1.Comprehensive Needs Assessment

ESEA 1114(b)(1)(A)

Demographic Data
West Jordan Elementary has 485 students enrolled in the 2016-2017 school year. 234 students are female and 251 students are male. 28.2% of our student population are of ethnic minority. 9.1% of our students are English Language Learners. 46.2% of our students are economically disadvantaged. Lastly, 22.7% of our students are involved in special education. /
(Demographic Data from 2015-16 data)
Student Achievement Trends
In the 2015-2016 school year, West Jordan Elementary underperformed in all three subject areas (Math, Language Arts, and Science) when compared to Jordan School District and the State in SAGE testing. In Language Arts, West Jordan Elementary was 26.5% proficient, while the District average was 42.7%, and State average was 44.1%. In Math, West Jordan Elementary was 35.8% proficient, while the District average was 47.2%, and State average was 46.5%. Finally, in Science, West Jordan Elementary was 35.5% proficient, while the District average was 50.8%, and State average was 48.7%.
At West Jordan Elementary, Caucasian students outperformed all three areas of the SAGE testing when compared to students of other backgrounds (African American, American Indian, HIspanic, Pacific Islander, and multiple races).
When scores were compared by gender, our female students outperformed our male students in all three subject areas.
Lastly, students who are economically disadvantaged, limited in English proficiency, have disabilities, and are considered mobile were compared to all students at West Jordan Elementary. In Language Arts these students scored similarly among all students at West Jordan Elementary. In Math and Science, these students scored below average among all students at West Jordan Elementary.
SAGE scores have been inconsistent when comparing the scores of SAGE testing over the last three years.
Third Grade has made steady gains in language arts, but has gone up and down in math.
Fourth Grade made gains in language arts, math and science during the 2014-15 chool year, then dropped in 2015-16.
Fifth grade showed steady improvement in all three subject areas across the three year span.
Sixth grade made steady gains in science over the last three years and has gone up and down in math. There has been a steady decline in their Language Arts scores from the 2014 school year to the 2016 school year.
For SAGE Language Arts, fourth and sixth grade did not show positive growth, while third and fifth showed positive growth of 2-12%.
For SAGE Math, third and fourth grade did not have positive gains. Both fifth and sixth grade showed positive growth of 4-14%.
For SAGE Science, fourth grade did not have positive gains. Both fifth and sixth grade showed significant positive growth of 11-20%. /






DIBELS
2015-16:
Overall, our students did not show growth in their reading proficiency as measured by the DIBELS assessment. At the beginning of the year, 59% of students were reading on grade level. This percentage decreased to 57% by the end of the year. First grade increased proficiency over the year, while three grades (kindergarten, second, and third) decreased in the percentage of students who were able to read at benchmark level by the end of the year. First grade showed the most increase with a gain of 7% proficiency by the end of the year. /
District Math Benchmarks
In the last three years, teachers have administered benchmark assessments to students in every grade. Some grade levels made modest gains between 2014 and 2015 (second and third). From 2015 to 2016, first grade and fifth grade made positive gains, demonstrating growth between 2-3%.
When examining the growth during one year from pre- to post-test in math, all grades made some gains in student learning during the 2015-16 school year, as reflected on the graph to the right. /

School Climate
At the end of the 2015-2016 school year, teachers were asked to complete a survey regarding school climate. Overall, teachers are mostly satisfied with the climate of West Jordan Elementary. 100% of teachers agreed that Professional Development was provided to support their teaching. Also, 100% of teachers agreed that their principal supported them in their teaching. With a few exceptions, most of the areas were scored at or above the district average. The lowest area ranked was the resources that were offered to support their teaching. The school’s average was an 95 % to the district’s 92.2. We did have several areas where we did not have enough responses submitted to have a score.
At the end of the 2015-2016 school year, parents were asked to complete a survey regarding school climate. Overall, parents are very satisfied with the climate of West Jordan Elementary. The highest area ranked was school climate with an average of 97% in agreement. The lowest area ranked was teacher learning support with an average of 91% in agreement. Our school average was 90 % to the district’s average of 94%.
At the end of the 2015-2016 school year, students were asked to complete a survey regarding school climate. Overall, students are satisfied with the climate of West Jordan Elementary. The highest area ranked was the school principal with an average of 97%. The lowest area was in school safety. Our school average was 92% to the district’s 92%. /


Teacher Qualifications
At West Jordan Elementary, 42% of classroom teachers and the school principal (9) are ESL endorsed, while 28% of classroom teachers (5 teachers) are currently enrolled in the ESL endorsment program through the Jordan School District. /
School-Wide Behavior, 2015-16
In the 2015-16 school year, there were approximately 43 Office Discpiline Referrals (ODRs or “white slips”) issued to students for severe behavior. In the 2014-2015 school year, there were approximately 54 Office Referrals. In the 2014-2015 school year, there were approximately 60 Discipline Referrals. /

2. Schoolwide Reform Strategies

ESEA 1114(b)(1)(B)

#1 Schoolwide Goals: Goals must be directly related to the results of the comprehensive needs assessment and directly tied to the Utah State Core Curriculum. Goals must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based (SMART).
Goal / Improve Math performance by increasing student growth by 35% from beginning of the year to end of the year on SLO benchmarks for grade K-6, and increasing student growth by 10% from last year to this year on SAGE for grades 4-6. Each teacher will have the option of choosing either the Language Arts benchmark and/or the Math benchmark for assessment at the end of the school year.
Strategies / I. Ensure quality of Tier 1 Instruction is provided in all classrooms, and offers to all students of varying needs and skills by:
A. Creating lessons and common assessments through PLC and common planning time during PE, computers, music, and library. Time will be spent reviewing data individually, and also spent during collaborative time in grade level PLCs.
B. Professional development provided by the Math Curriculum Department specialists to help build a deeper understanding of mathematical core standards, and review resources available for curriculum mapping.
C. Providing students with an environment where they can develop, explain, and show their mathematical comprehension and ability.
D. Full-time, experienced teachers/teacher specialists will be hired to assist in the areas of literacy, math, and school culture. In addition, these coaches will train and work with assistants at each grade level. They will be on extended contracts. Teachers, teacher specialists, and aides will be hired to teach PE, music, computers and library so that teachers have additional time for collaboration and planning.
E. Grade level teams will be paid to create math curriculum maps to guide instruction and create a focus on delivering core instruction.
F. Teachers will turn in weekly lesson plans identifying the 4 questions: What do we want students to learn (objective), How will we know if they learned it (assessment), what do we do with the students who get it (enrichment) and what do we do with students who don’t (re-teach).
G. Provide All Day kindergarten to lower the Achievement Gap for at risk students and EL students.
H. Fund ESL endorsements for all licensed teachers to meet the needs of all ELL students.
II. Facilitate Tier II and Tier III instruction for students in need based on assessments.
A. Provide students with different settings conducive to skill levels through whole group, small group, and individual work to ensure opportunity for discussion and high engagement.
B. Instructional aides will be hired to assist classroom teachers during the enrich and reteach blocks in math and language arts.
C. Identify individual student needs based on SAGE assessments for grades 3-6, and benchmark assessments for all grades.
D. Group students according to targeted needs based on common assessment data. Instruction, remediation, and enrichment activities to be performed by regular education teachers with assistance from Instructional aides. Teachers will meet in PLCs to create and analyze CFAs to identify students levels of proficiency and identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
E. Provide opportunities for extended learning through the implementation of summer school.
III. Implement PLC’s to facilitate collaboration among staff and increase levels of learning for all students.
  1. Purchase materials and text critical for PLC training.
B. Teams will have regularly scheduled times to collaborate weekly.
C. Teams will have time to create assessments and analyze the results of the data.
D. During PLCs, create remediation for students who did not meet proficiency, and enrichment for kids
who achieved proficiency.
Scientifically Based Research Support /

●Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

●DuFour, R. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

●Echevarría, J., & Vogt, M. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP®model (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

●Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

●Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.

●Platt, A. (2000). The skillful leader: Confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, Mass.: Ready About Press
●Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data: A practical guide to improve instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
●Santoyo, P., & Peiser, B. (2012). Leverage leadership: A practical guide to building exceptional schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
●Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Expected Impact in Core Academic Areas / Improvement in Math performance by increasing student growth by 35% from beginning of the year to end of the year on SLO benchmarks for grade K-6, and increasing student growth by 10% from last year to this year on SAGE for grades 4-6. Each teacher will have the option of choosing either the Language Arts benchmark and/or the Math benchmark for assessment at the end of the school year. This will be targeted by focusing on Tier 1, 2, and 3 instruction and improvement in grade levelprofessional learning communities.
Professional Development to Support Strategies / ●Each grade will receive 180 minutes of planning and collaboration time each week to work with their grade level team. Some of this time will be spent reviewing data individually. Time will also be spent in the collaborative work of PLCs. School leadership team members will regularly visit these daily meetings to provide necessary guidance as grade level teams continue developing into effective professional learning communities.
●Hold two Deep Data Dive meetings to analyze District Language Arts Benchmark Assessment data and create teacher action plans. These meetings will take place after students complete each benchmark assessment. The 40-minute long meetings are facilitated by a member of the school leadership team and help teachers learn how to make the most of their data.
●Coaches will attend networking opportunitites to collaborate with other schools.
●Support teachers as they work to obtain an ESL endorsement.
●Teams of Teachers will be able to attend conferences with presenters such as Mike Mattos, and Ainsley Rose, etc.
●Regular, differentiated professional development opportunities will be made available to teachers based on need
●Monthly new teacher meetings will be held to support provisional teachers, but all staff are welcome to attend.
●Monthly aide meetings will be held to train and support paraprofessionals in thier intervention work with students.
Timeline / Beginning of year and on-going throughout the year, or as needed.
Responsible Parties / ●Administration
●Classroom Teachers
●Teacher Specialists
●Additional Instruction Certified Teachers
●Certified Interventionists
●District Specialists
Evaluation Process / ●Our teacher specialists will oversee lesson planning templates every week from each grade level.
●Each grade will receive 180 minutes of planning and collaboration time each week to work with their grade level team. Some of this time will be spent reviewing data individually. Time will also be spent in the collaborative work of PLCs. School leadership team members will regularly visit these daily meetings to provide necessary guidance as grade level teams continue developing into effective professional learning communities.
●As a part of each team’s daily collaborative PLC time, grade level teams will schedule data meetings to discuss Common Formative Assessment data. School leadership team members will attend these meetings.
●Our school leadership team will conduct daily observations to ensure teachers are implementing the four questions being asked on their weekly lesson plans, and are being taught and referred to regularly.
●Our school leadership team will collect coaching data as they coach individual teachers. This data will be shared within three days to provide timely and effective feedback.
#2 Schoolwide Goals: Goals must be directly related to the results of the comprehensive needs assessment and directly tied to the Utah State Core Curriculum. Goals must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based (SMART).
Goal / Improve Language Arts proficiency by increasing student growth on DIBELS testing by 5% from beginning to end of year assessments for grades K-3, increasing student growth by 10% from last year to this year on SAGE for grades 4-6, and increasing student growth by 35% from beginning of the year to end of the year on SLO benchmarks for grade K-6. Each teacher will have the option of choosing either the Language Arts benchmark and/or the Math benchmark for assessment at the end of the school year.
Strategies / I. Ensure quality of Tier 1 Instruction is provided in all classrooms, and offers to all students of varying needs and skills by:
A. Creating lessons and common assessments through PLC and common planning time during PE, computers, music, and library. Time will be spent reviewing data individually, and also spent during collaborative time in grade level PLCs.
B. Professional development provided by the Language Arts Curriculum Department specialists to help build a deeper understanding of mathematical core standards, and review resources available for curriculum mapping.
C. Provide on-going Professional Development on Student Engagement, SIOP, WIDA, IReady, etc. strategies within the classroom.
D. Full-time, experienced teachers/teacher specialists will be hired to assist in the areas of literacy, math, and school culture. In addition, these coaches will train and work with assistants at each grade level. They will be on extended contracts. Teachers, teacher specialists, and aides will be hired to teach PE, Music, computers and library so that teachers have additional time for collaboration and planning.
E. Grade level teams will be paid to create math curriculum maps to guide instruction and create a focus on delivering core instruction.
F. Teachers will turn in weekly lesson plans identifying the 4 questions: What do we want students to learn (objective), How will we know if they learned it (assessment), what do we do with the students who get it (enrichment) and what do we do with students who don’t (re-teach).
G. Provide All Day kindergarten to lower the Achievement Gap for at risk students and EL students.
H. Fund ESL endorsements for all licensed teachers to meet the needs of all ELL students.
I. Ensure all regular education teachers, particularly new hires, enroll in and complete Balanced Literacy training provided by the District Curriculum Department.
II. Facilitate Tier II and Tier III instruction for students in need based on assessments.
A. Provide students with different settings conducive to skill levels through whole group, small group, and individually to ensure opportunity for discussion and high engagement.
B. Assistants will be hired to enrich and reteach in math and language arts.
C. Identify individual student needs based on SAGE assessments for grades 3-6, and benchmark assessments for grades K-2.
D. Group students according to targeted needs based on common assessment data. Instruction, remediation, and enrichment activities to be performed by regular education teachers. Teachers will meet in PLCs to create and analyze CFAs to identify students levels of proficiency and identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
E. Provide opportunities for extended learning through the implementation of summer school.
III. Implement PLC’s to facilitate collaboration among staff and increase levels of learning for all students.
A. Purchase materials and text critical for PLC training.
B. Teams will have regularly scheduled times to collaborate weekly.
C. Teams will have time to create assessments and analyze the results of the data.
D. During PLCs, create remediation for students who did not meet proficiency, and enrichment for kids
who achieved proficiency.
E. Provide opportunities for extended learning through the implementation of summer school.
Scientifically Based Research Support /

●Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

●DuFour, R. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.