Brevard County Public Schools

Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2013-2014

Name of School: Area:

Page 2

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

To inspire and empower lifelong learning.

Vision Statement:

A model community of excellence and success.
Page 2

Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2013-2014

RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement-Examples may be, but are NOT limited to survey data, walk-through data, minutes from PLC’s or Dept. Mtgs. Move away from talking about every single data source and determine your rationale. Much like the PGP, what is your focus and why?)

Considerations/Examples:
The analysis of multiple quantitative and qualitative data sources provides clear evidence that reading comprehension skills need to improve at all grade levels at Cambridge. Weekly grade level collaborative team notes/minutes clearly show that teachers balanced their use of literary and informational text in instruction, read aloud selections, and books for student choice reading. Identical teacher surveys conducted in September 2012 and May 2013 revealed a shift from little awareness of the use of informational text to 100% of teachers tracking its use. Grade level team meetings, with notes to administration, focused on specific relevant questions used for 3 consecutive years that clearly focus on student learning and the improvement cycle. All grade level teams provided evidence that students consistently wrote in response to reading documents and passages. Ample examples were provided of students tracking their own academic progress and setting improvement goals using age appropriate tools often developed by our teachers. Walk through observations consistently demonstrated that teachers were utilizing best practices by following the four quadrants of the learning cycle, using ample small group instruction opportunities, and developing instructional centers focused on the skills being currently taught. Despite this emphasis on research based instructional practices Cambridge’s reading proficiency rates showed little improvement while math proficiency, utilizing almost exactly the same instructional practices showed significant gains.
This trend of flat unacceptably low reading proficiency scores and this past year’s improving math scores provides a rationale to deliberately focus on additional research based strategies to improve reading comprehension through the deliberate increased use of higher order questions. The ability to read well directly impacts the acquisition of knowledge in all content areas. Our data shows that our students need more experience and accountability with higher order questioning in all subject areas, especially in response to reading, aligned to the rigor of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Our instructional staff is key to providing that rigor and accountability. In school year 2012- 13, 19% of Cambridge teachers’ Professional growth plans included increasing higher order questions as their primary goal. All teachers in our 5th grade focused their PGP’s on increasing higher order questions. The results were evident in increased student achievement, especially in the content area of science, highly connected to reading achievement and the ability to analyze information.
Utilizing FCAT 2.0 data Cambridge students and teachers demonstrated the most success on math proficiency rate (+11%) and science proficiency rate (+24%); math learning gains (+14%), and learning gains for the lowest 25% in reading (+18%) and math (+12%). The school increased the overall grade points from 465 points to 513, and increase of 48 points. Reading proficiency remained flat at an unacceptably low rate of 49%, an increase of only 1% from the previous year and reading gains remained the same at 69%. Writing proficiency showed the greatest decrease, declining 24%. It should be noted that the required score for proficiency increased from 3.0 to 3.5. Had the required scored remained the same, our students scored similarly to the previous year and Cambridge would have regained its A grade. AMO’s for FCAT 2.0 showed we met the target for 5 out of 6 subgroups in math but met none in reading. While FCAT 2.0 did not show evidence of reading growth, FAIR scores showed growth from Assessment 1 to Assessment 3 at every grade level.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)

The success Cambridge experienced with increasing our school grade points despite increasing assessment rigor leads us to the conclusion we must keep the action steps initiated in our 2012-13 plan. While we will adapt the focus of our primary on-site staff development to match our new objectives and actions steps we will continue to do the following because these current practices brought positive results:
·  Monitor the amount of literary and informational text used for instruction to verify 50/50% balanced literacy across curriculum areas.
·  Engage students in writing to summarize, clarify, explain, list, give examples, etc. distributed across lessons in all content areas
·  Provide, inspect, and give feedback to students using progress monitoring/goal setting tools; including data notebooks and charts
·  Utilize highly engaging instructional strategies learned through training with Dr. Jacque Fraser
·  Utilize activity wheel teachers as our S.H.I.E.L.D. Team (Special Help In Everyday Learning Development) to support each grade level (2 – 6) one day per week, providing small group instruction and providing classroom teachers the opportunity to observe/collaborate with other teachers and strengthen their practice with informational text and writing
·  Hold Dinner and Data Nights to allow students the opportunity to share their academic progress monitoring and the improvement goals they have established for themselves with their families
·  Utilize Positive Behavior Support Tier 1 strategies to encourage all students to be active learners and take responsibility for their learning.
·  Provide a Walk to Intervention model at each grade level to insure that time is allocated for struggling students outside the mandated 90 minute reading block.
·  Provide small group, needs based, math instruction while utilizing math centers to reinforce skill acquisition.
·  Continue Walk to Intervention, stressing CCSS and higher order inferential questions
·  Monitor student progress in reading and math utilizing Pearson’s Successmaker computer assisted instruction in grades 1 – 6.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)

