school improvement plan elementary (lap)
TRANSCRIPT
SIP Template
1 | Page 11/19/2013
Implementation September 2016-June 2019
Terminal Park Elementary
School Improvement Plan
Elementary (LAP)
School Improvement Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on date?
SIP Template
2 | Page 11/19/2013
September 2016-June 2019
Auburn School District Strategic Plan
Aspiration: The Auburn School District aspires to be a world-class education system preparing all students to
be globally competitive for career, for college, and for life in the twenty-first century.
District Goal 1: Student Achievement All staff in the Auburn School District provide support, leadership, and guidance to ensure each
student meets or exceeds state and district standards, graduates on time, and is prepared for
career and college.
District Goal 2: Community Engagements All staff in the Auburn School District are accountable for engaging its diverse community as
partners to support and sustain a world-class education system.
District Goal 3: Policies and Resource Management Auburn School District policies and resources are aligned to the strategic plan.
School:
Terminal Park Elementary
Date of SIP Team District Goal Review:
SIP Team Members:
Rachel Betts Michelle Clough Tom Dudley Rose Finley
Julie Gragg Maris Hanson Marlene Hanson John Harlor
Kristin Harlor Marissa Iams Tabitha Jumelet Jesslyn Kuzaro
Emily Mischke Wendy Parce Jessica Prochaska
SIP Template
3 | Page 11/19/2013
School Improvement Team Signatures 2015-2016
Date
Submitted:
Date of School
Board Approval:
Name Title/Position Signature
Tom Dudley Principal
Tabitha Jumelet Parent (incoming PTA president)
None Student None
Maris Hanson Community member (parent)
Marissa Iams Instructional Specialist
Emily Mischke Kindergarten teacher
Wendy Parce Grade 1 teacher
John Harlor Grade 2 teacher
Michelle Clough Grade 3 teacher
Kristin Harlor Grade 4 teacher
Marlene Hanson Grade 5 teacher
Jesslyn Kuzaro Language arts specialist
Rose Finley Learning specialist
Julie Gragg Counselor
Rachel Betts Para educator
Jessica Prochaska Para educator (parent)
Each team must include staff, students, families, parents, and community members.
SIP Template
4 | Page 11/19/2013
Signatures for Approval
Department of Student Learning
Heidi Harris Assistant Superintendent
Student Learning
Julie DeBolt Executive Director High
School/Post Secondary
Programs
Vicki Bates Assistant Superintendent
Technology
Department of School Programs
Ryan Foster Associate Superintendent
Principal Leadership and
School Programs
Rhonda Larson Assistant Superintendent
Family Engagement and
Student Services
Superintendent
Alan Spicciati
Superintendent
School Board
Anne Baunach School Board
Carol Seng School Board
Laurie Bishop School Board
Ray Vefik School Board
Ryan Van Quill School Board
SIP Template
5 | Page 11/19/2013
Executive Summary
Auburn School District Mission
In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become
ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.
Auburn School District Vision
The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will
maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.
School Mission
Ensuring positive, personalized learning for every student, every day.
School Vision
Empowering successful, lifelong learners.
Background Information
WAC 180-16-220
Requirements for School Improvement Plan Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined
by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a
school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a
continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and
update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to
establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WELPA, Credit
Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE.
SIP Template
6 | Page 11/19/2013
Stakeholder Input
The Terminal Park Elementary strategic improvement plan (SIP) team (also referred to as the
building leadership team, BLT) includes a variety of experienced staff, as well as input from
Parent Teacher Association (PTA) officers, to ensure that the perspectives of different
stakeholders are represented in our improvement planning. The SIP team held monthly meetings
throughout the 2015-2016 school year to provide feedback and insight on the SIP. A subgroup of
the SIP team participated in four formal training days and work sessions as well as many hours
of additional communication and work to develop the SIP, which was checked and approved by
the entire SIP team. This document provides a summary of what we discovered in our data
analysis as well as much of the specific data we analyzed to determine what our areas of
emphasis should be for action planning. The goals and action plans that follow represent input
from all the certificated staff who participated in needs assessment data analysis as well as other
feedback and idea brainstorming sessions that occurred during staff meetings throughout the
year. Even though all staff could not be included in the detailed work of the SIP team, they have
had opportunities to view planning documents and provide feedback throughout the SIP process.
While only a few parents and no students are involved directly with our SIP, the ideas of these
important stakeholders have been incorporated through the use of perceptual survey data,
communication with the PTA, and a variety of anecdotal data gathered by day-to-day
interactions. We value the participation of all of our stakeholders in our improvement efforts.
Highly Qualified Staff Learning Assistance Program (LAP) #5 LAP Component #5-Provide Instruction by Highly Qualified Teachers and
Paraprofessionals Systems Connections: AWSP Framework Criterion 6; Managing Resources ◻ Highly Qualified Certificated staff funded by LAP: 2 ◻ Highly Qualified Classified staff funded by LAP: 5 ◻ Not Highly Qualified: 0
Needs Assessment LAP #1 Systems Connections:
RCW 28A.165.005 CEL5D Assessments for Student Learning; Assessments & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion 3; Planning with Data
a. Data was used when developing programs to assist underachieving students: ◻DIBELS ◻MAP Reading ◻MAP Math ◻SBA Reading ◻SBA Math
Needs assessment was conducted on October 1, 2015.
