Ellen P. Hubbell Elementary School
School Improvement Plan 2016-2017
90 West Washington Street
Bristol, CT 06010
860.584.7842
http://www.bristol.k12.ct.us
School Leadership Team Members
Bryan Cistulli, Kindergarten
Kristin Ortolani, 1st Grade
Amy Sarantides, 2nd Grade
Carrie Jackson, 3rd Grade
Kelly Bouchard, 4th Grade
Christine Fanelli, 5th Grade
Alison Kozlak, Special Education
Tracie Sinkwich, Literacy Coach
Lisa Ayotte, Instructional Support
Joanna Vastola, Math Coach
Rochelle Schwartz, Principal
Bristol Public Schools Mission: Teach and Learn with Passion and Purpose
Core Values: Excellence, Innovation, Trust, Inclusiveness and Accountability
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Narrative Summary 2015-2016
Our school improvement efforts were focused on improved planning and implementation of the workshop model and numeracy instruction to positively impact student learning. Since we were in year 2 implementation of the Literacy Collaborative, our K-2 focus and 3-5 focus were somewhat different, but a major commonality was learning to give and analyze the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment and frequent running records since these are current district measures for reading behaviors.
As a staff, we:
● Learned to use the BAS and running records to measure reading progress and plan instruction, K-5
● Used intentional language to promote comprehension conversations addressing within, about and beyond text thinking
● Shared our successes and challenges, problem solved, and offered feedback in grade level teams and subcommittees
● Reflected on our practice and made changes in our instruction
● Used Fountas and Pinnell resources, especially the Continuum of Literacy Learning, along with the district language arts curriculum to plan for literacy
● Valued learning from each other and identified observation of colleagues as a key action step regardless of the SLO or PPO
● Focused on problem solving and grade level focus areas in mathematics instruction
Each grade level team developed their own plan around literacy, which encompassed their SLO/PPOs. Teams developed and used measurement tools for their adult actions as a critical component of specific, outlined action steps. Grades 3-5 developed an additional SLO to support student retention of critical concepts and procedures in math.
Our School Leadership Team included the K-2 Literacy Collaborative team and representation from the upper grade levels and support staff so we could work together as a cohesive group toward our common literacy goal. Monthly after school literacy professional development for K-2 and support teachers from our literacy coach deepened instructional practice in the workshop model. Teachers 3-5 collaborated to develop a better connection between and understanding of Common Core based instruction and the Smarter Balanced Assessment, as well as identifying curriculum based resources to plan and deliver rich lessons in literacy and math. They also used formative math assessment data to target review, reteaching, and enrichment of concepts. A spiral review for the grades 3-5 math SLO was an effective approach for developing proficiency in concepts as IAGD targets were met.
Data on the following two pages reveals two important literacy trends: we increased the number of students reading instructionally at or above grade level, and we made major impact on our most at risk readers grades K-3, as measured by DIBELS composite score. We made similar progress in 14-15, but our youngest students were more at risk this year than ever before.
2015-2016 Reading Data-Hubbell School
Grade / fall- % below grade level / March-% below grade levelK / BAS- A and below
91% / BAS- C and below
32%
1 / BAS-C and below
49% / BAS- G and below
31%
2 / BAS-I and below
38% / BAS-K and below
29%
3 / BAS-L and below
27% / BAS-N and below
20%
4 / BAS-O and below
41% / BAS-Q and below
25%
5 / BAS-Q and below
36% / BAS-T and below
20%
* Includes all students in Nov. and March (not cohort data)
** Does not include extended resource sped, those who take the CT alternate assessment.
2015-2016 Correlation Data within a school year
as Measured by DIBELS Assessment, K-3
(Measured using the same population from BOY to EOY)
Grade / BOY- # of Students who were Well Below Benchmark / EOY ResultsKindergarten / 21 / 11 6 4
First Grade / 23 / 16 3 4
Second Grade / 13 / 10 1 2
Third Grade / 6 / 5 1 0
Whole School / 63 / 42 11 10
Red-Well Below Benchmark Yellow-Below Benchmark Green-At or Above Benchmark
BOY=Beginning of Year; EOY=End of Year
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2016-2017
To Deepen Adult Instructional Practice and To Improve Student Learning We Will:
● Increase collaborative planning and sharing of best practice
● Increase math and literacy classroom coaching K-5
● Increase student engagement in numeracy and literacy to foster independence
● Explore guided math model to support problem solving
● Use assessment data to target literacy instruction according to student needs
● Focus on building positive school relationships through restorative practices, including use of circles
● Improve our school attendance; reduce the number of students defined as chronic (18+ absences)
