Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2014-15

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

Ensure for a caring and collaborative community of life-long learners focused on achieving our personal best.

Vision Statement:

Our best achieved, together.

Communication of School Improvement Plan:

Briefly explain how the mission, vision and school improvement plan is communicated to all stakeholders.

*Mission and Vision created 2011 with faculty and staff.
*Communicated to school community stakeholders in Newsletters, school publications as well as through both PTO and SAC Meetings
*School Improvement Plan is developed with input from staff after careful analysis of student data. School Instructional Staff worked in teams to review FCAT data and develop focus for School Improvement Plan. Surveys of current instructional practice were conducted as well as Professional Development related to standards and Problem Based Learning (PBL)
*Direction of School Improvement Plan is discussed with PTO and SAC Member for their Input.

Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2014-15

Part 1: Planning for Student Achievement

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: What are the areas of success? Where are concerns? What trends do you see? What kind of data are you looking at within your school? What data do you use for teacher practice? How are teachers planning? Are plans Standards Driven? Are Essential Questions meaningful? What do CWT tell you about instruction? How will you monitor the depth of implementation?
Ocean Breeze’s FCAT data trend from 2012 -2014 shows continued high performance in reading with the percentage of students meeting proficiency standards well above both district and state averages in reading at 85.5%, 80.1%, and 81.1%, respectively. Our students’ Math scores showed an overall increase in proficiency and remain above both district and state averages with 73.5%, 70.3% and 78.9%, meeting proficiency standards respectively. Our students’ Science proficiency though experiencing a slight positive bump this year, has shown an overall decrease over the last three years, however student proficiency remains above both district and state averages with 86%, 72.2% and 74.3% of students meeting proficiency standards over the last three years of test administration. An examination of our Writing data provides the greatest cause for concern with a steady decline in student proficiency over the last three years 89%, 53.5% and 22.5% respectively. The initial drop in proficiency last school year could be at least partially attributed to the increase in cut score from 3.0 to a 3.5. Another possible cause for this drop in writing proficiency was the change in focus for writing instruction that occurred with the change in standards. Teachers and students have been focused on student writing that is supported by information gleaned from text, documents and other authentic artifacts, rather than simply on expository writing to a given prompt. Writing will continue to be an area of focus school wide this year specifically as it relates to Florida Standards and supporting ideas with data from text.
FAIR assessment data for grades K – 2 shows primary students in Kindergarten and 1st grade meeting proficiency standards similar to their 3rd through 6th grade counterparts however 2nd grade scores differ dramatically. The chart below shows the proficiency levels of our K, 1, and 2 students over Assessment Periods 1 through 3 during the 2013 -14 school year.
Grade / Assessment Period 3
Kindergarten / 93%
First Grade / 88%
Second Grade / 59%
This discrepancy however is in contrast to 2nd grade Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) lexile results that are indicated below. Scholastic Reading Inventory data supports high proficiency standards in reading.
Scholastic Reading Inventory Data:
*% of students scoring within their grade level Lexile range or above
SRI / August 2013 / May 2013 / Lexile Range
Grade 2 / 51% / 92% / 220 - 539
Grade 3 / 84% / 95% / 456 - 713
Grade 4 / 75% / 85% / 643 - 874
Grade 5 / 74% / 80% / 779 - 1039
Grade 6 / 84% / 91% / 836 - 1096
Math Benchmark Assessments show sustained growth over the course of the school year in all grade levels with the exception of Kindergarten, yet lower levels of overall proficiency than reading.
* % of students scoring 75% or above
Grade / Fall* / Winter* / Spring*
Kindergarten / 65.5 / 74 / 77
First Grade / 75.5 / 78.6 / 80.1
Second Grade / 68.3 / 76.3 / 79.2
Third Grade / 58 / 67.1 / 75.8
Fourth Grade / 82.5 / 81.4 / 85.2
Fifth Grade / 82.9 / 68.4 / 70.4
Sixth Grade / 67.5 / 74.4 / 72.4
Classroom Observations by Administrators were conducted throughout the 2013-14 school year and data was collected utilizing NCR forms on the implementation of seven different high yield instructional strategies and indicators to compare to baseline data collected during the 2012 -13 school year. These instructional strategies and indicators included : B.E.S.T., Active Student Engagement, Differentiation of Instruction by Content, Process and Product, Center Based Activities, Technology, Hands On Mathematics or Number Talks and student use of Text Based Evidence through both written and verbal responses. Compilation of the data collected revealed that there were increases in the percentages year over year from the 2012 - 2013 to the 2013-14 school years. Baseline data from 2012-13 and 2013-14 data are compared in the chart below:
Instructional Strategy / 2012-2013 / 2013-14
B.E.S.T. / 72% / 81%
Student Engagement / 88% / 92%
Differentiation / 70% / 73%
Center Based Activities / 30% / 31%
Technology (Student Use) / 27% / 33%
Hands on Mathematics Instruction/Number Talks / 32% / 65%
Text Based Evidence / 26% / 58%
When Classroom Walk Through Data, Grade Level Lesson Plans and Teacher Survey Data were analyzed as a whole it was evident that High Yield Instructional Strategies are being implemented throughout classrooms routinely and with a higher level of consistency across grade levels. Instructional staff attributed these gains to the use of increased Grade Level Planning Time and team collaboration. Protected grade level team planning both during common planning time and through protected weekly grade level meetings will continue throughout the 2014-15 school year.
Teachers reported that the use of Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures were powerful with increasing the level of student engagement as well as insuring that all students are actively involved in group activities. Additionally, Thinking Maps, Number Talks and requiring students to provide Text Based Evidence in both verbal and written responses were strategies that teachers felt they were able to implement with success and consistency.
Teachers and Administration analyzed the school assessment data collaboratively to determine the instructional focus and staff development needs for the 2014-15 school year. One obvious area of needed focus is writing and both the new English Language Arts Florida Standards support an increased need for writing across the content areas and supporting student arguments with examples from text and authentic documents. This will continue to be an area of school wide focus and we will invest in Document Based Question (DBQ) district trainings and share information gleaned with all classroom teachers during the 2014-15 school year. Instructional staff also identified a negative trend, although less dramatic with Science scores. As we looked at Marzono’s High Yield Instructional Practices from Classroom Instruction that Works we identified the following four Instructional Strategies that staff felt would have a direct positive impact upon student achievement in both Science and Writing that we were not already invested in school wide and they are: Generating and testing hypothesis, Questions, cues and advance organizers, Identifying similarities and differences and Summarizing and Note taking. Additionally, when looking at our successful increase of student achievement in Math teachers discussed the Number Talks training that we have invested in as a staff and that through the use of these strategies students are generating and testing multiple ways to solve mathematical problems. They surmised that generating and testing hypothesis across content areas would show similar results. As we looked at instructional methods that increase the use of all four of the Instructional Strategies that teachers identified as important to increase student achievement, Problem/Project Based Learning (PBL) emerged as a method of instruction that would incorporate all of these high yield instructional strategies and would be a good addition to our instructional tool kit.