Participants in our needs assessment included (per our building SIP process):
◻District Leadership ◻Principal
◻Teachers ◻Para Professionals
SIP Template
7 | Page 11/19/2013
◻Other School Staff ◻Students ◻Parents
b. The LAP plan focuses first on addressing the needs of students in grades
kindergarten through 4 who are deficient in reading or reading readiness skills
to improve reading literacy.
Grade
Level
Readiness (# of Students)
Reading (# of Students)
Math Extended Day (# of Students)
K 27
1 25 15
2 36 17
3 24 14
4 8 17
Demographic Data
Terminal Park Elementary serves an ethnically, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse
population. Terminal Park has a current K-5 student population of approximately 450 students,
which has increased by about 30 students since a year ago, partly due to the addition of two SLC
classrooms, but has consistently been around 415 for the past decade. We also have about 35
preschool students, which are not represented in the demographic data. Here are some notable
changes in demographics within the past decade:
Our Hispanic/Latino population has increased from 14.3% in 2005-2006 to 19.1% in
2012-2013 to 23.8% in 2014-2015.
Our Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander population has doubled from 3.6% in 2011-
2012 to 7.3% in 2014-2015.
Our low income population has increased from 60.6% in 2005-2006 to 64.4% in 2011-
2012 to 72.9% in 2014-2015.
Our ELL population has increased from 13.5% in 2005-2006 to 17.1% in 2012-2013 to
24.9% in 2014-2015.
SIP Template
8 | Page 11/19/2013
Overall stayed the same…Terminal Park has steadily increased over the past decade in
the number of minority students, students receiving free or reduced-price meals, and
English language learners. Hispanic population growth...(See demographic table below.)
Give specifics for ELL/free-reduced…Doubled transitional bilingual…
Discipline Analysis
Terminal Park Elementary’s approach to student behavior is significantly influenced by PBIS
(Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports), which is a compilation of best practices
supported by research and data. Part of this approach is to track data in regard to positive
incentives as well as disciplinary action.
Use of positive incentives increased from 2012-2013 but then decreased from 2013-2014
to 2014-2015.
Suspensions increased from 41 in 2012-2013 to 75 in 2013-2014 but then decreased to 21
in 2014-2015.
While administrator disciplinary referrals decreased significantly from 2013-2014 to
2014-2015, referrals for black students increased from a total of 21 to 38 and referrals for
multicultural students increased from a total of 42 to 67.
Attendance Analysis
In 2014-2015, 16.6% of students at Terminal Park were chronically absent, compared to 19.41%
for Auburn School District. However, in the same year, 33.3% of ELL students at Terminal Park
were chronically absent, compared to 16.37% for the district.
Data Analysis- DIBELS
Overview
The Dynamic Indicator of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is a nationally-normed fluency
assessment administered to all Terminal Park students three times a year (and used for monthly
progress monitoring). Data from the assessment is compared to students within the district and
across the country to assess literacy skills. Those students not meeting benchmark are more
frequently assessed to ensure adequate progress toward expectations. Individual student progress
is communicated to parents at least three times a year (and we are working toward a monthly
communication system).
Strengths
The percentage of kindergarten students at-risk on DIBELS decreased from 32% in the
fall of 2014 to 6% in the spring of 2015 (based on DIBELS former goals).
The percentage of 1st grade students at benchmark in the spring of 2015 was 71%, up
from 39% in the fall of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).
The percentage of 4th grade students at-risk on DIBELS decreased from 19% in the fall of
2014 to 9% in the spring of 2015.
SIP Template
9 | Page 11/19/2013
Areas for Growth The percentage of kindergarten students at benchmark decreased from 87% in the spring
of 2012 to 68% in the spring of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).
The percentage of 1st grade students at intensive increased from 9% in the spring of 2012
to 20% in the spring of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).
The percentage of 2nd grade students at benchmark in DIBELS decreased from 75% in
the spring of 2014 to 41% in the spring of 2015.
The percentage of 3rd grade students at benchmark in DIBELS decreased from 71% in the
winter of 2015 to 59% in spring 2015.
Data Analysis- MAPS
Overview The Measure of Academic Progress (MAPs) is given to second through fifth grade students at
Terminal Park in the fall, winter, and spring to measure progress and diagnose needs in reading
and math. Reading Strengths Terminal Park’s second through fifth grade students improved their mean RIT scores on the
MAPs reading assessment from the fall of 2014 to the spring of 2015. The second grade students
increased their average RIT score by 10 points, going from 171 in the fall of 2014 to 181 in the
spring of 2015. The third grade students increased their average RIT score by 5 points, going
from 189 in the fall of 2014 to 194 in the spring of 2015. The fourth grade students increased
their average RIT score by 8 points, going from 200 in the fall of 2014 to 208 in the spring of
2015. The fifth grade students increased their average RIT score by 5 points, going from 212 in
the fall of 2014 to 217 in the spring of 2015. Reading Areas for Growth The percentage of students that achieved either high-average or high scores (above 60th
percentile) on the MAPs reading assessment decreased between the fall of 2014 to the spring of
2015 in all grade levels. The percentage of proficient second grade students decreased from 30%
in the fall of 2014 to 15% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient third grade students
decreased from 39% in the fall of 2014 to 29% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of
proficient fourth grade students slightly decreased from 48% in the fall of 2014 to 46% in the
spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient fifth grade students decreased from 51% in the fall
of 2014 to 44% in the spring of 2015.
