Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015

Virginia Department of Education

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015

Title I Schoolwide Plan Template

Division Name: Henry County Public Schools

School Name: Drewry Mason Elementary School

Date: 9/15/17

Select One: ☐ Initial Plan X Revision

The school will work to achieve and maintain full accreditation and continue academic improvement.

SMART Goal #1: 85% of students will pass the spring 2018 Reading SOL assessment.

SMART Goal #2: 89% of students will pass the spring 2018 Math SOL assessment.

SMART Goal #3: 85% of students will pass the spring 2018 Science SOL assessment.

SMART Goal #4: 85% of students will demonstrate growth and 50% will meet projected RIT in Reading as measured by the fall and spring MAP assessments.

SMART Goal #5: 85% of students will demonstrate growth and 50% will meet projected RIT in Math as measured by the fall and spring MAP assessments.

Evaluator’s Signature: ______Date: ______

Administrator’s Signature: ______Date: ______

A Virginia Department of Education presentation on Requirements and Implementation of a Title I Schoolwide Program can be accessed at: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/index.shtml.

Component 1 §1114(b)(6):

A comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school that takes into account information on the academic achievement of children in relation to the challenging state academic standards, particularly the needs of those children who are failing, or are at-risk of failing, to meet the challenging state academic standards and any other factors as determined by the local educational agency.

Evidence: A systematic effort involving multiple stakeholders to acquire an accurate and thorough picture of strengths and weaknesses of the school community, thus identifying student needs through a variety of information-gathering techniques. A data analysis summary must be included which incorporates benchmarks used to evaluate program results. The results of your data analysis must guide the reform strategies that you will implement to improve instruction for all students.

