Grandview Elementary
Improvement Plan
2011-2012
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Grandview ElementarySCHOOL BUILDING
Rapid City Area Schools
SCHOOL DISTRICTGRADE SPAN: / K-5 / ENROLLMENT: / 475
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COORDINATOR:
NAME: / Shannon Schaefers
ADDRESS: / 3301 Grandview Dr.
Rapid City, SD 57701
PHONE: / 394-1829
FAX: / 394-5831
E-MAIL: /
PLANNING TEAM:
PRINCIPAL: / Shannon Schaefers / PTA: / Amy Thompson
DISTRICT REP: / Dr. Roth
Liz Venenga
Deann Kertzman / PARENT: / Shane Daniel
Carol Solano
TEACHER: / Angela Bradsky
Gaylene Barker
Melissa Schweisow / TEACHER: / Amanda Price
Jada Sulzle
OUTSIDE EXPERT:
PLEASE LIST ANY SCHOOL REFORM INITIATIVES YOUR SCHOOL HAS PARTICIPATED IN DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS (ex: Reading Enhancement):
INITIATIVE / FIRST YEAR OF INVOLVEMENT
(TRAINING) / HAS THE ADMINISTRATION CHANGED SINCE TRAINING?
Investigations II Curriculum / 2010 / No
Standards Based Report Cards / 2005 / Yes
Response to Intervention / 2007 / No
Formative Assessment Initiative / 2009 / No
SD Counts / 2009 / No
Grandview Elementary
School Improvement Plan
Table of Contents
School Improvement Component / Page NumberSchool Improvement Plan Requirements / 5
Program Development / 6
Comprehensive Needs Assessment / 8
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies / 12
Instruction by Highly Qualified Staff / 16
Professional Development / 17
Parent Involvement and Education / 20
Transition / 22
Monitoring and Support / 23
Fiscal Requirement / 25
Ongoing Program Development / 26
Appendix Description / Appendix Page
Discipline Data / A
Meeting Documentation / B
Paper to Practice Planning Guide / C
Mission, vision, and Standards of Practice / D
Log of Activities / E
Student Data / F
Standard-Based Goals / G
Needs Assessment Surveys / H
Literacy/Math Strategies / I
Assessment Descriptions / J
Data Chat / K
Professional Development Descriptions / L
Notification Letters / M
Student/Parent/School Compact / N
Standards Based Reporting Parent Guide / O
Feedback Letter / P
School Improvement Plan Requirement
Requirement / Plan Component / Page #200.41School improvement plan.
(a)(1) develop or revise a school improvement plan for approval by the LEA / Ongoing Program Development / 6
(a)(2) The school must consult with parents, school staff, the LEA, and outside experts / Program Development / 7
(b) The school improvement plan must cover a 2-year period. / Ongoing Program Development / 6-8
(c) The school improvement plan must--
(c)(1) Specify the responsibilities of the school, the LEA, and the SEA / Program Development / 8
(c)(2)(i) Incorporate strategies, grounded in scientifically based research, (ii) May include a strategy for implementing a comprehensive school reform model / Goals, Objectives, Strategies / 12-16
(c)(3) Adopt policies and practices most likely to ensure that all student groups will meet the State’s proficient level of achievement / Goals, Objectives, Strategies / 12-16
(c)(4) Establish measurable goals that—-(i) Address the specific reasons for the school’s failure to make adequate progress; and (ii) Promote, for each group of students continuous and substantial progress that ensures that all these groups meet the State’s annual measurable objectives / Comprehensive Needs Assessment;
Goals, Objectives, Strategies / 8-12
12-16
(c)(5) Provide an assurance that the school will spend not less than 10percent of its Title I Part A allocation for the purpose of providing high-quality professional development that- (i) Directly addresses the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement; (ii) Is provided in a manner that affords increased opportunity for participating in that professional development; and (iii) Incorporates teacher mentoring activities or programs / Professional Development / NA
(c)(6) Specify how the 10% set-aside funds will be used to remove the school from school improvement status / Professional Development / NA
(c)(7) Describe how the school will provide written notice about the school improvement identification to parents / Parent Involvement / 20
(c)(8) Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement / Parent Involvement / 20-22
(c)(9) Incorporate activities during any extension of the school day or year / Goals, Objectives, Strategies / NA
(d)(1) Within 45 days of receiving a school improvement plan, the LEA must-- (i) Establish a peer-review process to assist with review of the plan; (ii) Promptly review the plan; (iii) Work with the school to make any necessary revisions; and (iv) Approve the plan if it meets the requirements of this section. / Ongoing Program Development / 26
(e) A school must implement its school improvement plan immediately on approval of the plan by the LEA. / Ongoing Program Development / 26
Improvement Plan Components:
Program Development
Grandview Elementary School is located in the Southeastern portion of Rapid City. Our boundariesreach southeast to Catron Boulevard, east to Enchanted Pines and Elm Street, and north to Fairmont Boulevard. We are amongthe largest elementary schools in the Rapid City school district with approximately 475 students.
