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Special Education math

FUTURES SCHOOL Special Education reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Low Income math

FUTURES SCHOOL Low Income reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Pacific Islander math

FUTURES SCHOOL Pacific Islander reading

FUTURES SCHOOL Two or More Races math

FUTURES SCHOOL Two or More Races reading

CIP8.2012 Page1

Continuous Improvement Process Plan

International Community School CIP 2012‐2013





Part 1: 2011‐2012 Goals: Due to DSS by October 12, 2012 A. Data Summary, Look‐back, Reflection and Analysis

Class of 2012


2012 100





Credits

N: 58 58 58 58 58 58 Percent: 100 100 100 100 100 100



Reading Math EOC Science Writing

100% Alg.: 100%

Bio: N/A 100%

Geo.: 100%

Spring 2012 Results

Year Reading Math EOC Science Writing Proficient Exceeds




Proficient

CIP8.2012 Page2

2012 ‐ 10th

0% 98% Alg.: 0%

Alg.: 100%

Bio: N/A Bio: N/A 7% 93%

Geo.: 0%

Geo.: 100%


2011 ‐ 9th

N/A N/A Alg.: ‐

Alg.: 100%

Bio: N/A Bio: N/A N/A

Geo: ‐

Geo: 100%

2010‐ 8th

‐ 100% Alg.: ‐

Alg.: 100%

MSP: ‐ MSP: ‐ N/A

Geo.: ‐

Geo: ‐



Reading Math EOC Writing Science

N/A Alg.: 100% N/A Bio.: N/A

Geo.: 100%

Spring 2012 Results

Year Reading Math EOC Science Writing





2012‐9th

N/A Alg.:

Alg.: 100%

Bio: N/A Bio: N/A N/A

Geo.:

Geo.: 100%


2011‐8th

‐ 100% Alg.: ‐

Alg.: 100%

MSP: ‐ MSP: ‐ N/A

Geo.: ‐

Geo.: ‐

2010‐ 7th

‐ 100% MSP: MSP: N/A N/A

CIP8.2012 Page3



listed Reading Math EOC Writing Science

N/A Alg.: 100% N/A Bio.: N/A

Geo.: 100%

Spring 2012 Results






2012‐8th

16% 84% Alg.: 20%

Alg.: 71%

MSP: 32%

MSP: 61%

N/A

Geo.: 0%

Geo.: 100%


2011‐7th

‐ 100% Alg: N/A Alg.: N/A N/A

2010‐ 6th

‐ ‐ MSP:‐ MSP:‐ N/A N/A




100% 100% 100%

Results:






2012‐7th

22% 77% 23% 73% N/A 46% 53%

2011‐6th

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2010‐ 5th

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CIP8.2012 Page4



Reading Math

N/A N/A *In the transition year to Middle Schools, 7th graders will not have SMART goals listed

Results:






2012‐6th

19% 65% 12% 75% N/A N/A

2011‐5th

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2010‐ 4th

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Reading: Analysis of and commentary on literature, primary and secondary sources, periodicals; use of various strategies such as teacher‐led, student‐led, and individual analysis to interpret diversified texts (fiction, non‐fiction, poetry, etc.)

Math: Use of Haiku to get students documents/extra help; specialized tutoring for those needing to still pass EOC exams.

Writing: Use of Haiku for low‐stakes writing, journaling, frequent teacher feedback, peer revision, peer tutors, and turnitin.com for peer review.

Science: Use of Haiku for formative assessment to identify struggling students early; Use of inquiry to develop science process skills; use of different modes of access of information; use of technology for success to information

Credits: Frequent credit checks for each student, especially throughout junior and senior year.


District‐required writing requirements opportunities are offered and tracked each year by safety net teacher. Culminating Project is supervised by a team of senior advisors. Principal and counselor personally meets with all 9th and 11th grade families to explain graduation requirements.

CIP8.2012 Page5



Students with an IEP or 504 are a major focus at ICS. Last year, we celebrated 7 graduates who had either an IEP or 504 plan. This year, we are continuing to focus on supporting these students through frequent parent communication, guidance team, peer tutors, office hours, posting class notes on Haiku, and making deliberate and focused efforts to implement the accommodations and modifications as stated in the IEP and 504 plans. Even with these efforts, there are still students who struggle with passing their classes, passing the EOC exams, and maintaining a healthy academic and social balance. Our SPED staffing is extremely limited, but we work closely as a staff to support each student.



2012

All HSPE results to 100% passing All MSP results to 100% passing All EOC results to 100% passing

Developing the 6th grade curriculum to prepare for reconfiguration. Develop our understanding around sMAS to effectively implement the 1:1 netbooks.

2011 All HSPE results to 100% passing All MSP results to 100% passing All EOC results to 100% passing

To tighten the BLOCK curriculum (humanities, international studies, art). To implement scales in the math dept.

2010 All HSPE results to 100% passing All MSP results to 100% passing All EOC results to 100% passing

To tighten the BLOCK curriculum (humanities, international studies, art). To implement scales in the math dept.



At ICS, we are always setting 100% student achievement as our main goal. We expect every student to pass all standardized tests (HSPE, MSP, EOC, AP) and do very well on the PSAT and SAT. However, we do not teach to the test in any class. Instead, we focus on deliberate and focused rigorous instruction in every class, every day, coupled with layers of support for every student; i.e. office hours, Haiku, mentors, tutors, and counseling. As a staff, we are also continuously refining our practice to ensure that we are on our cutting edge as a school and as individuals. We are reconfiguring ICS to become a 6‐12 in 2013‐2014, as well as constructing our brand new school. Both of which, along with the implementation of Haiku and sMAS, have been a focus area given the amount of inherent change that these factors will create. We have dedicated considerable LEAP time to focus on these goals, and to drive our work towards results.