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

Ocean Breeze Elementary teachers have invested in Professional Development in many research based High Yield Instructional Strategies including, but not limited to, Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures, Thinking Maps, Multiple Intelligences and Brain Compatible Learning, Daily Five, Center Based Instruction and Number Talks over the last three years. Our high quality instructional staff has embraced the need for higher levels of student engagement and evidence of these research based instructional strategies is seen routinely in classroom instruction. Additionally, these specific instructional strategies have been targeted as the focus of PGP for teachers.
Significant gains in student performance in Mathematics supports the continued use of Hands on Mathematics Activities and Number Talks in which students use multiple ways to solve problems and then explain their thinking. Continued use of these strategies and other inquiry based Mathematics activities will support continued gains in student Mathematics proficiency during the 2014 -15 school year.
Monthly data chats ensure that students in need of additional support are identified early and are provided targeted intervention at the time of need. Teacher collaboration and S.M.A.R.T. teams are comprised of grade level team members plus at least one additional staff member who meet monthly to address the needs of students. The expertise of the staff in sharing best practices is an important element of S.M.A.R.T. Time teams. This practice continues to show significant improvement in the annual outcome measures for our lowest 25% as well as our upper quartile students.
Classroom teachers work with students in flexible groups to address the needs of all learners across content areas. Differentiation of instruction methods and content, student products and learning processes to address the needs of students working on, above and below grade level are employed as general instructional strategies in all classrooms. Additionally classroom teachers incorporate multi-media applications to enhance content and provide students the opportunity to create student products that demonstrate mastery of all instructional content. Classroom teachers are provided a common planning time and utilize this time to address best practices in planning instruction, pacing, as well as to develop the common formative assessments used to focus instruction on knowledge gaps, misconceptions and errors and adjust instruction to enhance the long term acquisition of key instructional concepts.
Protecting common planning times as well as adding additional weekly grade level meetings has increased the level of collaboration and team unit planning across grade levels. These explicit planning practices show a direct correlation to higher utilization of high yield instructional practices and greater consistency across grade levels.
In addition, our Media Specialist works collaboratively with classroom teachers to support core instruction, to provide literary and research-based support for units of study, to provide technology instruction in both social and collaborative computing and to assist students with technology based student projects. Exceptional Student Education teachers and instructional staff support core instruction, as well as provide targeted interventions for both ESE students, and as part of Tier II and Tier III services. ESE staff serves as a valuable resource to teachers in the areas of interventions and differentiation.

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

What does the research say about your findings? Evidenced based? What practices can you put into place to work on what the data says is impeding student achievement?
Based on what you are seeing; what teachers are doing well; what you need to change and improve…RESEARCH SAYS YOU SHOULD
Marzano states in his book What Works in Schools that “Learning requires engagement in tasks that are structured or are sufficiently similar to allow for effective transfer of knowledge.” He goes on to say, “Learning experiences should involve discussion and (ideally) tasks that require students to make and defend judgments.” Further, Marzano identifies 9 Instructional Strategies that positively affect Student Achievement in his book Classroom Instruction that Works to include: Identifying similarities and differences, Summarizing and note taking, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, Homework and practice, Nonlinguistic representations, Cooperative Learning, Setting objectives and providing feedback, Generating and testing hypotheses and Questions, cues, and advance organizers. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) incorporates several of these instructional strategies into a cohesive instructional model that supports higher levels of student engagement and results in increases in student achievement.
The Buck Institute for Education defines PBL as “a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks.” This method requires that teachers begin with the end in mind by closely looking at standards, crafting essential questions tied closely to this standard, defining the outcomes and planning for formative assessment, structuring the project that leads students to the question’s answer and incorporating high yield strategies (questioning/ formative assessments) that lead to students successful completion of the problem that was set. In this method most teacher time is spent in planning and facilitating student learning while students become the problem solvers and discussion leaders.
According to Lamar (2014), the PBL model involves real world content and application of skills and encourages student independence with a focus on open ended questions fostering critical thinking, collaboration and communication. Additionally, Visible Learning revealed a potential effect size of .61 on student learning through the Inquiry/Problem-Based Instructional model. Providing teachers professional development in the Problem-Based Instructional model will increase the use of high yield instructional strategies and necessarily increase students’ 21st Century Learning Skills, thereby increasing student achievement.

CONTENT AREA: