Reading Planning Meeting 9/17/03

Bordeaux Elementary

School-wide Plan

2008 through 2011

1

Bordeaux Elementary

School Improvement Plan

2008-2011

Table of Contents

Cover Sheet3-5

School Name

Plan Years

District and Building Mission Statement

School Improvement Planning Team Names

Building Academic Committees

Student Demographics

Analysis of Data6-9

WASL Data over time

Other significant data points and progress.

School Improvement Goals/Strategic Actions10-41

goals in reading, writing, math, science

building Technology Plan

unexcused absences per No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Professional Development Calendar42-44

training and school improvement work

Narrative of School Improvement Planning Process/Activities/Data Collection45-59

SIPPR Tool.

Title I School-wide Program Information60-82

Appendix 83

District Policy No. 2005

District Procedures No. 2005P

Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools

Strategies for Additional Assistance to Students

• Student Learning Plan
• Student Support Team – Request for Assistance
• Summary of Instructional Supports

Assessment Data

• WASL
• Quarterly Assessment Summary
• Prevention Planning
• DIBELS Comparison

Newsletters (Sept. & Oct. ‘08)

1

Bordeaux Elementary

School-wide Plan

2008 through 2011

SheltonSchool District’s Mission Statement:

“To provide the highest quality educational opportunities possible to all students, in environments that nurture and promote each student’s unique capabilities and finest achievements.”

BordeauxElementary School’s Mission Statement:

At Bordeaux we are a community school actively engaged in meaningful learning in a safe, respectful, cooperative environment.

BordeauxElementary School’s Vision Statement:

We want every single child at Bordeaux to be successful.

School-wide Program Planning Team

Leadership Team:

Dawn Crump – EA rep/Solution Center EA/ Disaster & Safety rep

Pam Hibbert – 1st grade rep/Science Committee Chair/ RTI Team member

Sharee Waite – 5thgrade rep/Building Academic Coach/Dist. Lit. Team/ Dist. Coaching

Cadre/ RTI Team member/ Bldg Math Committee member

Diane Satak – 3rd grade rep/Dist. Math Committee/ Building Math CommitteeChair/

Building Math Coach/ Dist. Coaching Cadre

Megan Rydman – 4th grade rep/Dist. Lit. Team/ Building Lit Committee co-chair/ RTI

Teammember

Amy Richardson –Title I rep and Rdg Lab EA rep/ Reading co-Facilitator/ Tutor &

Assessment Coordinator/ Building LitCommittee chair/RTI Team

member

Amanda von Jentzen – Sp Ed rep/ RTI Team member/ Bldg Science Committee member

Lora Rhoades – Kindergarten rep/ Family Friendly Schools Committee chair

Sara Elkins – 2nd grade rep/ Family Friendly Schools Committee member

Carey Murray - Principal

Building Academic Committees:

Literacy (Reading & Writing)RTI (Response to Intervention)

*Amy Richardson-Chair-Title1/Rdg Fac. Michele Evans – Rdng Fac./RTI

*Megan Rydman-Co-Chair-4thCoord.

Jody Oblizalo–K*Amy Richardson – Rdng Fac.

Caryl Maas-1st*Amanda von Jentzen – Sp. Ed.

Julie Roberts-2nd*Sharee Waite – Academic CoachMichele Evans – Rdg. Fac./RTI Coord. *Megan Rydman – 4th

Cassie Nelson-4th *Pam Hibbert – 1st

Michelle Wolfe – School Psych.

Carey Murray - Principal

MathScience

*Diane Satak -Chair-3rd/Math Coach*Pam Hibbert-Chair-1st

*Sharee Waite – Academic Coach*Amanda von Jentzen-SpEd

Sue Pittman-5thJennifer Payne-5th

Jewell Hemenway-SpEdKristen Friedlander–2nd

Cathy Crane-3rdWendy Wilson-Hoss-1st

Tammy Twiddy-3rd Kristi Morefield-2nd

Joe Fenton-5thMary Clift-5th

Doug Watkins-1stMartha Harris-4th

Danielle Beamish-3rd

Family Friendly SchoolsStudent Solutions Team (SST)

*Lora Rhoades-Chair-K(Meetings 1st and 3rd Tues 3:45-5:00)

Dan Triplett-Fine ArtsBrian Wirzbicki – Counselor/Chair

Sara Elkins-2ndMichele Evans –Rdg Fac/RTI Coord

Brian Wirzbicki - Counselor Michelle Wolfe – School Psych

Kay Roller-Library Amanda von Jentzen-Sp Ed

Stacey Schneidmiller-SpEdCarey Murray - Principal

Patty Thornton-Music*Dawn Crump – Solution/Detention

Erick Niemi-PEJewell Hemenway – SpEd

Cindy Johnson-K (M/W)Amy Richardson-Rdg Fac/Title 1

*Sara Elkins – Primary Rep.

Cassie Nelson- Intermediate Rep.

*Leadership Member

Student Demographics

Include enrollment, average class size, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and mobility/stability.

Enrollment

Bordeaux’s enrollment is491 students as ofOctober 1, 2008. The average regular education class size is 21 with the smallest at 16 and the largest at 27.

Ethnicity

The ethnic composition of the school as of June ‘08is1% African American, 13% American Indian, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander, 80% Caucasian, and 4% Hispanic/Latino.

Socioeconomic Status

64.8% of the students qualify for free or reduced priced school meals in October, 2008.

Mobility/Attendance

14% of the student population moved into school while 11% moved out of school (Sept.-June 2007-2008 school year). Bordeaux's average daily attendance from September, 2007 to June, 2008, was 93.8%.

ESL populations

Number of ESL students in grades K-5 at Bordeaux is 4.

Number of Special Education Students

Grades K-5: 71 - (14% of our students) in October, 2008

Behavior Program studentsin grades K-5is 9.

1

Analysis

of

Data

Bordeaux staff remains committed to improving student learning through the analysis of data, best instructional practices, and the use of quality, research based programs. Staff will continue to receive training in instructional strategies during all staff days, staff meetings, after school training, reading component meetings, the district coaching cadre, team planning/collaboration, and training included in curriculum materials adoptions. Our staff training is based on the needs of our students as indicated through our various school-wide assessment measures, classroom based assessments, and teacher/coach observations. Teachers are becoming more and more comfortable with the use of data to drive their instruction through our reading program, and in the fall of 2008 we are beginning to implement RTI (Response to Intervention) in the area of reading. We are identifying students who are reading at benchmark, as well as those who need strategic and intensive intervention. The RTI model is an approach using a three tier model of instruction/intervention. We are relying on data more in other subject areas as well such as math, writing, and science.

Our school plan focuses the majority of our instructional time in the areas of reading, writing, and math. We are changing the delivery of the Success for All Reading program to better meet our students’ needs, and in 2008-09 we are moving toward maintaining the Success for All program at the first grade level, but moving toward a model of reading that allows for greater flexibility in the grouping of students and the delivery of curriculum/instruction. We are focusing more effort on the improvement of our Math and Writing programs and will continue to modify the adopted math program to better align with the new state standards. In addition, we recognize that we have a lot of work to do in the area of Science instruction, and have begun the process of identifying areas of strengths and weakness and possible interventions.

The comprehensive needs assessment results are from data collected from a variety of sources such as WASL, district and building level assessments, and various studies and surveys. These assessments are on-going and the plans will be adjusted as needed to meet the needs of the students.

Assessments conducted by the school include: the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) for grade 3, 4 and 5, Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) for grades K – 2, eight week assessments using the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) for students reading above 1st grade level, Success For All Roots testing for students reading at 1st grade level, the DIBELS assessment for reading fluency in grades K-5, the end of year results compiled from the reading program that includes both Roots Test (K & 1st gr.) and the SRI test (above 1st gr.), Waterford Reports for Kindergarten, and Orchard Math pre and post test for grades 1-5.

Studies and Surveys include a continuous improvement process using school data:

Fall 2008, released WASL items as made available by the state, Parent Surveys at fall conference time, Success for All end of the year reports from Spring of 2008, and DIBELS data throughout the school year. We also collect data from these sources: Achieving Family Friendly Schools Team, the Group of Qualified Persons (GQP) meetings, the Solution Center/Detention Center Databases, written surveys from parents/families, and the recorded participation in parent/family activities.