CIP8.2012 Page6


Class of 2013




N: 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58

Percent 100% 100%

100% 100%

100% 100%

100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100%

Class of 2014




N: 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Percent 99% 100%

100% 100%

N/A N/A 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100%

Class of 2015 & 2016



2015‐ 10th

100% 100% 100% 100%

Alg.100%

Alg.100%

Bio:100%

Bio:100%

100% 100%

Geo.100%

Geo.100%

2016‐ 9th NA NA Alg. 100%

Alg.100%

Bio:100%

Bio:100%

100% 100%

Geo:100%

Geo:100%

Challenge Goals: Given the extraordinary test results at ICS, all departments have committed to a secondary goal that they will focus on accomplishing during 2012‐2013.

Humanities: As a department we will complete work on the 6th grade curriculum, select necessary texts/textbooks, complete the IMC approval process (if necessary), and create a description of the humanities curriculum for the ICS curriculum guide. International Studies: Incorporate multi‐media projects into classroom assessments across grade levels. Increase participation in National History Day competition at the regional level. Incorporate resource management and sustainability issues in IS assignments and discussions. Develop knowledge of the interconnections and interdependency of ecological, social, and economic systems, specifically how the health of these systems determines the sustainability of natural and human communities at local, regional, national, and global levels. Art: As the arts department we will produce a 6th grade curriculum that aligns with the rest of the block complete with scaffolded projects and content. We will increase our knowledge of the elements of music, theatre and dance

CIP8.2012 Page7

in order to create a curriculum for the 6th grade that shows the interrelationships between the 4 arts that we teach, bearing in mind visual arts is the foundation for them all. Spanish: Improve reading comprehension skills in all grades by 5% by using a variety of authentic Spanish language sources. These sources include, and are not limited to, short stories, newspapers and magazines written in a variety of tenses. Given writing prompt on an unfamiliar topic, students will write a 150 word essay In Spanish, using a variety of transition words and advanced tenses. Given audio clip or video clip on a cultural topic, students will understand the main idea and be able to summarize in their own words in Spanish for at least 30 seconds, using a variety of transition words and advanced tenses. Math: To transfer all ICS Math Department content/curriculum onto a Haiku site for all department teachers, current and future, to more easily access materials as needed. Science: Use online resources and Haiku to support student learning. Continue with inquiry based projects. Refine reading strategies and increase practice with reading and evaluating scientific literature. Use the QSR lab report rubric to guide students in writing data analysis and conclusions. Increase the effectiveness of collaboration during whole‐ class inquiry projects. Increase the number of POGIL activities. Have students read and evaluate more primary source material. Design more‐sophisticated long term projects. BLOCK: As a block we will complete work on the 6th grade curriculum, select necessary texts/textbooks, complete the IMC approval process (if necessary), and create a description of the block curriculum for the ICS curriculum guide.

Perception Goals:


2012‐2013 All standardized tests from 100% to 100%.

Accomplish all department goals as stated above in our challenge goals.

Process Summary


In addition to our standard focus on exceptional instruction and multi‐layered support for students, we are fully implementing Haiku in every classroom and anticipating a full deployment of 1:1 netbooks.


Every teacher is fully implementing Haiku, 1:1 netbooks and their active boards.


The faculty has been focused on the CIP starting from the August LEAP, and revisited every Wednesday LEAP day. At each monthly PTSA meeting, the principal gives the entire parent body an update on our high leverage activities, data on standardized tests and school‐wide goals. These presentations are also permanently uploaded to the principal’s page on the PTSA website for reference. Students are included in the CIP through trainings (i.e. Haiku and 1:1 netbooks), test preparation, and daily rigorous lessons.


Every department is closely collaborating around assessments that are used in their classes. All teachers are trained on the Data Dashboard to track student progress on summative assessments.


When a student is not performing at/above grade level, or at risk of failing a class, our school‐wide strategies include: guidance team, office hours, study groups, peer tutoring, upper classmen mentors, IEP/504 support, email communication with parents, and counseling.

International Community School AMO Targets


Total Tested

Not Tested

Baseline CE

Number Met

Baseline

CE

Percent

Met

Target

2012

Target

2013

Target

2014

Target

2015

Target

2016

Target

2017

Increment

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN All math 192 178 92.708 93.3 93.9 94.5 95.1 95.7 96.4 0.6

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN All reading 193 183 94.819 95.3 95.7 96.1 96.5 97.0 97.4 0.4

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN American Indian math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN American Indian reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Asian math 66 65 98.485 98.6 98.7 98.9 99.0 99.1 99.2 0.1

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Asian reading 67 65 97.015 97.3 97.5 97.8 98.0 98.3 98.5 0.2

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Black math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Black reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Hispanic math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Hispanic reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN White math 111 99 89.189 90.1 91.0 91.9 92.8 93.7 94.6 0.9

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN White reading 111 104 93.694 94.2 94.7 95.3 95.8 96.3 96.8 0.5

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Limited English math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Limited English reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Special Education math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Special Education reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Low Income math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Low Income reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Pacific Islander math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Pacific Islander reading

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Two or More Races math

INTERNATIONAL COMMUN Two or More Races reading

continuous improvement plans juanita learning community · continuous improvement plans juanita...

Documents