Virginia Department of Education
Title I Schoolwide Plan Template
Division Name: Henry County Public Schools
School Name: Drewry Mason Elementary
Date: 12/6/14
Select One: ▢ Initial Plan ▢ Revision
Title I schools implementing schoolwide programs are required to develop schoolwide plans in accordance with Section 1114(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Guidelines for plan development include the following:
●The comprehensive plan should be developed during a one-year period;
●The plan should be developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the community to be served;
●Individuals who will carry out the plan, including teachers, principals, administrators, and if appropriate, pupil services personnel, technical assistance providers, school staff, and, if the plan relates to a secondary school, students from such school, should be involved in the development of the plan;
●The plan should be available to the Local Educational Agency (LEA), parents, and the public;
●Information in the plan should be in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language that parents can understand; and
●If appropriate, the plan should be developed in coordination with programs under Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, and the Head Start Act.
The ESEA requires ten components to be included in the schoolwide plan. The template below provides a framework that may be used to develop and/or update a schoolwide plan. For each component, the narrative section in the template should be completed in sufficient detail to document how the component has been thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed. Schoolwide plans should be reviewed annually and revised as necessary to promote continuous improvement and to reflect the school’s initiatives to upgrade the entire educational program of the school.
To maintain focus, eliminate duplication of effort, and promote comprehensiveness, schools should operate under a single plan if at all possible.A school that already has a plan for school improvement might consider amending it, rather than starting over, provided that the existing plan was based on a comprehensive needs assessment and can be revised to include the ten required schoolwide components. This template can be used by schools with existing Indistar® plans to reference indicators and tasks in the Indistar® plan that related to the schoolwide components.
Directions: Complete each of the ten components by following these steps:
Using Indistar® (available fall 2014):
●Access the Title I Schoolwide Plan template from the “Complete Form” tab of the Indistar® dashboard.
●Provide a narrative response that describes how the school has addressed the requirements for each component;
●Where applicable, identify the indicator(s) and task number(s) from the school’s Indistar® plan that align with each required component;
●Click “Save” at the bottom of the form to save your responses; and
●Submit the plan to your LEA Division Contact by returning to the dashboard. Under the “Submit Forms/Reports” tab, go to the Title I Plans section, and select the Title I Schoolwide Plan “Submit” button.
Not Using Indistar®:
●Access the Title I Schoolwide Plan template on the Title I web site http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title1/part_a/index.shtml,
●Provide a narrative response that describes how the school has addressed the requirements for each component; and
●Submit the plan as directed by your LEA Title I Coordinator.
Resources:
Schoolwide program resources, including a Schoolwide Plan Peer Review Rating Rubric, United States Department of Education (USED) guidance on Designing Schoolwide Programs, and USED guidance on Title I Fiscal Issues (including supplement/supplant and consolidating funds in schoolwide programs), can be accessed at the following Web site: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title1/part_a/index.shtml.
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)(1)(A): A comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school (including taking into account the needs of migratory children as defined in §1309(2)) that is based on the information which includes the achievement of children in relation to the state academic content standards and the state student academic achievement standards described in §1111(b)(1).
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 summary of data analyses must be included. 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 at Drewry Mason. Staff participation was relatively high (78%).
communication, feedback and recognition.
- The School Improvement Plan is developed by the School Improvement Committee which represents every grade level, itinerant, and special education teachers. Before the School Improvement Committee met in August of 2014, the entire faculty met to choose specific indicators for the plan’s focus. Committee member meet once every two weeks to monitor the plan’s progress. Administration reports progress to parents at each PTO meeting monthly and to all faculty once monthly during faculty learning meetings. The School Improvement Plan is also posted on the school’s website.
- In the Drewry Mason School Improvement Plan, 100% of the faculty will analyze and use multiple sources of data to identify students at risk.
●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 is administered to the K and 1st grade three times per year and is used for data in Child Study 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 each nine week period.
●Summary of SPBQ Analysis was completed by the entire faculty (see below).Results and successful strategies to address weaknesses were shared with all faculty members and with faculty members at all other elementary schools through a Google survey.
Student Performance By Question Analysis 2014: (based on Spring 2014 SOL scores)See below.
Math pass rate for 2013 – 2014 was 77%. Areas of weakness: 3rd grade – Complete related fact sentences (40%), compare fractions and mixed numbers using models, words, and symbols (25%), analyze and interpret information represented on graphs (48%). 4th grade – solve subtraction problems with decimals using models (40%), find common factors of two numbers, including greatest common factor(GCF) (62%), determine elapsed time (62%), recognize and extend patterns (29%), 5th grade – solve multi-step practical problems involving fractions and mixed numbers (32%), solve multi-step practical problems involving whole numbers (37%), solve multi-step practical problems involving mixed numbers (34%).
SPBQ strengths – write and represent fractions and mixed numbers using models, round numbers to a specified place value, compare whole numbers, complete related fact sentences, solve multiplication facts, compare and contrast characteristics of lines, line segments, rays, and angles, compare values of sets of coins, use estimation skills and determine appropriate units of measure to find weight/mass, identify relationship between fractions and division statements, solve problems involving addition of decimals, solve problems involving multiplication of whole numbers, recognize congruent figures, determine and represent the outcomes of events using fractional representations form 0-1 including representations on a number line, solve problems involving division of decimals through thousandths, simplify whole number numerical expressions using the order of operations, determine length of an object using U.S. customary units, calculate the median for a set of data, model a one-step linear equation.
English pass rate for 2013 – 2014 was 71%. Areas of weakness: 3rd grade - compare characters, settings, and events (22%), identify important details in a passage (37%), identify author’s purpose (27%). 4th grade - summarize details in the correct sequence (27%), draw conclusions based on textual support (37%), recognize an author’s purpose for writing (37%). 5th grade – determine the cause/effect relationship (25%), identify summary of a passage (46%), identify supporting details (41%). SPBQ strengths: identify a question that is answered in a paragraph, make an inference based on details of a narrative, identify the main idea, apply knowledge of synonyms, determine a cause for a given effect. Apply knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes, use context to identify the appropriate word meaning in a dictionary entry, describe how an author’s word choice contributes to the meaning of a phrase, make inferences on implied information using textual support.
●Summary of SOL Subgroup Data (based on SOL data from 2013-2014)
ENGLISH:
Subgroup / Students Counted / Total Students / Rate / AMO / AMO Met?
All Students / 118 / 168 / 70.2% / 69% / Yes
Gap Group 1 / 57 / 101 / 56.4% / 59% / No
Gap Group 2 / 9 / 13 / 69.2% / 57% / Too Small
Gap Group 3 / 9 / 14 / 64.2% / 60% / Too Small
Asian / 1 / 2 / 50% / 80% / Too Small
Economically Disadvantaged / 51 / 92 / 55.4% / 59% / No
Limited English Proficient / 4 / 11 / 36.3% / 52% / Too Small
Students with Disabilities / 11 / 25 / 44% / 42% / Too Small
White / 94 / 126 / 74.6% / 75% / Yes
MATHEMATICS:
Subgroup / Students Counted / Total Students / Rate / AMO / AMO Met?
All Students / 126 / 170 / 74.1% / 66% / Yes
Gap Group 1 / 66 / 103 / 64% / 57% / Yes
Gap Group 2 / 9 / 14 / 64.2% / 56% / Too Small
Gap Group 3 / 9 / 14 / 64.2% / 60% / Too Small
Asian / 2 / 2 / 100% / 82% / Too Small
Economically Disadvantaged / 60 / 94 / 63.8% / 57% / Yes
Limited English Proficient / 5 / 11 / 45.4% / 53% / Too Small
Students with Disabilities / 11 / 25 / 44% / 49% / Too Small
White / 99 / 127 / 77.9% / 70% / Yes
- MAP Data Summary – Percent of students at or above grade level mean
Fall / Winter / Fall / Winter / Fall / Winter
K / 54 / 60 / 30 / 58
1 / 48 / 45 / 44 / 52
2 / 60 / 67 / 57 / 58
3 / 53 / 53 / 36 / 29 / 43 / 39
4 / 60 / 66 / 52 / 61 / 54 / 66
5 / 63 / 65 / 65 / 63 / 50 / 58
Identified Areas of Weakness according to MAP assessment:
Fall 2014
Areas of weakness according to math MAP assessment – measurement (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grades), number and number sense (1st grade), probability and statistics (kindergarten), patterns, functions, and algebra (2nd grade), and computation and estimation (Kindergarten, 4th grade). Areas of weakness according to the reading MAP assessment – comprehension of fiction (grades 2 and 4), comprehension of non-fiction (grades 2, 3, and 5), word origins (grade 3), phonetic principles and word analysis (kindergarten), writing (1st grade), oral language (1st grade). Areas of weakness for language usage according to the language usage MAP assessment– communicate ideas in a variety of forms (grades 3 and 5), organize for unity, sequence, elaborate ideas (grades 3 and 4), phonetic principles and word analysis (kindergarten), writing (1st grade), oral language (1st grade), comprehension of nonfiction and fiction (2nd grade), and edit for grammar, structure, and paragraphing (grades 4 and 5).
Areas of Weakness According to MAP Assessment Winter 2014
K – Writing, Computation / Estimation
1 – Reading and Writing, Number / Number Sense and Measurement
2 – Comprehension of Nonfiction, Computation and Estimation
3 – Word Origins, Patterns / Functions / Algebra and Computation / Estimation, Organize, Sequencing, Elaborate Ideas
4 – Comprehension of Nonfiction, Measurement and Computation / Estimation, Communicating Ideas and Editing
5 – Word Origins, Number / Number Sense and Measurement, Organize, Sequence, Elaborate Ideas
●PALS – 40 identified for PALS tutoring (7 Kindergarteners, 16 first graders, 6 second graders, 11 third graders)
●WIDA summary – 1st – 5th grades 52% progressed at least one level from spring 2014 to fall 2014. 29% stayed on the same level. 19% regressed (went down a level).
●AIMS summary – Fall 2014 (Number below average)*These students are identified for immediate interventions and monitoring through weekly probing.
Grade / Letter Naming Fluency / Letter Sound Fluency / Phoneme Segmentation / Nonsense Word Fluency / Oral Counting / Number Identification / Quantity Discrimination / Missing
Number
K / 16 / 15 / 15
1 / 21 / 20 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 19 / 19 / 20
●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 Edivation and Google Docs. Both of these tools enable administration to disaggregate data to focus on targeted areas of strategy implementation in classrooms. According to walkthrough data as of 11/17/14, 53%% of teacher lessons include the 4Cs (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity, 60% of teacher plans include higher level thinking questions.
Related Indistar® indicators (if applicable): TA01
Component 2 - §1114(b)(1)(B): Schoolwide reform strategies that—
- Provide opportunities for all children to meet the state’s proficient and advanced levels of student academic achievement described in §1111(b)(1)(D);
- Use effective methods and instructional strategies that are based on scientifically-based research that—
- Strengthen the core academic program in the school;
- Increase the amount and quality of learning time, such as providing an extended school year and before- and after-school and summer programs and opportunities, and help provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum;
- Include strategies for meeting the educational needs of historically underserved populations;
- Include strategies to address the needs of all children in the school, but particularly the needs of low-achieving children and those at risk of not meeting the state student academic achievement standards who are members of the target population of any program that is included in the schoolwide program, which may include—
- Counseling, pupil services, and mentoring services;
- College and career awareness and preparation such as college and career guidance, personal finance education, and innovative teaching methods, which may include applied learning and team-teaching strategies; and
- The integration of vocational and technical education programs; and
- Address how the school will determine if such needs have been met; and
- Are consistent with, and are designed to implement, the state and local improvement plans, if any.
Evidence: Scientifically-based research strategies based on identified needs and designed to raise the achievement level of all students on content standards. Include a description of how the reform strategies will be evaluated for effectiveness.
Narrative: The School Improvement Plan for the 2014-15 school year will include interventions and strategies to improve student performance in the areas of reading and math. Our student needs assessment data are reviewed and monitored regularly through school improvement meetings every other week. In addition, data is also tracked to ensure proficient and advanced levels of performance using the following:Unit tests / Common Assessments / Throughout the year – data meetings with principal three times per year.
PALS (K-3) / Fall, Midyear, Spring
AIMS Web / Fall, Midyear, Spring and weekly probes
SRI / Fall, Midyear, Spring
Attendance / Monthly
Fluency K-2 / Weekly
Dolch Words K-1 / Weekly
Writing Prompts / Fall, Midyear, Spring
MAP Assessments (Reading and Math) / Fall, Winter, Spring
DSA Spelling Analysis / Fall, Spring
AIMS probes for specific reading and math skills / Weekly
ELL monitor forms completed by teachers / Quarterly
After School Tutoring formative and summative assessments / Weekly
Multiple strategies based on scientific research are used to provide additional assistance to students failing or at-risk of failing core subject areas or SOL assessments as well as moving students toward advanced levels of performance. These include:
●Daily Five full implementation in the K-2 classrooms and implementation in the 3-5 grades for 2015-16.
●After school tutoring twice per week for students who need remediation in identified skills. (3 hours each week)
●Intervention / enrichment blocks for all K-2 classrooms. 30 minutes daily.
●Small group instruction. Math and Reading. Daily with paraprofessional support for reading.
●Alignment and development of lessons with the Curriculum Framework.
●ELL services for identified students (30 minutes per day).
●Reading A-Z
●IXL Math
●Read 180 (Daily , 1.5 hours for identified 4th and 5th graders with reading specialist)
●PALS tutoring, grades K-3, for identified students 30 minutes per day outside of reading or math classroom instruction.
●AIMS targeted interventions for specific reading and math skills and weekly probes for students who are below average (K-1); 2nd grade teachers do this for students who are in the bottom 5th percentile according to the MAP assessment in reading and math.
●Literacy Groups with Literacy Team (K-2, 1 hour per day)
●ELL Nights integrated with PTA and Math / Reading Night
●Parent Involvement Nights for Math and Reading integrated with PTA nights
●Skills Pointer from Map used to develop lessons for students based on needed identified skills from the MAP assessment.
●Marzano’s strategies (non-linguistic representations, setting objectives and providing feedback, identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, homework and practice, cooperative learning, generating and testing hypotheses, cues, questions, and advance organizers) integrated into every classroom during reading and math instruction.
●Differentiation of Instruction, use of instructional DI coach (Dr. Kay Brimijoin) monthly 6 times per year.
●Child Study
●Use of the new Henry County curriculum lesson plan format which begins with Stage 1 transfer goals, transfer goals, KUDs, and essential questions, Stage 2 Performance Assessment(s) including 4Cs and DOK levels, and Stage 3 daily plans.
●Math and Reading have extended instructional time in the master schedule
●Weekly collaborative meetings
●Monthly K-2 and 3-5 vertical collaboration meetings focused on Daily 5 and reading strategies
●Increase use of DOK question stems and varied levels of questions / tasks in all classrooms
●Grade level teachers, ELL tutor, SPED teacher, and Reading Specialist, attend vertical meetings to align instruction and discuss effective methods of instruction.
Related Indistar® indicators (if applicable): Interventions are data driven from assessments, teacher observations, research based interventions , and change on individual need. TAO II and TAOIII
Component 3 - §1114(b)(1)(C): Instruction by highly qualified teachers.