Professional Development includes six early release days, two full staff development days, and twenty eight hours of additional paid time provided to make sure that the staff has the instructional skills to implement the building plan. At Bordeaux we have two part time readingfacilitatorswho coach and provide support to teachers in reading instruction as well as analyzes data to create instructional groupings of students. In 2008-09 one of our reading facilitators is also functioning as anRTI Coordinator, and the other reading facilitator is the assessment/tutor coordinator. We also have an academic coach who provides support in all aspects of instruction including classroom management, and we have a part time math coach who is a full time classroom teacher. See the reading, math, and writing plans and the training schedule for more information.

Washington Assessment of Student Learning

3rd grade WASL scores in reading have shown decline from 2006 to 2008 of approximately 11%. Math scores for 3rd grade have increased slightly over the last three years from 77% to 79.5%. The WASL scores in 4th grade writing have improved approx 23% from 2006 to 2008. WASL scores in 4th grade math have shown a decline in 2007 and then again in 2008.4th grade reading scores have shown an increase from 2006 to 2007 and then a decrease in 2008. 5th grade reading scores have increased slightly (approx 3%) over the last three years. Math scores for 5th grade increased 14% in 2007, but then declined 13% in 2008. Science scores have shown a small decline of 8%, but remainlow. See individual plans for Reading, Math, Writing, and Science for more information on assessment data.

Other significant assessments/data points

Orchard Math pre and post assessments indicate percentage of students making growth in spring 2008 were: 3rd grade 84%, 4th grade 80%, 5th grade 78%

DIBELS (Diagnostic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) fall 2008 data indicates that 46% of Bordeaux students are meeting Benchmark expectations. 27% of students are in need of strategic intervention in order to meet Benchmark expectations. 27% of students are in need of Intensive intervention in order to meet Benchmark expectations.

DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) data indicates in the spring of 2008 77 first grade students were given the DRA for reading. 73% (56 students) tested at or above the expected grade level.

In the fall of 2008 there were 77 second graders tested on the DRA. 71% (55 students) were at or above the expected grade level.

In the fall of 2008 68 kindergarten students were given an assessment of letter names. The data indicates that 29% (20) kindergarten students knew between 42 and 52 letter names.

School

Improvement

Goals

Strategic

Actions

1

Reading Plan 2008-2011

Student Achievement Goals

High Stakes - Current Level of Achievement

1. In the Spring of 2008 WASL scores were:

• 3rd grade 71.2% meeting standard
• 4th grade 66.3% meeting standard
• 5th grade 68.7% meeting standard

High Stakes - Achievement Goals

1. All 3rd , 4th, and 5th grade students will meet standard on WASL

1. Increase WASL scores to 90% by 2011

1. District Goal: By third grade, 90% of students will read at or above grade level

Quarterly Reports - Current Level of Achievement

1. In September of 2008 63% of the student body are reading at or above grade level.
2. In September of 2008 47% of the third graders are reading at or above grade level.
3. In September of 2008, 59% of fourth graders are reading at or above grade level.
4. In September of 2008, 67% of fifth graders are reading at or above grade level.

Quarterly Achievement Goals

1. Bordeaux Goal: All students will read at or above grade level

1. Mastery level for all students will increase at each assessment at every grade level

Student Achievement Strengths

High Stakes Assessment

1. Comprehension of literary text exceeded state performance:

• 3rd grade: 69.9%

1. Analysis and interpretation of literary text exceeded state performance:

• 3rd grade: 65.8%

3. The number of students meeting standard on WASL in Spring, 2008:

• 3rd grade: 52 of 73
• 4th grade: 59 of 88
• 5th grade: 57 of 82

4. In third grade, 75% of our Native American/Alaskan Native students met or exceeded standard.

Quarterly Reports

1. Current percentage of 2nd graders reading at or above grade level increased by 4% from September 2007 to September 2008.

1. Current percentage of 4th graders reading at or above grade level increased by 8% from September 2007 to September 2008.

1. Current percentage of 5th graders reading at or above grade level increased by 9% from September 2007 to September 2008.

1. Fluency grouping in 2nd grade proved effective.

Over the course of 17 weeks students made accelerated gains beyond those expected by state standards. State standard is a gain of 16.2 WCPM:

• Group 1 = gain of 18.9 WCPM
• Group 2 = gain of 21.1 WCPM
• Group 3 = gain of 29.9 WCPM
• Group 4 = gain of 34.7 WCPM

1. 84.2% of all students are meeting or exceeding their reading homework requirements.

Student Achievement Areas of Concern

High Stakes Assessment

1. Comprehension of informational text:

• 3rd grade: 52.1% did not meet standard
• 4th grade: 40.9% did not meet standard
• 5th grade: 36.6% did not meet standard

1. Analysis/interpretation of informational text:

• 3rd grade: 41.1% did not meet standard
• 4th grade: 31.8% did not meet standard
• 5th grade: 35.4% did not meet standard

1. Decrease in WASL scores:

• 3rd grade: 77.9% in 2007 to 71.2% in 2008
• 4th grade: 78.7% in 2007 to 66.3% in 2008
• 5th grade: 70.1% in 2007 to 68.7% in 2008

Quarterly Reports

1. 35% of incoming 1st graders are reading below grade level.
2. 25% of incoming 2nd graders are reading below grade level.
3. 53% of incoming 3rd graders are reading below grade level.
4. 41% of incoming 4th graders are reading below grade level.
5. 33% of incoming 5th graders are reading below grade level.
6. 58% ofincoming 2nd graders are reading below DIBELS benchmark fluency expectations.
7. 52% ofincoming 3rd graders are reading below DIBELS benchmark fluency expectations.
8. 50% ofincoming 4th graders are reading below DIBELS benchmark fluency expectations.
9. 57% ofincoming 5th graders are reading below DIBELS benchmark fluency expectations.

Prioritized Areas of Concern

Area of Concern #1

Students are not decoding with automaticity.

Possible Root Causes

1. 64% of Kindergarten students are entering school below benchmark
2. Pacing of lessons
3. Attendance
4. Not enough time devoted to decoding skills
5. Transfers – there are a large number of new students that are below level
6. Kindergarten program is not full day every day, so the kindergarten students do not get to complete the full kindergarten reading program.

Interventions

1. Use DIBELS as a universal screening tool in fall, winter, and spring.
2. Use diagnostic assessments, e.g. CTOPP, DRA Word Analysis, to assess phonological awareness to guide instruction and interventions.
3. Use RTI model to intervene to meet the needs of intensive and strategic students.
4. Progress Monitor intensive students weekly and strategic students every other week.
5. Implement Phonics for Reading as a decoding intervention for strategic and intensive students.
6. Implement Phonographics as a phonemic awareness intervention for small groups of strategic and intensive students.
7. Implement Reading A to Z phonics readers as a decoding intervention for small groups of strategic and intensive students.
8. Implement Earobics as a phonemic awareness and phonics intervention for small groups of intensive students.
9. Implement Road to the Code as a phonemic awareness intervention for small groups of intensive students.
10. Component meetings on pacing of lesson delivery.
11. Refer students with poor attendance to SST.

Area of Concern #2

Students are not reading fluently.

Possible Root Causes

1. Students do not have automaticity with decoding skills.

2. Students’ energy is spent decoding rather than reading for meaning.

Interventions

1. Use DIBELS as a universal screening tool in fall, winter, and spring.
2. Use RTI model to intervene to meet the needs of intensive and strategic students.
3. Progress Monitor intensive students weekly and strategic students every other week.
4. Implement Read Naturally as a fluency intervention for strategic and intensive students.
5. Implement Phonics for Reading as a decoding and fluency intervention for small groups of strategic and intensive students.
6. Implement Earobics as a phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency intervention for small groups of intensive students

1

1

School/Department Goal (please write out goal):

To increase student achievement in reading as measured by the WASL, so that by 2011, 88.1% of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students score as proficient or we meet AYP with Safe Harbor* (74.3%). In interim years, our school will make AYP *either by reaching or exceeding the current state uniform bar of 68.3% proficient, or by decreasing the percentage of non-proficient students by a minimum of 10% each year (Safe Harbor.)

Target Objective (please write out objective):

Students will decode with automaticity.

School/Department Goal (please write out goal):