Narrative:
·  An employee engagement survey was given to all staff and 5th grade students at Drewry Mason.
·  The School Improvement Plan/Title I Plan is developed by the School Improvement Committee which represents every grade level, itinerant, and special education teachers. Committee members meet once every two weeks to monitor the plan’s progress. Administration reports progress to parents at each PTA meeting monthly and to all faculty once monthly during faculty learning meetings. The School Improvement/Title I Plan is also posted on the school’s website.
·  In the Drewry Mason School Improvement/Title I Plan, 100% of the faculty will analyze and use multiple sources of data to identify students at risk.
Sources of data and methods of collection:
·  Teachers use collaborative planning to ensure alignment and create performance tasks based on data that show strengths and weaknesses.
·  Measures of Academic Progress data is analyzed and used to align curriculum and create lesson plans that address strengths and weaknesses of students. MAP, SRI and PALS are assessed three times a year. AIMS Web is used for progress monitoring in Child Study and for students scoring in the lowest 5th percentile according to MAP at all grade levels.
·  Teachers meet within grade levels to determine and analyze data for specific skills.
·  Standards are unpacked.
·  Results of common, formative and summative assessments are discussed and analyzed to identify students in need of specific skill intervention.
·  Information from common, formative assessments is shared and discussed with administration during data meetings after the first three nine week periods. Measures of Academic Progress and PALS data are also discussed as appropriate during these data meetings.
As a result of data triangulation, the following strengths, weaknesses, and trends were noted.
Reading Strengths
SOL English pass rate for 2016 – 2017 was 82% (above accreditation standards).
Kindergarten –
·  PALS - There was a fall-to-spring decrease in the percentage of students identified as needing additional reading instruction (19% to 10%).
First grade –
·  Mean RIT score for reading according to reading MAP assessment was 177.3. District mean was 177.1, norm 177.5.
Second grade –
·  MAP – There was an annual increase in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (47% to 60%). Reading mean RIT for fall 2017 is 191, which is above district mean 187.7 and norm 188.7.
·  PALS – There was a fall-to-spring decrease in students identified as needing additional reading instruction (21% to 11%).
Third grade –
·  PALS – There was a fall-to-spring decrease in students identified as needing additional reading instruction (22% to 19%).
Fourth grade –
·  Reading SOL – We are above the division averages for percent pass for 4 years in a row and above state averages for percent pass for 3 years in a row. Improved male/female achievement gap – male 74% 438 to 78% 436; female 87% 458 to 88% - 446
·  MAP reading – annual increase in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (61% to 68%).
Fifth grade –
·  Reading SOL – We are at or above the division and state averages for percent pass for five years in a row and above division averages for percent advanced for at least 3 years in a row. For the second year in a row, we decreased the achievement gap between all students and economically disadvantaged students (12 percentage point difference to 5 point difference to 4 point difference). For three years prior, there was a trend of an increasing achievement gap.
·  SRI – There was an annual increase in percent of READ 180 students improving at least 75 Lexiles (81% to 90%).
Math Strengths
SOL Math pass rate for 2016– 2017 was 87%, well above state accreditation standards.
Kindergarten –
·  MAP - There was an annual increase in percent proficient / on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (17% to 31%).
Third grade –
·  Math SOL – We are above both division and state averages for percent pass for at least 5 years in a row.
Fourth grade –
·  Math SOL - The mean scaled score for 2017 math SOL was above 450. We are at or above both division and state averages for percent pass rate for the last 4 years. With the exception of GAP Group 1, this year, we met AMOs for all target areas for 5 years in a row.
Fifth grade –
·  Math SOL - There was an annual increase in percent pass (88% to 90%). All reporting categories’ scaled scores were above 35.
·  There was a four year positive trend in percent pass (66% to 79% to 88% to 90%). (2017 math SOL)
·  For the second year in a row, percent pass is above the division and state averages for both percent pass and percent advanced for the 2017 math SOL. We were at or below these averages for the two previous years.
·  MAP – There was an annual increase in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (38% to 65% to 57% to 60%).
Science Strengths
·  Science SOL – WE are at the state average pass rate (79%) and above the district average pass rate (76%).
·  Scientific Investigation Strand scaled score s above 35.
Math Areas of Weakness:
2017 Math SOL Assessment -
3rd grade – Annual decrease in percent pass (85% to 80%) and in percent advanced (21% to 16%). Before this year, there was a 3-year positive trend in percent pass (71% to 75% to 85% to 80%). Before this year, we had met AMOs for all target areas for 4 years in a row. Our mean pass rate fell from 453 to 443 (not counting plain English), so mean below 450. All strand scaled scores are below 35 except number sense. Females (72%), Gap Group 1 (65%), and Economically disadvantaged (67%) subgroups did not meet AMO. Specific areas of weakness according to 2017 spring math SOL assessment: measurement and geometry, computation and estimation, probability, statistics, patterns, functions, and algebra.
4th grade – There was an annual decrease in percent pass (94% to 85%) and percent advanced (40% to 21%). Before this year, there was a 4-year positive trend in percent pass (70% to 87% to 92% to 94% to 85%). Fell below division and state averages for percent advanced for first time in 4 years. All subgroups fell below 450 except males. 2 strand scaled scores are below 35 now. 5/14 recoveries with 36% pass rate. Gap Group 1 (72%) does not meet AMO. Specific areas of weakness according to the spring 2017 math SOL assessment: Probability, statistics, patterns, functions, and algebra, measurement and geometry.
Areas of weakness according to math MAP assessment –
Kindergarten – Mean RIT at Drewry Mason 151.9 compared to district at 156.8. 17% at or above grade level based on mean RIT score fall 2016. Current MAP at grade level or above 24% (fall 2017). Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Computation and estimation; Patterns, functions, and algebra.
Grade 1 – Annual decrease in percent proficient / on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (61% to 51% to 39% to 36%). Fall 2017 40% on grade level. Drewry Mason mean RIT 177.4 (same as district) with norm of 180.8. Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Number and number sense.
Grade 2 – Annual decrease in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (49% to 29%). Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Computation and estimation; number and number sense.
Grade 3 – Annual decrease in percent proficient / on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (45% to 39%). Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Computation and estimation.
Grade 4 – Annual decrease in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (71% to 59% to 46%). Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Measurement and geometry; patterns, functions, and algebra.
Grade 5 – Specific areas of weakness according to MAP: Measurement and geometry; patterns, function, and algebra.
English / Reading Areas of Weakness:
2017 English SOL Assessment -
3rd grade – Annual decrease in percent pass (85% to 68%). With the exception being 2015-2016, we have been below state average for percent pass for 3 years of the last 4 years. After a 3-year positive trend in percent pass for economically disadvantaged (49% to 56% to 77%), there was a decrease in percent pass for economically disadvantaged (to 52%). Mean scores decreased from 437 to 420 (2016 to 2017). Mean for economically disadvantaged 2017 was 397. Achievement gaps have increased – males 62% and 402 mean (440 females). Gap group 1 55% and 399 mean. All reporting categories are less than 35 scaled score. Students with disabilities are 36% pass rate with 362 mean. Specific areas of weakness – All reporting categories’ mean scaled scores were below 35 with the lowest being Demonstrate comprehension of fictional texts.
4th grade – Annual decrease in percent pass (85 % to 82%). Annual decrease in percent advanced (16% to 15%). After a 4-year positive trend in percent pass (64% to 69% to 78% to 85%), there was a decrease in percent pass (to 82%). After a 3-year positive trend of decreasing the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and all students (13 percentage points to 8 percentage points to 4 percentage points), the gap increased this year (to 8 percentage points). Percent advanced fell below district average (after three years in a row of above). Mean still below 450 at 440 (447.7 last year) (second year in a row). All reporting categories are below 35. Gap group 1 (71% with 415) and economically disadvantaged 74%with 421) does not meet AMO. Students with disabilities 60% with 400. Specific areas of weakness: All reporting categories’ mean scaled scores were below 35 with the lowest being Demonstrate comprehension of nonfiction texts.
5th grade – Annual decrease in percent pass (83% to 82%) and in percent advanced (29% to 18%). Until this year, there had been a 3-year positive trend in percent pass (75% to 81% to 83% to 82%) and percent advanced (11% to 26% to 29% to 18%). After 2 years at or above state average for percent advanced, we fell below this year. Mean scaled score decreased – 438 to 457 to 446. All reporting categories are below 35. All mean scores are below 450. Recoveries 25% with 370 (12 students). Males 68% to 84% to 77%. Males, Gap Group 1, and Economically Disadvantaged do not meet AMO. Students with disabilities 33% (9) with 385. Specific areas of weakness: All reporting categories’ mean scaled scores were below 35 with the lowest being Use word analysis strategies and word reference materials.
Areas of weakness according to the reading MAP assessment –
Kindergarten - Annual decrease in percent proficient / on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (43% to 29%). MAP mean RIT at Drewry Mason is 151 (District is 155.8). 23% at or above grade level in fall of 2016. Current MAP at grade level or above is 29%. Specific areas of weakness: phonetic principles, word analysis, writing.
Grade 1 – We are just below the norm mean score for reading (177.5) at 177.3. 46% on grade level in fall. Specific areas of weakness: Phonetic principles, word analysis, writing.
Grade 2 – Specific areas of weakness – Comprehension of nonfiction.
Grade 3 – Percent proficient / on grade level or above based on mean RIT score remained the same (45%). Specific areas of weakness – Word origins, vocabulary, semantics, comprehension of fiction.
Grade 4 – Specific areas of weakness: Comprehension of nonfiction.
Grade 5 – Annual decrease in percent on grade level or above based on mean RIT score (47% to 66% to 66% to 62%). Specific areas of weakness: Word origins, vocabulary, semantics, comprehension of fiction.
PALS assessment–
Kindergarten – Spring of 2017 indicates deficit area of need is in developing Concept of Word. 67% (48/72) of kindergarten students fell below the PALS benchmark for development of Concept of Word.
First grade – There was a fall to spring increase in students identified as needing additional reading instruction (9% to 13%). 13% of students (9/69) are identified as needing additional reading intervention for the fall of 2017.
Second grade – 18% of students (12/68) are identified as needing additional reading intervention for the fall of 2017.
Third grade – Students identified as needing additional reading intervention in spring of 2017 was 19%. 12% (9/74) are identified as needing additional reading intervention in the fall of 2017.
SRI assessment –
4th grade – There was an annual decrease in percent of READ 180 students improving at least 75 Lexiles (100% to 77%).
Science Weaknesses:
5th grade 2017 Science SOL –
Earth, Space, Systems, and Cycles, Life Processes and Living Systems, Force, Motion, Energy, and Matter Strands have scaled scores below 35. Mean pass rate (441) is below 450.
MAP Spring 2017 Summary
Percent Meeting or Exceeding Projected Growth – Goal 50%
Grade Math Reading
Growth, Projected Growth Growth, Projected Growth
K 97 49 97 39
1 97 42 100 54
2 99 26 95 47
3 100 55 92 62
4 96 41 89 62
5 95 55 82 55
Total 97 44 92 53
Percent At or Above Grade Level
K 31 29
1 36 48
2 29 60
3 39 61
4 46 66
5 61 61
HCPS Faculty / Staff Engagement Survey – Staff indicated these areas need improvement according to the engagement survey: staff recognition, having a clean school, communication, professional development in dealing with crisis, even workload, and influencing decisions.
HCPS Student Engagement Survey – Students indicated these areas need improvement according to the student engagement survey: need for exciting assignments and belonging.
Strategy #1: In September of 2017, the instructional coach will lead grade levels in an analysis of triangulated data (spring 2017 SOL data, Fall 2017 MAP data, Fall 2017 PALS data, and Fall 2017 SRI data), including analysis of trends, areas of strength, and areas of weakness.
Strategy #2: The school improvement committee will meet to analyze all grade level data summaries/triangulated data.
Strategy #3: In September of 2017, data from grade level meetings and the school improvement committee will be shared with PTA members to share identified areas of strengths and weaknesses and elicit any other strengths, weaknesses, or trends noticed.
Strategy #4: Employee and student engagement survey was given in the Spring of 2017.
Budget Implications:
Benchmark/Evaluation (or related Indistar® indicators (if applicable):
·  Data are used to write and revise the school improvement plan, develop and revise teacher Smartgoals, and group students by areas of skill needs.
·  Teacher observation data is collected through Edivate. The reports side of Edivate enables administration to disaggregate data to focus on targeted areas of strategy implementation in classrooms. Walkthrough observation data will be stored in PowerSchool Learning.
·  A midyear evaluation of progress will be conducted.

Component 2 §1114(b)(7)(A)(i):