SIP Template
10 | Page 11/19/2013
Math Strengths Terminal Park’s second through fifth grade students improved their mean RIT scores on the
MAPs math assessment from the fall of 2014 to the spring of 2015. The second grade students
increased their average RIT score by 12 points, going from 175 in the fall of 2014 to 187 in the
spring of 2015. The third grade students increased their average RIT score by 10 points, going
from 189 in the fall of 2014 to 199 in the spring of 2015. The fourth grade students increased
their average RIT score by 9 points, going from 203 in the fall of 2014 to 212 in the spring of
2015. The fifth grade students increased their average RIT score by 9 points, going from 218 in
the fall of 2014 to 227 in the spring of 2015. In addition, the percentage of proficient fourth
grade students increased from 45% in the fall of 2014 to 56% in the spring of 2015. Math Areas for Growth The percentage of students that achieved either high-average or high scores (above 60th
percentile) on the MAPs math assessment decreased between the fall of 2014 to the spring of
2015 in grades three and five while staying the same in grade two. The percentage of proficient
second grade students remained the same from 27% in the fall of 2014 to 27% in the spring of
2015. The percentage of proficient third grade students decreased from 40% in the fall of 2014 to
29% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient fifth grade students slightly decreased
from 54% in the fall of 2014 to 52% in the spring of 2015.
Data Analysis- WELPA
Overview The annual WELPA (Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment) is given to all
students who qualified for ELD services with a Placement Test. It measures students’ growth in
English language knowledge and skills. Results from this test determine which students are
eligible to continue to receive ELD services. Strengths In 2014-2015, 18.7% of Terminal Park 3rd graders transitioned out of ELL compared to 11.0%
for the district and 13.5% for the state. Areas for Growth In 2014-2015, 6.2% of Terminal Park 4th graders transitioned out of ELL compared to 13.5% for
the district and 16.5% for the state.
SIP Template
11 | Page 11/19/2013
Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey
Overview The Center of Educational Effectiveness survey is administered to staff, parents, and fifth-grade
students every two years. The purpose of this survey is to provide perceptual data for the
development of the school in regard to the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools.
Each characteristic is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (almost never true to almost always true). Strengths In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated higher than high-improving
schools in the following areas: “collaboration and communication” and “high standards and
expectations.” Areas for Growth In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated lower than high-improving
schools in the following areas: “clear and shared focus,” “parent and community involvement,”
“curriculum, instruction, and assessment,” “monitoring of teaching and learning,” “cultural
responsiveness,” and “district support for improvement;” the lowest of these being: “parent and
community involvement,” “cultural responsiveness,” and “district support for improvement; the
lowest below high-improving schools being: “parent and community involvement.”
Data Analysis- SBA ELA
State Testing Overview State testing occurs every spring for all third through fifth grade students at Terminal Park. This
includes the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for English language arts (ELA) and math at
each grade level and the measurement of student progress (MSP) for science at grade 5. Strengths
56.6% of third grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in ELA in the
spring of 2015, which was 4.5% higher than the state average of 52.1%. This was an
increase from being nearly 12% below the state average of meeting standard in reading in
the spring of 2014.
72.6% of fifth graders at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in ELA in the spring of
2015, which was 15% higher than the state average of 57.6%. Areas for Growth
Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the
spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for third grade students was 66.4%
compared to 56.6% at Terminal Park.
Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the
spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for fourth grade students was 56.9%
compared to 54.6% at Terminal Park.
While 45.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 59.9% of low income fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
SIP Template
12 | Page 11/19/2013
While 27.3% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 38.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
Data Analysis- SBA Math
Strengths 64.1% of third grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the
spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 56.7%.
56.5% of fourth grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the
spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 54%. 69.3% of fifth grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the
spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 48.1% and the district average of
60%. Areas for Growth
Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in math in the
spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for third grade students was 67.3%
compared to 64.1% at Terminal Park.
Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in math in the
spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for fourth grade students was 64.4%
compared to 56.5% at Terminal Park.
While 43.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the
spring of 2015, 58.6% of low income fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
While 30.6% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the
spring of 2015, 45.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meetstandard.
Data Analysis- MSP Science
At Terminal Park, 63.7% of the fifth grade students achieved proficiency in science on the MSP
in the spring of 2015, which outperformed both the district (56.8%) and the state (63.4%);
however, this continued a downward trend for Terminal Park over the past several years: 78% in
2012, 71.9% in 2013, and 65.4% in 2014.
Data Analysis- Credit Attainment, Honors/AP Enrollment
Not applicable.
Assessment Decisions – LAP#2 & #4
Assessment data is used regularly to evaluate progress by student, class, grade level, and the entire school. Assessment data helps us determine how we need to improve overall and how we need to support each individual student.
SIP Template
13 | Page 11/19/2013
Student Selection-
LAP Component #2-Plan Incorporated in SIP LAP Component #4-Coordination and Support to General Program System Connections RCW 28A.165.015 CEL5D Assessments for Student Learning; Assessments & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion 3; Planning with Data
a. Our building conducts a LAP program that addresses reading, writing, and/or
mathematics, as well as readiness skills associated with these content areas.
b. Students are identified for LAP as those students in kindergarten through
grade 4 who score below standard for his/her grade level using multiple
measures of performance, including the statewide student assessments or
other assessments and performance tools administered by the school or
district and who is identified by the district to receive LAP services.
Multiple Measures of Performance Include:
◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) screener Grades K-4 ◻Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) Grades 3 & 4 ◻Smarter Balanced Assessment Grades 3 & 4 ◻Teacher Rating Scale Grades K-4
Students with greatest academic deficits in basic skills as identified by
statewide, school and/or district assessments or other performance measures
are served in LAP.
#3 Methods and Strategies are Research-based
● Small group targeted instruction
● Additional learning time within the school day
● Extended learning math
● Summer school
#4 Coordination and Support to General Education
● Extended learning math taught by grade-level teachers
● Targeted professional learning
○ Reading specialist supports teachers and para educators
○ Instructional specialist supports teachers and para educators
● Professional Learning Communities
○ Data analysis to inform instruction
○ Collaboration to improve instruction (implement best practices)
#7 Parent Involvement
● Reading specialist and instructional specialist at case study meetings
● LAP parent night
● School monthly newsletter
SIP Template
14 | Page 11/19/2013
● Classroom newsletters
● Open house
● November parent-teacher conferences
● Family nights
● Home visits
● Kindergarten roundup and screening
● WaKIDS conferences for entering kindergarteners
Prioritized Challenges ELA
Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 56.6% meeting standard compared to 66.4%.
Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 54.6% meeting standard compared to 56.9%.
While 45.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 59.9% of low income fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
While 27.3% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the
spring of 2015, 38.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
Math
Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in math in the
spring of 2015, 64.1% meeting standard compared to 67.3%.
Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in math in the
spring of 2015, 56.5% meeting standard compared to 64.4%.
While 43.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the
spring of 2015, 58.6% of low income fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
While 30.6% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the
spring of 2015, 45.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet
standard.
Parent Involvement
In 2014-2015, 33.3% of ELL students at Terminal Park were chronically absent,
compared to 16.37% for the district.
In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated the lowest in “parent
and community involvement” and “cultural responsiveness.”
SIP Template
15 | Page 11/19/2013
SMART Goal 1:
The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the ELA SBA will
increase from 62% in 2015 to 77% in 2019 (67% in 2017 and 72% in 2018).
SMART Goal 2:
The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the math SBA will
increase from 63% in 2015 to 78% in 2019 (68% in 2017 and 73% in 2018).
SMART Goal 3:
“Parent and community involvement” as measured by staff perception on the CEE survey will
increase from 3.6 in 2014 to 4.4 in 2020 (3.8 in 2016 and 4.1 in 2018).
SIP Template
1 | Page 11/19/2013
Needs Assessment Data Documents
LAP #1
DIBELS Dashboard
DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Annual Progress (Take note that winter DIBELS testing occurred mid-February in 2014 versus beginning of January in 2015.)
Kindergarten – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2014-15 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2013-14 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2012-13
2011-12
Kindergarten continuously enrolled
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 30 25 45 4.8 22.2 73 -25.2 -2.8 +28
2013-14 46.2 20 33.8 9.2 21.5 69.2 -37 +1.5 +35.4
SIP Template
2 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 1 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2014-15 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2013-14 (DIBELS Next/former goals)
2012-13
2011-12
Grade 1 continuously enrolled
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 38.5 18.5 43.1 18.5 7.7 73.8 -20 -10.8 +30.7
2013-14 38.5 17.3 44.2 25 11.5 63.5 -13.5 -5.8 +19.3
Grade 2 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16
2014-15
SIP Template
3 | Page 11/19/2013
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
Grade 2 continuously enrolled
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 30.2 17 52.8 32.1 28.3 39.6 +1.9 +11.3 -13.2
2013-14 13.2 17 69.8 9.4 13.2 77.4 -3.8 -3.8 +7.6
Grade 3 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12 (invalid)
SIP Template
4 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 3 continuously enrolled
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 16.7 16.7 66.7 20.4 20.4 59.3 +3.7 +3.7 -7.4
2013-14 27.8 37 35.2 14.8 42.6 42.6 -13 +5.6 +6.8
Grade 4 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
Grade 4 continuously enrolled (not including STEP)
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 22 36 42 14 34 52 -8 -2 +10
2013-14 21.2 13.5 65.4 9.6 23.1 67.3 -11.6 +9.6 +1.9
SIP Template
5 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 5 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
Grade 5 continuously enrolled (not including STEP)
Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)
2014-15 18 24 58 14 24 62 -4 0 +4
2013-14 11.3 18.9 69.8 9.4 15.1 75.5 -1.9 -2.9 +5.7
All (Grades K-5) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress
2014-15
K-1
2-5
SIP Template
6 | Page 11/19/2013
K-5 (n=429>416>401) 112/26% 80/19% 237/55% 71/17% 80/19% 271/65% 64/16% 75/19% 262/65%
2013-14
K-1
2-5
K-5 (n=424>414>413) 111/26% 76/18% 237/56% 56/14% 80/15% 296/71% 50/12% 77/19% 286/69%
DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress (Take note that winter DIBELS testing occurred mid-February in 2014 versus beginning of January in 2015.)
Kindergarten (class 2027) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year, former goals)
Grade 1 (class 2026) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year, DIBELS Next/former goals)
2013-14 (when in Kindergarten, DIBELS Next/former goals)
SIP Template
7 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 2 (class 2025) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year)
2013-14 (when in grade 1, DIBELS Next/former goals)
2012-13 (when in Kindergarten)
Grade 3 (class 2024) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year)
2013-14 (when in grade 2)
2012-13 (when in grade 1)
2011-12 (when in kindergarten)
Grade 4 (class 2023) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year)
2013-14 (when in grade 3)
SIP Template
8 | Page 11/19/2013
2012-13 (when in grade 2)
2011-12 (when in grade 1)
Grade 5 (class 2022) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress
2014-15 (current school year)
2013-14 (when in grade 4)
2012-13 (when in grade 3)
2011-12 (when in grade 2)
SIP Template
9 | Page 11/19/2013
MAP Data Dashboard
Terminal Park Elementary
MAP Data – READING
YEAR 3rd Fall
3rd Winter
3rd Spring
4th Fall
4th Winter
4th Spring
5th Fall
5th Winter
5th Spring
2013-14 75 – 100% 16%
(10) 10% (7)
10% (6)
42% (35)
45% (35)
45% (35)
36% (30)
41% (35)
36% (30)
50 – 74% 13% (8)
18% (12)
23% (14)
14% (12)
19% (15)
16% (12)
25% (21)
24% (21)
23% (19)
50-100% 29% 28% 33% 56% 64% 61% 61% 64% 59% 25 – 49% 22%
(14) 27% (18)
20% (12)
21% (18)
18% (14)
22% (17)
20% (17)
13% (11)
25% (21)
0 – 24% 49% (31)
45% (30)
47% (28)
23% (19)
18% (14)
18% (14)
18% (15)
22% (19)
16% (13)
Total Students 63 67 60 81 78 77 83 86 83 2014 - 15 75 – 100% 32%
(18) 22% (12)
40% (32)
33% (26)
19% (10)
9% (5)
50 – 74% 25% (14)
33% (18)
17% (14)
16% (13)
23% (12)
15% (8)
25 – 49% 18% (10)
20% (11)
14% (11)
16% (13)
19% (10)
30% (16)
0 – 24% 25% (14)
25% (14)
39% (24)
34% (27)
38% (20)
46% (25)
Total Students 56 55 81 79 52 54
YEAR
2nd Fall
2nd Winter
2nd Spring
2014 -15 75 – 100% 19%
(10) 9% (5)
50 – 74% 23% (12)
15% (8)
25 – 49% 19% (10)
30% (16)
0 – 24% 38% (20)
46% (25)
Total Students 52 54
SIP Template
10 | Page 11/19/2013
Terminal Park Elementary
MAP Data – MATH
YEAR 3rd Fall
3rd Winter
3rd Spring
4th Fall
4th Winter
4th Spring
5th Fall
5th Winter
5th Spring
2013-14 75 – 100% 5%
(3) 5% (3)
10% (6)
34% (28)
37% (29)
45% (34)
37% (30)
34% (29)
41% (34)
50 – 74% 25% (16)
28% (19)
25% (15)
22% (18)
17% (13)
14% (11)
15% (12)
17% (15)
20% (17)
25 – 49% 22% (14)
27% (18)
25% (15)
13% (11)
19% (15)
18% (14)
20% (16)
26% (22)
17% (14)
0 – 24% 48% (31)
40% (27)
40% (24)
31% (25)
27% (21)
23% (18)
29% (24)
23% (20)
22% (18)
Total Students 64 67 60 82 78 77 82 86 83 2014 - 15 75 – 100% 23%
(13) 19% (10)
37% (30)
32% (25)
44% (34)
38% (29)
50 – 74% 23% (13)
28% (15)
13% (11)
18% (15)
19% (15)
21% (16)
25 – 49% 18% (10)
28% (15)
21% (17)
22% (17)
16% (12)
14% (11)
0 – 24% 36% (20)
26% (14)
30% (24)
28% (22)
21% (16)
27% (21)
Total Students 56 54 82 79 77 77
YEAR
2nd Fall
2nd Winter
2nd Spring
2014 -15 75 – 100% 13%
(7) 13% (7)
50 – 74% 22% (11)
15% (8)
25 – 49% 41% (21)
40% (21)
0 – 24% 24% (12)
32% (17)
Total Students 51 54 (1 invalid
score)
SIP Template
11 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 2 Reading
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 2 Math
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
SIP Template
12 | Page 11/19/2013
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 3 Reading
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 3 Math
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
SIP Template
13 | Page 11/19/2013
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 4 Reading
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
SIP Template
14 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 4 Math
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 5 Reading
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
SIP Template
15 | Page 11/19/2013
Fall 2014-2015
Grade 5 Math
Fall 2015-2016
Spring 2014-2015
Winter 2014-2015
Fall 2014-2015
SIP Template
16 | Page 11/19/2013
WELPA Results
SIP Template
17 | Page 11/19/2013
SIP Template
18 | Page 11/19/2013
SIP Template
19 | Page 11/19/2013
CEE Spider Chart (staff survey)
SIP Template
20 | Page 11/19/2013
Discipline Data
Tickets=Tiger Express Tickets, TPA = Tiger Pride Awards, TCA = Tiger Class Awards
Off = Disciplinary Offenses (admin referrals), SR =Study Room referrals, ED = Extended Day referrals, Su = Suspensions
* Total Extended Day referrals/total available extended day sessions
