Assessment and Planning Procedures forLow Performing Schools(LPS)

(August 8, 2003)

This document will serve as a frameworkbetween the Office of Urban Literacy and the LEAto provide support and resources in a collaborative framework. It is written in an effort to provide quality educational services and professional development support to the LEA and its lowest performing schools. Since this is a new process for everyone involved, suggestions are welcome.

Step 1:

The collection of data and how it is used to inform instruction must be the foundation of the review of the LPS (low performing school). Components of this analysis should include:

  • ESPA scores from the past 4 years.
  • Disaggregated data: sub analysis by cluster mean scores.
  • Disaggregated data from the following populations: general education, special education (including classifications of self-contained), Title I, and LEP students.
  • Disaggregated data from the 5 ethnic racial groups pursuant to NCLB.
  • Additional standardized test results for the K-3 population.
  • Local and school assessments and/or screenings.
  • A discussion of preschool experiences: How many students entering kindergarten have had preschool experiences? Of this number, how many are coming from preschools operated under direct control of district, versus numbers coming from private providers? The degree of implementation oftheLEA’s preschool curriculum and the connections with the K-1 curriculum.
  • Available information on types of family literacy initiatives. Provide information on the degree of implementation of said programs.
  • Available information on family backgrounds with regards to poverty level, parental employment, neighborhood information, and additional pertinent information that may be helpful in learning about the population.
  • A breakdown of native languages spoken at home.

Result: The ability to construct an advisory document as to the effectiveness and efficiency of data analysis in the decision making process to inform instruction in its LPS. For example, the LEA may be able to suggest additional or differentiated assessment tools, or a collection process to help its LPS create the most complete picture possible.

Step 2:

This will include the gathering and sharing of information on LEA’s current, comprehensive reading program and materialsand the extent of implementation at the LPS concerning the following populations:

  • General Education
  • Bilingual
  • ESL
  • Special Education (self-contained, inclusion, and resource room)

This review should specify the presence or absence of all components (motivation and background knowledge, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), and examine the curriculum’s alignment to the NJCCCS.

Result: The ability to make recommendations to the LEA’s LPS in areas of strengths and weaknesses particular to the populations and programs cited above.

Step 3:

This will address the structure of delivery of services of the current, comprehensive reading programs:

  • What is the length of the current literacy time block in a K-3 classroom?
  • What is the district’s current guidance in the use of time that promotes small group and whole group instruction?
  • A breakdown of the strategies and activities occurring during the literacy block.
  • Provide a detailed description of current classroom libraries in special education, general education, and bilingual classrooms: multicultural, number of books, genres, languages and levels.
  • How are books in classroom libraries aligned to the current comprehensive reading program?
  • Are the teachers presently using differentiated learning centers to enhance instruction?
  • Discuss the classroom management system in place during this literacy block including the coordination of supplies, programs, and differentiated materials.

Result: To make statements and suggestions to LEA’sLPS in ways in which they can enhance, change, or restructure areas cited above.

Step 4:

This will address assessment at the student level, and how it currently informs your instructional practices. This will look at all four levels of student based assessment.

  • Screening tests
  • Deeper diagnostic assessment of students in danger of falling behind
  • District endorsed classroom based progress monitoring
  • Standardized testing
  • Accommodations for ESL and special education students. How will each of the above impact these populations served?
  • How assessment results are shared with stake-holders involved (students, teachers, parents, board members)

Result: To make statements and suggestions to the LEA’s Low Performing Schools in the area of student assessment, for which they can appropriately guide their instruction to the strengths and weaknesses of their students.

Step 5:

This will encompass a discussion of current professional development practices:

  • A scope and sequence or schedule of current/past professional development opportunities. Include a description of providers.
  • Explain how the scope and sequence addressed any needs assessments that were given to teachers prior to professional development.
  • How all teacher populations (special education, Title I, ESL, and bilingual, general education) are included in the professional development model.
  • A discussion of how trainings address the needs of novice, veteran, and master teachers.
  • How the content of professional development practice supports each of the 4 areas outlined above in the four previous Steps.
  • How have LEA administrators supported the literacy initiatives on the district and school levels?

Result: The ability to make recommendations to the LEA’s Low Performing Schools in the area of professional development practices, and ways in which they will develop an appropriate and comprehensive plan for their staff.

As a result of these Steps, the Office of Urban Literacy and the LEA will work collaboratively in immediate, short term, ongoing, and long term interventions and planning. The goal will be to respect and learn from the experts in place, as well as tailor recommendations to improve student achievement resulting in academic achievement.

Proposed by:

Fred Carrigg

Special Assistant to the Commissioner

for Urban Literacy

Director of Reading First

New Jersey Department of Education

PO Box 500

Trenton,New Jersey08625

Tel: (609) 633-1726

Fax: (609) 633-0291