Grandview Elementary has three sections of grades kindergarten, first, second, fourth, and fifth and four sections of grade three. Various support staff, such as special education, Intervention Strategist, Literacy, Mathematics, Reading Recovery, counselor, nurse, library, standards support specialist, music, P.E. and Instructional Assistants, also comprise the Grandview faculty.
Grandview School’s student profile information is indicated in the table below:
Student Characteristic / Percentage/DataNative American / 11%
White / 83%
Asian / 1 %
African American / 1 %
Hispanic / 4 %
Special Education / 15% (including speech only)
Gifted & Talented / N/A
LEP / N/A
Migrant / N/A
Poverty—Free and reduced lunch / 29%
Mobility rates / 8/1/10—6/1/11: Received 167(29%) new students and 97(17%) students withdrew.
Discipline Data / See Attached Appendix A
On the 2011 Dakota Step, Grandview Elementary met AYP goals in the area of mathematics and reading for all students. In reading 75% of the students met proficiency qualifications, with the AMO being at 69%. In mathematics 76% of the students met proficiency qualifications, with the AMO being at 72%. Grandview met AYP in all subgroups on the 2011 Dakota Step. Meeting AYP in all areas for the past two years has resulted in Grandview no longer being in school improvement.
The school improvement plan is developed with the input of parents, community, and staff members. The planning team roster includes:
Membership Categories / Name of MemberPrincipal / Shannon Schaefers
PTA / Kendrea Flynn
Kindergarten Teacher / Angela Bradsky
Standards Support Specialist / Gaylene Barker
Second Grade teacher / Melissa Schwiesow
Fourth Grade Teacher / Amanda Price
Special Education Teacher / Jada Sulzle
PTA President / Kendrea Flynn
Parent Key Communicator / Shane Daniel
Parent / Carol Solano
District Math Coordinator / Deann Kertzman
District Literacy Coordinator / Liz Venenga
Staff Development Director / Dr. Roth
In August 2011, the Grandview Building Leadership Teammet to go through various assessment data provided by the district as well as the state to facilitate data driven decision making at the building level. In late August this team led a data retreat with the Grandview staff to assist understanding for the need of an increased level of implementation of our plan.
The staff at Grandview meets weekly for ongoing planning and implementation of improvement plans with the use of formative assessment data through grade level meetings and Response to Intervention meetings.The Grandview staff meets once monthly to participate in staff development in the area of math.Staff have the option to complete an Individual Professional Implementation Plan as they set goals for themselves. Examples of the plan can be found in Appendix B.
Ongoing input is sought monthly from members of the parent committee through PTA meeting, from all parents at a back to school night, through a monthly parent meeting with the principal, and through an end of the year survey.
The plan is reviewed by the Grandview Team at intervals throughout the year. The improvement plan is evaluated at an annual Peer Review in October with assistance from the SST (Bob Rose). The feedback is used to revise the plan as needed. A “paper to practice” planning guide is created from the plan, found in Appendix C, and provided for each staff member.
Grandview Elementary School follows the vision of the Rapid City Area Schools and has developed a school mission in alignment with the district’s vision and guiding principles. These documents are included in Appendix D.
Local assessment indicators for literacy include CBMs, text reading levels, letter ID, observation surveys, concepts about print, 5th grade writing assessments, and 3rd, 4th, 5th grade Dakota Step.
Local assessment indicators for math include 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade Dakota Step, 3rd, 4th, 5th grade DACS, and K-2 district assessments. These and other assessments guide our school’s instruction on an ongoing basis.
Various programs documentation is kept on file at the building level, including meeting agendas and outcomes, and parent sign in sheets. A log of program development activities is included in Appendix E.
The state is responsible for communicating and clarifying regulations and expectations, as well as for providing various forms of technical support, including facilitating data retreats, providing School Support Team (SST) assistance, providing Educational Service Agencies (ESA’s), and assisting with school improvement plans and strategies to raise student achievement.
Documentation of contact is noted in the activities log(Appendix E). At the district level, support is provided in developing improvement plans and strategies to increase student achievement. Literacy, mathematics, and technology support staff, and training is also provided by the district level. The school is responsible for participating in a data analysis, developing a school improvement plan, participating in the peer review of the school improvement plan, and implementing the plan. The state, district, and school work together in a supportive and helpful manner.