School-wide Smart Goals for 16-17 School Improvement Plan
1. Reduce students reading below grade level to less than 25% K-2 and 20% 3-5 by March BAS.
2. Reduce our at risk reader cohort K-3 by 45% according to DIBELS EOY correlation report.
3. Increase % of students at level 3 and 4 on Smarter Balanced, ELA and Math, to meet or exceed Bristol District averages, grades 3-5, in at least 3 of the 6 measures. (see Table 1 below)
4. Reduce our Chronic Absenteeism ( 18+) rate by 10%. (see Table 2 below)
TABLE 1 - % at Level 3 and 4 Smarter Balanced Over Time-District and Hubbell by grade
(Bolded data points meet or exceed District average)
2015 / 2016 / 2017District Avg Math gr 3 / 43 / 45
Hubbell Math gr 3 / 32 / 41
District Avg Math gr 4 / 40 / 42
Hubbell Math gr 4 / 43 / 37
District Avg Math gr 5 / 31 / 38
Hubbell Math gr 5 / 29 / 37
District Avg ELA gr 3 / 49 / 49
Hubbell ELA gr 3 / 45 / 44
District Avg ELA gr 4 / 53 / 52
Hubbell ELA gr 4 / 68 / 42
District Avg ELA gr 5 / 54 / 59
Hubbell ELA gr 5 / 53 / 66
TABLE 2 - Number of Kinder and K-5 students at 18 or more absences for the year
Student total / 2014-15 / 2015-16 / 2016-17K / 8 / 7
K-5 / 20 / 17
K-2 Grade Level Teams
Members:
Kindergarten: Bryan Cistulli, Merriah Currao, and Barbara Tedesco
First Grade: Alicia Dehey, Amanda Draizen, Sarah Lizotte, and Kristin Ortolani
Second Grade: Shannon Gluse, Melissa Prentiss, Tami Raspanti, and Amy Sarantides
K-2 Student Achievement Goal: Students will utilize early reading strategies to meet grade-level reading expectations.Kindergarten
Rationale: In K, we have noticed in the previous year, 25% of students did not meet grade level expectations or make adequate progress on the March BAS. As we analyzed their errors on running records during guided reading and on BAS assessments, we were still seeing that those students lacked the ability to utilize early reading strategies and had gaps in sight word knowledge. Informal observations during Reader’s Workshop mini-lessons this year indicate the need to explicitly teach students these strategies. Our end-of-the-year DIBELS scores showed a deficiency in phonics which shows us that there is an additional need to teach phonics more explicitly in Word Study and in guided reading.
IAGD 1: By May 2017, 74% students will increase their BAS score by 4 or more levels or reach ceiling,
IAGD 2: By May 2017, 86% students will be able to recognize 30/30 sight words on List 1.
By May 2017, 100% (5) students will be able to recognize 25/25 sight words on List 5.
Interim Measures of Student Learning:
● Running records
● DIBELS progress monitoring
● Monthly sight word assessment
● Monthly letter assessment
1st Grade
Rationale: In 1st Grade, the reading assessments from the previous years, both the BAS and DIBELS, have shown that 33% of the first grade students did not meet grade level expectations due to inefficient application of reading strategies by March BAS. Analysis of running records and the progress monitoring with Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) showed that these same students were not able to use their phonemic awareness knowledge to quickly decode unknown words.
IAGD 1: By March 2017, 78% students will increase their BAS score by 4 or more levels or reach ceiling.
IAGD 2: By May 2017, 76% students will increase their whole words read on DIBELS NWF by at least 12 words.
Interim Measures of Student Learning:
● Running records
● DIBELS progress monitoring
2nd Grade
Rationale: Analysis of the fall BAS results indicate that 38% of second graders did not maintain their guided reading instructional level from May. In several cases students did not maintain their March BAS score. These results indicate that early reading strategies are not fossilized and need to be a focus.
IAGD 1: By March 2017, 79% students will increase their BAS score by 3 or more levels or reach ceiling.
IAGD 2: By May 2017, 79% students will increase their accuracy on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) by 10 percentage points or reach goal.
Interim Measures of Student Learning:
● Running records
● DIBELS progress monitoring
K-2 Teacher Practice Goal: During the 2016-2017 school year, teachers will increase the frequency and duration of collaborative planning time to impact student reading behaviors and close the reading gap.
Rationale: Based on data from the previous year’s BAS scores, K, Grades 1 and 2 teachers realized that there were commonalities among classrooms as far strengths and weaknesses. After discussion of the results, teachers decided the best approach to meeting the needs of students would be to collaboratively plan our literacy lessons across grade levels. These collaborative planning sessions will involve classroom teachers as well as support staff to identify high impact instructional practice.
IPGD: By May 2017, teacher score on the Professional Practice Checklist (PPC) will be 9 out of a possible 10 indicating high-level completion of the Teacher Action Steps.
Action Plan for K-2 Teacher Practice Goal
1. Create the Professional Practice Checklist (PPC) in November. Complete the PPC two times a year (January and May).2. Create and utilize a collaboration log to include date, duration, focus of planning, and next steps.
3. Identify and consistently implement progress monitoring and chart progress on grade level data walls.
4. Analyze progress monitoring results to formulate instructional response through collaborative planning.
5. Implement strategies discussed in collaborative planning and self record (video or audio) the implementation during a lesson. During collaborative planning session, teachers will share the video, offer self evaluation and provide peer feedback. (One colleague per month.)
Grade 3 Team
Members: Lisa Ayotte, Tricia Chesnes, Carrie Jackson, and Kim Jannetty
Reading Student Achievement Goal: Students will improve their ability to answer About the text questions, both orally and in writing, measured by the BAS and common formative assessments.Rationale: During the Fall administration of the BAS, we noticed 87% students scored a one or a zero on a 3 point rubric to the About the Text questions asked orally on the comprehension section. As these types of questions will also need to be responded to in writing on the SBA, we determined that this should be our area of focus during reading instruction. We will use the results of assessments to target desired reading and writing behaviors.
IAGD 1: BAS-measure oral response
● By March 2017, 75% of 3rd grade students will improve their score on the About the Text questions comprehension section of the BAS by at least one point on the 3 point rubric.
IAGD 2: Common Formative Assessments-measure written response to About the Text questions will be given in October (baseline), January and May.
● By May 2017, 75% of 3rd grade students will improve their written response to the CFA About the Text Questions by at least one point on the 3 point rubric.
Interim Measures of Student Learning:
● Written response questions in Guided Reading lessons
● Comprehension conversations during Interactive Read Aloud, Shared Reading and Guided Reading groups
Teacher Practice Goal: During the 2016-2017 school year, teachers will increase the frequency and duration of collaborative planning time to create and deliver strong About the Text questions and to respond instructionally through Interactive Read Aloud, Shared Reading, and Guided Reading groups to impact student performance.
Rationale: To address the weakness in higher order About the Text questions noted in fall administration of the BAS, we decided we would have to work collaboratively to share resources and expertise. As we analyze CFA and other interim measures with About the Text Questions, we will identify and share impactful strategies used in our literacy block instruction.
IPGD: By May 2017, teacher score on the Professional Practice Checklist (PPC) will be 8 out of a possible 10 indicating high-level completion of the Teacher Action Steps.
Action Plan for Teacher Practice Goal
Steps1. Teachers will collaborate weekly during common planning time and will create and utilize a collaboration log to include date, duration, focus of planning, and next steps.
2. Teachers will use Continuum (Fountas & Pinnell), and other resources to devise About the Text questions for Guided Reading, Interactive Read Aloud, and Shared Reading lessons. At least one guided reading plan per group, per week will include an oral About the Text question and/or a written response About the Text question, as part of extension.
3. Teachers will develop and administer three CFAs that align with ELA units using two levels of text for data points.
4. Teachers will analyze results of CFAs and About the Text questions used in lesson plans of literacy block (both written and anecdotal if asked orally). Teachers will use this information to change and drive instruction, share lesson plans, evaluate and discuss About the Text questions used in instruction, identify impactful teaching strategies, and chart student progress.
5. Teachers will implement identified strategies and self record (video and audio). Teachers will share, self and peer reflect, and offer feedback (one colleague per month). / Person(s) Responsible
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team / Due Date
May
May
Oct., Jan., May
Oct.-May
Dec.-May
Grade 4 Team