Research by Dr. Max Thompson, Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders, 2011, examining practice of over 5000 third grade teachers representing all 50 states revealed that when this cross section of teachers developed questions to assess reading skills related to comprehension 70% of the questions were basic recall/main idea questions. 20% of the questions assessed the ability to compare/contrast. Only 10% of the questions developed by the teachers required students to make inferences about the material they read or to display some other reading comprehension skills. Projections for state assessments including those aligned with CCSS for 2012 – 2014 indicate that 75 – 80% of questions will be higher order. His research indicated that textbook questions are 5 – 8 years behind the rigor and thought required by state tests. Research at high performing schools revealed that 65- 80% of classroom assessments and school/district benchmark assessments were composed of high order questions. The students at these schools were routinely answering questions that matched or exceeded state assessments. Dr. Thompson (2009) states that of all research based strategies extending thinking produces the highest gains in achievement. Planning for instructing higher level thinking involves students in how to use extended thinking strategies to learn content, enhance students’ academic success in school, as well as providing experience with the type of thinking that will be necessary in the world in which they will live and work.
In Essential Questions, Opening Doors to Student Understanding, 2013, Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins state that research shows essential questions are thought provoking and intellectually engaging. They call for higher-order thinking such as analysis, inference, evaluation, prediction, prompted by questions that cannot be fully answered by recall alone. The authors emphasize that intellectual engagement, a key goal of essential questions that is aligned to Common Core standards and to instructional best practices, is inherit in the use of essential questions. While not all higher order questions are essential, all essential questions are higher order and encourage discourse among students and digging deeper into concepts to derive fuller meaning and understanding. They suggest that since there is typically more content than can reasonably addressed in curriculum, teachers are obliged to make choices about what students are to learn. In establishing curriculum priorities, they recommend that teachers identify enduring ideas worth knowing in a subject area and then frame these “big ideas” into essential questions that offer the most potential for involving students in “doing” the subject in ways that lead to deeper understandings. Heidi Jacobs (1997) recommends that teachers map their curriculum plans around essential questions that frame student learning in the classroom around meaningful and thoughtful inquiry into important ideas at the heart of a discipline.
Robert Marzano, quotes research by conducted by Redfield and Rousseau (1981) that contrasts the effects of higher-level questionings versus lower-level questions. The researchers concluded that an analysis of the data indicate a positive overall effect (+.7292) for prominent use of higher cognitive questions in the classroom. Inferential questions require students to elaborate on information they have experienced. They state that one particularly effective type of inferential question is “elaborative interrogation” (Ozgungor & Gutherie, 2004). Elaborative interrogation has been described as questions that have the basic design: Why would this be true? Pressley et al., 1992; Willoughby & Wood, 1994) found that questions of this type can greatly enhance students’ comprehension. Elaborative interrogations begin with inferential questions. Once students answer, they are challenged to explain why they think it is so, or why they believe it is true. It requires skillful interaction with students in that the teacher asks students to make explicit their thinking, a metacognition skill that requires practice and modeling.
Goal 1 of Brevard Public Schools’ current Strategic Plan focuses on student achievement and maximizing student potential in core area achievement, closing achievement gaps between student sub-groups, providing non-core learning opportunities, and promoting student acquisition of 21st Century skills. Roland, 2007, emphasized that the role of questioning has long been recognized as an essential part of structuring educational experiences. From Socrates’s belief that educational interactions between a teacher and student(s) should be built on the assumption that all knowledge is known or knowable if one can ask the right questions, to modern research on instructional practices, have acknowledged the importance of skillful questioning by teachers in the educational process. In Socrates’s deliberative process, both the teacher and the students explore, discover and inquire together. DeGarmo (1908) states, “In the skillful use of the question, more than anything else, lies the fine art of teaching; for in such use we have the guide to clear and vivid idea, the quick spur to imagination, the stimulus to thought, the incentive to action.” Research by Kerry (1982) found a teacher typically asks about 1,000 questions per week. Gall (1984) found that about 60 per cent of teachers’ questions require factual recall; about 20 per cent were procedural in nature, while only about 20 per cent required students to actually think. Goodlad (1984) and Wilen (1991) cited research that a primary goal of education is to teach students to think critically and creatively. To achieve this goal, they emphasize teachers must learn how to make better use of questioning to exercise and sharpen their students’ “higher order” cognitive skills. In Tony Wagner’s book, The Global Achievement Gap, (2008) critical thinking and problem solving skills are listed among the main skills the 21st century learner needs to be a productive, successful member of society and to compete with students in the global world. In Art Costa’s work, The Habits of Mind, (2009) he states an effective problem solver possesses habits of mind or dispositions such as the ability to: think critically, ask and pose questions, gather information, think flexibly, be creative, take risks, think interdependently, and make connections. Based on his research, critical thinking skills are essential to developing the minds of learners who are to be productive and successful in the 21st century.
Within the school we will support the increased use of essential questions and higher order questions to improve reading comprehension in all content areas through focused professional development, coaching, providing feedback and developing monitoring tools to track question rigor and type. Our schedule was developed to allow for grade level collaborative team planning on a daily basis as teams choose. Recent research within the school through exit slips/questionnaires shows that 85% of our teachers are not monitoring the use of essential questions. 46% of our teachers are not tracking the level of questions: high, medium, and low they are utilizing. Our leadership team and peer coaching staff will focus on providing grade levels assistance in examining and improving the quality of questions. We will increase teachers’ knowledge of essential and higher order questioning, monitor their use, and examine student work related to more rigorous questions.

CONTENT AREA:

Reading / Math / Writing / Science / Parental Involvement / Drop-out Prevention Programs
Language Arts / Social Studies / Arts/PE / Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)

Cambridge teachers will utilize essential questions in building instructional units around thought provoking, engaging, and integrating queries while increasing the use of higher order questions in lessons across all content areas.

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier / Action Steps / Person Responsible / Timetable / Budget / In-Process
Measure
1. Completing the book study to impact planning and questioning early in the year. / 1.Read and conduct a guided book study: Essential Questions, Opening Doors to Student Understanding by McTighe and Wiggins / Sharon Tolson, Director FDLRS East
Cambridge Faculty
Collaborative Learning Teams / Read and study book: September – December
Implement questioning strategies Sept. - May / $1,200.00 for books / Monthly written evaluation tool used after book study sessions.
Teacher plans that incorporate essential questions
2. Need for monitoring tools that meet individual needs / 2. Use/monitor essential questions for major units to focus and challenge students in core content subjects / Teachers
Peer Coaches
Title 1 Team
Administrators / October - May / Students’ answers, Lesson Plans, Weekly Grade level team notes, walk through observations,
3. Need for monitoring tool / 3. Monitor the use of higher order questions for a month to establish a baseline / Teachers
Peer Coaches
Title 1 Team
Administrators / October / T charts, survey, Students’ answers, Lesson Plans, Weekly Grade level team notes, walk through observations
4. Need for monitoring tool / 4. Increase the use of higher order thinking questions, using Depth of Knowledge stems, to at least 60% in intermediate grades and 40% in primary. / Teachers
Title 1 Team
Administrators
Peer Coaches / November - May / T charts, Notes from bi-weekly Title 1 problem solving meetings with administration, post survey
5. Funding to add teachers to the trained staff
Time to share craft / 5. Train at least 1 teacher in grades 3 – 6 to use and share Kagan cooperative learning strategies. / Selected teachers in grades 3 – 6 / July – December / $7000.00 for training registration, accommodations, and training rate pay for teachers / Lesson plans, team notes, walk through observations, classroom seating arrangements
6. Dependent upon teacher interest and time commitment / 6. Offer voluntary Thinking Maps Refresher training / Self-selected teachers
Arianne Rivera – Thinking Maps trainer / September - March / $149.00 – Thinking Maps Conference Registration fee for A. Riveria / Training notes and sign-in sheets
7. Need for feedback sheet that teachers are willing to utilize; “buy-in” / 7. Conduct quarterly grade team walk through to a different grade level with feedback related to questioning to visited teachers / Grade level teams
Administration
Peer Coaches / October - May / Feedback sheets for observed teachers
8. Cannot dictate format of lesson plans per contract / 8. Provide Plan Book edu.com to assist teachers in blending NGSSS and CCSS reflecting increased rigor of standards / Teachers
CCSS ELA/Math Team Teachers
Administration / Sept. - May / $840.00 / Lesson plans that focus on NGSS and CCSS in intermediate grades and CCSS in primary
9. Scheduling conflicts / 9. Provide a math intervention block at each grade level. / Teachers
Title 1 Team
Administration / Oct. - May / Intervention block schedule and lesson plans
10. Limited number of Title 1 Teachers / 10. Assign each Title 1 teacher to a specific intermediate grade level to monitor achievement data, question strategies, and provide support. / Title 1 Team
Intermediate Teachers / September - May / Notes from bi-weekly Title 1 problem solving meetings with administration

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection-begin with the end in mind.