With regard to the history of the plan, this is Grandview’s fifth year of forming and implementing a School Improvement Plan. The Rapid City School District did not meet AYP status in 2011, placing them on Level 6 status. As a result, Grandview will formulate and implement our plan, revising and updating throughout the year.
Comprehensive Needs Assessment
In August 2002 the district began a process whereby achievement data was analyzed in depth. Members of our school have attended a two-day training session in August of each year since its implementation in 2002. In 2011, this in-depth look was done at the building level, with a follow up date in September with assistance from the Rapid City School District and ESA 7 in further analysis of the data. We continue to facilitate our data at the building level. Our school is using an analysis of this data to set building achievement goals in reading and mathematics.
Members of the Grandview Building Leadership Team that participated in the data analysis in 2011 are: Shannon Schaefers,Angela BradskyMelissa Schwiesow, Amanda Price, Gaylene Barker, and Jada Sulzle. Our BLT team is responsible for leading the Collaborative Work Groups through a process of
reviewing data, setting measurable goals focused on student results, selecting instructional strategies targeted at specific standards of low student performance, and continuously assessing and refining better ways of teaching the targeted skills by examining student work and reflecting on implementation of best practice. The district provides the time for this to occur during professional development days in August, October, December, January, March, and May.
This Building Level Team presented Grandview Data to staff on August 24, 2011 and identified the need to target the economically disadvantaged, special education, and Native American subgroups in the areas of math and reading. Further analysis was completed on September 13th at another data retreat day held at the building. This process included analyzingmultiple years of data and looking at specific standards and individual student data. This data is included in Appendix F.The tables below include achievement data for grades 3-5 in the area of reading, supporting our need for growth in the subgroup of special education and Native Americans. Tables are also included showing data in regards to specific standards.
Third thru Fifth Grade Reading Data indicates a need to target our Native Americanand IEP subgroups.
Grade 3 / R.1 / R.2 / R.3 / R.4 / R.52011 / 7.1 / 8.6 / 8.4 / 4.4 / 5.9
% / 71 / 61 / 60 / 63 / 54
2010 / 6.3 / 8 / 8.4 / 4.3 / 5.6
% / 63 / 57 / 60 / 61 / 51
Grade 4 / 2011 / 7.1 / 7.6 / 8.7 / 4.5 / 7.1
% / 71 / 54 / 62 / 64 / 65
2010 / 7.3 / 9 / 9.9 / 4.7 / 7.4
% / 73 / 64 / 71 / 67 / 67
Grade 5 / 2011 / 6.6 / 10.5 / 8.3 / 5 / 6.9
% / 66 / 75 / 59 / 71 / 63
2010 / 5.9 / 9.3 / 7.1 / 5 / 6.1
% / 59 / 66 / 51 / 71 / 55
Third thru Fifth Grade Reading Standards data indicates a need to strengthen the areas of fluency and comprehension in order to apply these skills to standards 3 and 5.(Red indicates low area.)
Other assessment data includes CBM and TLR scores. (See below)
2011 CBM Prof/Adv. / 2011 CBM Basic/BB / 2011TRLProf/Adv. / 2011 TRL
Basic/BB
80% / 20% / 84% / 16%
Data indicates continued growth is needed in the area of fluency.
The results of the findings of this process indicated the following areas of need for reading:
Indicator 2: Students can comprehend and fluently read text.
The following reading goal was set for the 2011-2012school year:
Reading Goal: Student percentage at or above proficient in
reading will be at or above the AMO(76 on
the 2012 D/STEP assessment in all subgroups.
The tables below include achievement data for grades 3-5 in the area of math, supporting our need for growth in the subgroup of special education and Native Americans. Tables are also included showing data in regards to specific standards.
Third thru Fifth Grade Math Data indicates a need to target our Native American and IEP subgroups.
Grade 3 / M.A.1 / M.A.2 / M.A.3 / M.A.4 / M.G.1 / M.G.2 / M.M.1 / M.N.1 / M.N.2 / M.N.3 / M.S.1 / M.S.22011 / 5.2 / 4.3 / 4.5 / 5.3 / 4.2 / 4.2 / 5 / 4.3 / 4.9 / 4 / 5.3 / 4.4
2010 / 4.4 / 4.8 / 4.5 / 4.9 / 3.8 / 4.5 / 4.6 / 4.6 / 4.8 / 5.2 / 5.3 / 4.7
Grade 4
2011 / 5 / 4.3 / 4.6 / 5 / 4.4 / 4.1 / 4.3 / 5 / 4.3 / 4 / 4 / 4.7
2010 / 5.6 / 5.5 / 5.4 / 5.3 / 5.7 / 5.5 / 5.4 / 5.6 / 5.2 / 4.8 / 4.7 / 5.5
Grade 5
2011 / 5.5 / 5.5 / 5.1 / 5 / 5.8 / 4.7 / 4.7 / 4.3 / 5.5 / 5.3 / 4.7 / 4.5
2010 / 4.7 / 4.7 / 4.7 / 4.5 / 5 / 4.3 / 4.6 / 4.4 / 4.7 / 4.7 / 4.3 / 4.3
Third thru Fifth Grade Math Standards data indicates a need to strengthen the areas in
Number Sense across grade levels.