**Total suspensions for year (not daily average)
SIP Template
21 | Page 11/19/2013
2014-2015 administrator disciplinary referrals by race
2013-2014 administrator disciplinary referrals by race
SIP Template
22 | Page 11/19/2013
2012-2013 administrator disciplinary referrals by race
Attendance Data
Chronically absent students for the 2014-2015 school year:
Terminal Park ASD
All 16.6% 19.41%
ELL 33.3% 16.37%
SIP Template
23 | Page 11/19/2013
Demographic Chart
2005-2006 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Total fall/spring
enrollment 413 (fall) 412/396 397/439 414/416 411/413
Male/female % 51.6/48.4 55.8/44.2 53.7/46.3 50.2/49.8 49.9/50.1
Hispanic / Latino of
any race % 14.3 18.9 19.1 20.0 23.8
American Indian /
Alaskan Native % 1.7 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.7
Asian % N/A 4.9 5.5 4.8 4.1
Black / African
American 8.5 10.0 8.8 8.5 8.3
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander %
N/A 3.6 5.0 6.8 7.3
White % 64.9 52.2 50.4 47.3 41.8
Two or More Races % N/A 9.5 10.8 11.8 13.9
Free or Reduced-Price
Meals % 60.6 64.4 72.4 70.9 72.9
Special Education % 10.6 13.4 12.5 9.4 10.2
Transitional Bilingual % 13.5 12.6 17.1 20.7 24.9
SIP Template
24 | Page 11/19/2013
AYP Results
SBA/MSP Results and trend charts
Grade 3 Reading/ELA
SIP Template
25 | Page 11/19/2013
SIP Template
26 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 3 Math
SIP Template
27 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 4 Reading/ELA
SIP Template
28 | Page 11/19/2013
SIP Template
29 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 4 Math
SIP Template
30 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 5 Reading/ELA
SIP Template
31 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 5 Math
SIP Template
32 | Page 11/19/2013
Grade 5 Science
SIP Template
33 | Page 11/19/2013
SMART Goal 1
Subject Area: English Language Arts (ELA)
School Name: Terminal Park
Target Population- based
on demographic, discipline and
attendance data analysis:
All students, with emphasis on ELL
Our Reality-based on
assessment data analysis:
Terminal Park ELA assessment scores are generally below district average:
Grade 3, spring 2015 SBA: 56.6 compared to 66.4
Grade 4, spring 2015 SBA: 54.6 compared to 56.9
Our SMART Goal-based on
target population and your reality: The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the ELA SBA will increase from 62% in
2015 to 77% in 2019 (67% in 2017 and 72% in 2018).
Action Plan
Action Step Increase alignment of effective ELA curriculum and research-based instructional strategies across
grade levels, tiers of instruction, and programs.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
All teachers use common
effective ELA curriculum and
materials
All teachers follow ELA
common grade-level pacing
schedule and stay within at
least 2 days of each other
Read Well (K-2)
Weekly passages (3-
5)
DIBELS (K-5)
Monthly
Monthly
Benchmark (Sept,
Jan, June) and
progress monitoring
(monthly)
District instructional materials:
-Step Up to Writing (K-5)
-District Writing Assessments and
ELA Performance Tasks (K-5)
-Weekly Passages (3-5)
-Harcourt
Curriculum common pacing schedule
template
Principal
IS
Reading specialist
Grade-level teachers
Specialists
SIP Template
34 | Page 11/19/2013
(district pacing guide
recommended)
Grade-level teachers update
public ELA pacing schedules
on common template at least
every two weeks
All teachers use common
effective ELA instructional
strategies, emphasizing ELL
best practices
MAPs (2-5)
District writing
assessments and
ELA performance
tasks (K-5)
IABs/ICAs
SBA (3-5)
Oct, Jan/Feb, May
Oct/Nov, Feb/March,
May/June
Sept-April
Annually
District pacing guide
Table with common gestures,
language, visuals, templates, etc.
Common posters (inventory)
WTR curriculum
CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP, SWRL
(speaking, writing, reading, listening)
PLC
Building 28 hours, etc.
Para educators
Students
Parents
Action Step Improve use of ELA common assessment data to diagnose instructional needs and improve core
instruction, remediate for struggling students, and enrich students at or above standard.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
Grade-level teachers create
grade-level ELA common
assessment schedules (to fit
within building common
assessment schedule) and
update them at least monthly
Read Well (K-2)
Weekly passages (3-
5)
DIBELS (K-5)
Monthly
Monthly
Benchmark (Sept,
Jan, June) and
progress monitoring
(monthly)
Curriculum pacing and assessment
calendar (common templates for grade-
levels)
Shared ELA data spreadsheet
PLC
Building 28 hours, etc.
Principal
IS
Reading specialist
Grade-level teachers
Specialists
SIP Template
35 | Page 11/19/2013
All teachers record data in
shared ELA Google sheet
(within a week of assessment)
All teachers regularly review
ELA common assessment data
during PLC and other data
meetings
All teachers use data to
determine and execute specific
actions to meet grade-level,
whole-class, small-group, and
individual learning needs
MAPs (2-5)
District writing
assessments and
ELA performance
tasks (K-5)
IABs/ICAs
SBA (3-5)
Oct, Jan/Feb, May
Oct/Nov, Feb/March,
May/June
Sept-April
Annually
Assessments:
-Read Well (K-2)
-Weekly passages (3-5)
-DIBELS (K-5)
-MAPs (2-5)
-District writing assessments and ELA
performance tasks (K-5)
-IABs/ICAs
-SBA (3-5)
Para educators
Students
Parents
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 1: Student Achievement, Objectives 1-4
SMART Goal 2
Subject Area: Math
School Name: Terminal Park
Target Population- based
on demographic, discipline and
attendance data analysis:
All students, with emphasis on ELL
Our Reality-based on
assessment data analysis:
Terminal Park math assessment scores are generally below district average:
Grade 3, spring 2015 SBA: 64.1 compared to 67.3
Grade 4, spring 2015 SBA: 56.5 compared to 64.4
SIP Template
36 | Page 11/19/2013
Our SMART Goal-based on
target population and your reality: The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the math SBA will increase from 63% in
2015 to 78% in 2019 (68% in 2017 and 73% in 2018).
Action Plan
Action Step Increase alignment of effective math curriculum and research-based instructional strategies across
grade levels, tiers of instruction, and programs.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
All teachers use effective
common math curriculum and
materials
All teachers follow math
common grade-level pacing
schedule and stay within at
least 2 days of each other
(district pacing guide
recommended)
Grade-level teachers update
public math pacing schedules
on common template at least
every two weeks
All teachers use effective
common math instructional
strategies, emphasizing ELL
best practices
Math fact fluency
Problem solving
Unit assessments
(Engage New York
module
assessments)
DSL domain
summative
assessments
DSL performance
tasks
Tri-skills K-1
MAPs (2-5)
IABs/ICAs
Monthly
Weekly
4-6 weeks
varies
varies
Nov, Feb, June
Oct, Jan/Feb, May
Sept-April
District instructional materials
-Problem Solving Practice/Assessment
Sets (3-5)
-Problem Solving Summative
Assessments (3-5)
-Performance Tasks (3-5)
-Engage New York (K-5)
-Trimester Skills Assessments (K-1)
District pacing guide
Balanced math
Walk to math alignment meetings
(grades 2-5)
PLC
Building 28 hours, etc.
Table with common gestures,
language, visuals, templates, etc.
Principal
IS
Math learning
specialist
Grade-level teachers
Specialists
Para educators
Students
Parents
SIP Template
37 | Page 11/19/2013
SBA (3-5) Annually Common posters (inventory)
CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP, SWRL
(speaking, writing, reading, listening)
Action Step Improve use of math common assessment data to diagnose instructional needs and improve core
instruction, remediate for struggling students, and enrich students at or above standard.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
Grade-level teachers create
grade-level math common
assessment schedules (to fit
within building common
assessment schedule) and
update them at least monthly
All teachers record data in
shared math Google sheet
(within a week of assessment)
All teachers regularly review
math common assessment data
during PLC and other data
meetings
All teachers use data to
determine and execute specific
actions to meet grade-level,
whole-class, small-group, and
individual math learning needs
Math fact fluency
Problem solving
Unit assessments
(Engage New York
module
assessments)
DSL domain
summative
assessments
DSL performance
tasks
Tri-skills K-1
MAPs (2-5)
Monthly
Weekly
4-6 weeks
varies
varies
Nov, Feb, June
Oct, Jan/Feb, May
District instructional materials
-Problem Solving Practice/Assessment
Sets (3-5)
-Problem Solving Summative
Assessments (3-5)
-Performance Tasks (3-5)
-Engage New York (K-5)
-Trimester Skills Assessments (K-1)
Common posters (inventory)
District pacing guide
PLC
Building 28 hours, etc.
CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP
Principal
IS
Math learning
specialist
Grade-level teachers
Specialists
Para educators
Students
Parents
SIP Template
38 | Page 11/19/2013
IABs/ICAs
SBA (3-5)
Sept-April
Annually
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 1: Student Achievement, Objectives 1-4
SMART Goal 3
Subject Area: Parent Involvement
School Name: Terminal Park
Target Population- based
on demographic, discipline and
attendance data analysis:
All students, with emphasis on ELL
Our Reality-based on
assessment data analysis: All Terminal Park assessment scores are generally below district average.
Our SMART Goal-based on
target population and your reality: “Parent and community involvement” as measured by staff perception on the CEE survey will increase from 3.6 in
2014 to 4.4 in 2020 (3.8 in 2016 and 4.1 in 2018).
Action Plan
Action Step Improve student attendance communication and collaboration among staff and parents.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of
Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
Grade-level teachers regularly
communicate to parents about
Overall attendance
percentages
(absence and tardy)
Nov, March, June
Attendance tracking spreadsheet
Skyward
Principal
Grade-level teachers
SIP Template
39 | Page 11/19/2013
how attendance problems are
affecting their child’s progress
Attendance team schedules
attendance meetings with
parents to develop and execute
individualized attendance plans
Attendance team (and grade-
level teachers) reward students
for good attendance and
attendance improvements
for whole school
and subgroups
Percentage of
students with
excessive absences
Attendance
improvement
percentage for
students on
attendance
spreadsheet
Nov, March, June
Monthly
Monthly attendance team meetings
Monthly absence and tardy concern
letters (excessive absence and tardy
letters each trimester) to parents
Attendance action sheet (attendance
team maintains and shares with
relevant staff)
Counselor
Office staff
CIS coordinator
Parents
Students
Action Step Improve student learning progress communication and collaboration among staff and parents.
Evidence of Implementation Evidence of
Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility
Grade-level teachers share
curriculum and assessment
schedules with parents at least
monthly
Grade level teachers send home
DIBELS progress monitoring
graphs and math fluency scores
monthly
Grade level teachers initiate
two-way communication with
parents at least each trimester
Parent-teacher
conference
attendance
CEE data
Progress monitoring
graphs
November
Every other year
Monthly
Curriculum and assessment calendars
DIBELS
Parent involvement forms (parents
identify and communicate to teachers
how they will support their child at
home)
CEL 5D, student growth goal rubric
Principal
IS
Reading specialist
Math learning
specialist
Grade-level teachers
Specialists
Para educators
SIP Template
40 | Page 11/19/2013
for all students and at least
monthly for struggling learners
Designated team develops
parent involvement forms for
grade-level teachers to send
home with all students at the
end of each trimester with
report cards and with
struggling learners at least
monthly with academic
progress data
Parents
Students
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 2: Community Engagement, Objective 1
SIP Template
41 | Page 11/19/2013
Professional Development and
Implementation Calendar Professional Development LAP #6 LAP Component #6- Provide Opportunities for Professional Development System Connections AWSP Framework Criterion # 5; Improving Instruction # 6: Managing Resources ◻ Targeted Professional Learning: Professional Development that is an on-going systematic process informed by evaluation of
student, teacher and school needs embedded in School Improvement Plan (SIP).
◻PDTIP Form (see attached)
◻SIP- PD implementation calendar plan and calendar with specificity (see attached) ◻Professional Learning Communities: Teachers meet on a regular, planned basis to analyze data and student work that will guide
their instructional strategies and planning to support struggling learners in meeting K-4 ELA standards.
Building Leadership meetings Monitoring Implementation and Impact
Program Effectiveness System Connections RCW 28A.165.100 CEL5D Assessment for Student Learning; Assessment & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion#8 Closing the Gap ◻LAP students’ entrance and exit performance data and LAP program will be evaluated.
◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning (DIBELS) K-4: pre/post
◻Measure of Academic Progress (MAP Test) Grades 3-5 pre/post
◻Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Gr. 3-5
◻Other assessment :< Identify assessment used and grade level>
◻ End of the Year Summary Report
SIP Template
42 | Page 11/19/2013
Data Reviews – Whole Staff and BLT and PLCs
Program Effectiveness- System Connections RCW 28A.165.100 CEL5D Assessment for Student Learning; Assessment & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion#8 Closing the Gap ◻LAP students’ entrance and exit performance data and LAP program will be evaluated.
◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning (DIBELS) K-4: pre/post
◻Measure of Academic Progress (MAP Test) Grades 3-5 pre/post
◻Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Gr. 3-5
◻Other assessment :< Identify assessment used and grade level>
◻ End of the Year Summary Report
Implementation and Professional Development Calendar
LAP #6
2016-2017
Month Assessments BLT (1x90 min/month)
SIP work subgroups PLCs
PD meetings (2x45 min/month) Waiver days
Aug /
Sept
Aug 29 -
Aug 31 -
Sept 1 -
Sept
DIBELS benchmark MAPs (Sept 12-16) Math Fluency (by Sept 23)
BLT - Oct-Nov-Dec SIP -
Data meetings (spring/fall data to set up
programs) PLC 26 -
ELA 1(1) - 2(2) -
Oct DIBELS PM (2nd week) BLT - Nov-Dec-Jan PLC 3 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM Math
SIP Template
43 | Page 11/19/2013
Math Fluency (by Oct 21) SIP -
PLC 10 - PLC 17 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 24 - PLC 31 -
1(3) - 2(4) - Waiver 14 -
Nov
DIBELS PM (2nd week) Math Fluency (by Nov 22)
BLT - Dec-Jan-Feb SIP -
PLC 7 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 28 - DIBELS/WTR check
Parent involvement 1(5) -
Dec
DIBELS PM (2nd week) Math Fluency (by Dec 16)
BLT - Jan-Feb-March SIP -
PLC 5 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 12 -
All/reflection 1(6) -
Jan
DIBELS benchmark Math Fluency (by Jan 25)
BLT - Feb-March-April SIP -
PLC 9 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 16 - DIBELS/WTR check** PLC 23 - PLC 30 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM
ELA 1(7) - 2(8) -
Feb
MAPs (1st week) DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Feb 15)
BLT - March-April-May SIP -
Data meetings PLC 6 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 13 - PLC 27 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM
Math 1(9) - 2(10) -
Mar
DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Mar 21)
BLT - April-May-June/Aug SIP -
Waiver 6 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 13 - PLC 20 - PLC 27 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM
ELA 1(11) - 2(12) - Waiver 6 -
Apr
DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Apr 19)
BLT - May-June/Aug-Sept SIP -
PLC 3 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 17 - PLC 24 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM
Math 1(13) - 2(14) -
May SBA DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by May 17)
BLT - June-Aug/Sept-Oct SIP -
PLC 1 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 15 - PLC 22 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM
Parent involvement 1(15) - 2(16) -
SIP Template
44 | Page 11/19/2013
Waiver 8 -
Jun
MAPs DIBELS benchmark Math Fluency (by Jun 16)
BLT - Aug/Sept-Oct-Nov SIP -
All/reflection 1(17)- 2(18)-