In addition, the results of the findings of this process indicated the following areas of need for math:
Number Sense Indicator 2: Apply number operations with real
numbers and other number systems
Number Sense Indictor 3: Develop conjectures, predictions, or
estimations to solve problems and verify
or justify the results.
The following math goal was set for the 2011-2012 school year:
MathGoal: Student percentage at or above proficient in math will
at or above the AMO(79% for all sub groups on the
D/STEP assessment.
Other assessment data supporting this goal is 2010-2011 DACS. (See Below)
Grade Level / 2010 DACS / 2011 DACS / Percent IncreaseThird / 53% Low-High Average / 53% Low-High Average / 0%
Fourth / 55% Low-High Average / 53% Low-High Average / 2% decrease
Fifth / 55% Low-High Average / 54% Low-High Average / 1% decreas
2010 Fall DACS data compared to 2011 Spring DACS data.
A variety of needs assessments are done on an ongoing basis. Examples of these include parent surveys(Spring); staff needs assessments (Fall, Spring), and student surveys. Other need assessments that are given several times a year include CBM’s, exit reading levels, letter ID observation surveys, concepts about print, K-1 and 2-5 writing rubrics, 5th grade writing assessment results, K-2 performance assessments for math (counting, hiding, and grouping 10’s), Dakota Step grades 3-5, DACS, and District Multiplication Assessment 3-5. Documentation of these is kept on file at the building level. Our 4th and 5th grade students complete the Consolidated Survey System which includes the following surveys: Risky Behavior Survey, Character Education Survey, Healthy Practices Survey and the Safe Schools Survey. These surveys provide feedback regarding student behaviors and perceptions. Examples of these surveys can be found in Appendix H.
Grandview Elementary met adequate yearly progress in reading and in mathematics in all subgroups as per the Dakota Step Test taken in April of 2011.Strengths include a 41% increase of our IEP subgroup scoring in the proficient range in math over the 2011 Dakota Step, and a15% increase of our economic subgroup in reading and a 16% increase in math.
Challenges include the achievement gap in literacy and mathematics that exists for students in special education, the economically disadvantaged, and Native
American students. With increased awareness of this gap, we continue to focus on strategies that will narrow the gap.
Priority needs that arose from the overall examination of data are summarized under our Goals, Objectives and Strategies in the areas of mathematics and for reading. Achievement data is presented in table format and can be seen in Appendix F.
On the 2006-2007 Dakota STEP (State Test of Educational Progress), Rapid City Area Schools (RCAS) did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in both
reading and math. As a result, the district was in school improvement, Level 3, Corrective Action for math and in Level 1 for reading. From the 2007-2008 Dakota STEP results, RCAS remained in Level 3, Corrective Action for math and advanced to Level 2 for reading. As a result of the Level 3 status, the state Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for taking at least one corrective action for the district that responds to the academic failure that caused the State to take such action.
Because all districts in District Improvement Level 3 must receive a district audit from the SEA, the South Dakota Department of Education conducted a district audit for RCAS in December of 2007. As a result of the audit, the corrective action option to be implemented by RCAS is Option 2, “Institute and Implement a New Curriculum.”
The following summarizes the district’s intentions to satisfy the DOE intervention in the area of math:
- RCAS will conduct a curriculum audit to review the alignment of the state standards, the curriculum, the accountability system, and professional development.
- RCAS will provide appropriate professional development to staff for growth and an advanced program in content and methodology, and/or mentoring.
- RCAS will review curriculum options and develop implementation procedures.
- RCAS will design assessment procedures for learning addressing the standards; use assessment procedures to inform instruction and respond to student needs.
Grandview was selected to take part in the district accreditation audit in October of 2009. Results of this audit were provided to the district office and shared with Grandview Elementary.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
At the elementary level, policies and practices have identified literacy and numeracy as academic priorities to ensure that all student groups become proficient by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. To meet that goal, the following AYP goals have been established for all students: