Spring Garden Elementary School
School Improvement Plan
2015-2016
(submitted 8/15/15)
School Vision / MissionVision
Spring Garden Elementarywill be a results-oriented collaborative culture focused on continuous learning within a safe and nurturing environment.
Mission
Spring Garden Elementaryis a community that works together to help everyone learn and grow.
Carroll County Public Schools Vision 2018: Focus on Excellence Objectives
Prepare Globally Competitive Students
Fully implement a CCPS curriculum aligned with the Maryland State Standards.
Partner with local institutions of higher education to ensure college readiness.
Enhance programs to ensure career readiness for all students.
Meet Each Student’s Instructional Needs
Close the achievement gap between highest achieving and most struggling students.
Provide appropriate education services for students identified with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Enhance alternative programs responsive to the needs of at-risk students.
Implement a Gifted and Talented Program aligned with COMAR requirements.
Enhance alternative learning opportunities through the use of digital resources.
Develop and Maintain an Effective Workforce
Attract and retain highly qualified, effective, and diverse employees.
Promote a culture of diversity in the workplace.
Develop an electronic observation, evaluation, feedback, and professional development system.
Continuously monitor the organizational structure to support the Vision 2018 Plan.
Provide a Secure, Orderly, Modern Environment
Reduce incidents of bullying, violence, intolerance, and behavioral disruptions.
Improve and modernize the environment within our school facilities and school buses.
Enhance security for all CCPS students, staff, volunteers, and visitors.
School Needs Assessment
Text Evidence
Grade / CBA Spring 2015
% scoring 70% or Higher / % Met or Exceeding Assessed Reading Level
Expectations / % Met or Exceeding SRI
Expectations / % meeting or exceeding Concepts of Print Expectations
Pre-K / 82.35%
K / 100%
1 / 80.41%
2 / 65.98% / 84.54% / 71.25%
3 / 67.39% / 93.47% / 68.13%
4 / 54.74% / 91.58% / 79.35%
5 / 86.21% / 98.88% / 84.09%
Vertical teaming and pacing notes indicated that students had difficulty retelling, summarizing using the main idea and important details from the text, and independently returning to the text to gather text evidence. SRI, and CBA achievements are comparative; however the percentage of students meeting the reading level expectations in grades 2-4 are relatively higher compared to the percentage of students meeting the expectations for CBA and SRI.
Structures of Mathematics
Percentage of Students Meeting the Content Standard* on Math Benchmark
Grade / January 2014 / May 2014 / January 2015 / May 2015
PreK / n/a / 76 / n/a / 93
K / 88 / 80 / 96 / 87
1 / 81 / 85 / 89 / 84
2 / 60 / 77 / 60 / 77
3 / 47 / 73 / 47 / 63
4 / 89 / 73 / 81 / 78
5 / 65 / 38 / 72 / 47
*PreK and K standard is Operations and Algebraic Thinking. 1st grade through 5th grade standard is Number and Operations in Base 10.
Data from the 2014 and 2015 benchmark assessments demonstrate increased difficulty with applying the structures of mathematics. Vertical teaming and school developed progress monitoring tools reveal difficulty beginning in first grade with subtraction as it relates to the difference between two numbers. This concern continues in upper grades with problems requiring students to use the structures of mathematics such as regrouping, subtracting decimals and fractions.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
Teachers at Spring Garden Elementary have spent the past two years learning to collect and better analyze data. This information needs to be extended to include instructional change in the classroom. During vertical planning discussions, teachers identified the need for differentiation during first pass instruction as well as the need for implementing and monitoring appropriate interventions. What that should look like to increase student achievement is the next step.
School Improvement Goals to Target Areas from Needs Assessment
- Students in 2nd through 5th grade will identify relevant text evidence when reading grade appropriate text as evidenced by 80% or more of the students scoring 70% or higher on the CBA2.
- Students in grades pre-k to 5 will look for and make use of the structure of mathematics (Practice 7) to answer questions accurately at least 80% of the time as measured by identified standard on the benchmark assessments.
- Teachers will analyze student data and identify instructional changes to be made as a result of reviewing student data.
School Improvement Goal
- Students in 2nd through 5th grade will identify relevant text evidence when reading grade appropriate text as evidenced by 80% or more of the students scoring 70% or higher on the CBA2.
Strategic Actions / Time Line / Measures of Success / Desired Performance Level
1.1Teachers will work with the reading specialist to identify and develop at least 3 high quality text dependent questionsaligned to standards.
1.2 Teachers will develop lessons that model and incorporate the use of high quality text dependent questions during read aloud and small groups. / Initial PD September-October, 2015
Minimally, Quarterly review thereafter
September, 2015 – June, 2016 / Teachers will share the high quality text dependent questions they developed.
Teacher reflection from the professional development opportunity will indicate understanding and any needs for next steps
Teachers will participate in Notice and Note orFalling in Love with Close Reading book study
Students will independently respond to at least 5 high quality text dependent questions monthly with a score of 80% or higher.
Formal and informal observations will demonstrate use of high quality text dependent questions based upon read aloud, small group, or independent reading
Teachers will share sample student responses and identify next steps for instruction at least once per month.
1.4 Teachers will collaborate with teams and support professionals to establish grading standards and expectations that reflect accurate and consistent measures of the learning objectives.
1.5 Teachers will develop an SLO based upon analysis of data for their assigned students that identifies a critical concern required to answer grade appropriate questions using text support. / August, 2015-June, 2016
October, 2015-June, 2016 / Team planning notes will reflect group scoring, review of student work, use of CBA data and report cards
Pacing meetings will demonstrate a shared vision of student attainment of an identified standard.
Common teacher-created assessments
SLO results
School Improvement Goal
2. Students in grades pre-k to 5 will look for and make use of the structure of mathematics (Practice 7) to answer questions accurately at least 80% of the time as measured by identified standard on the benchmark assessments.
Strategic Actions / Time Line / Measures of Success / Desired Performance Level
2.1 Teachers will work with the math resource teacher to:
- Identify what the student behaviors will look like when looking for and making use of the structure of mathematics
- Design assessments
- Anticipate student responses
- Design the instructional plan
2.3 Teachers will provide instructional opportunities that move from concrete to pictorial to abstract representations in order to develop an understanding of subtraction as finding the difference between numbers.
2.4 Teachers will analyze students’ errors to determine if they are a result of not having conceptual understanding or lack of accuracy in order to make appropriate instructional decisions (re-teaching, flexible groups, intervention).
2.5 Teachers will use the 8 teaching practices described in Principles to Action when planning daily learning experiences.
2.6 Teachers will develop an SLO based upon their analysis of data for their assigned students that identifies a critical concern requiring students to make use of math structure. / September-October, 2015
Quarterly review
Biweekly
Biweekly
August to June team planning as needed
August, 2015-June, 2016
October, 2015-June, 2016 / Informal and formal observations will demonstrate instruction related to practice 7
Number Talks will be used a minimum of three times per week
Selected formative and summative assessment items reflecting use of math structures (example - exit tickets)
80% of students will score 80% or higher on formative and summative assessment items involving subtraction
Team meeting notes and lesson plans reflecting revisions to instruction based upon errors identified
Formal and informal observations and lesson plans will reflect practices
SLO results
School Improvement Goal
3. Teachers will analyze student data and identify instructional changes to be made as a result of reviewing student data.
Strategic Actions / Time Line / Measures of Success / Desired Performance Level
3.1Use data from June 2015 vertical teaming to identify “on the cusp” kids and identify instructional strategies needed.
3.2Define criteria for at-risk students (behavior, attendance, speech versus academic) and plan for routine, on-going monitoring of the academic progress for identified students.
3.3Teachers will analyze multiple pieces of data (formal and informal) to identify student needs for small group instruction.
3.4Teachers will use informal and formal data to determine and monitor interventions.
3.5Share data related to use of text evidence for all grade levels and sub-groups at faculty meetings. / August-September, 2015 KidTalking and
Team Meetings
Collaborative meetings with special education, pacing meetings
Biweekly team planning
Biweekly team planning
August 2015, Feb. 2016, May 2016 / KidTalking, Team Meetings, Collaborative meetings with special educators, and pacing meetings will reflect criteria for identification of students and strategies needed
KidTalking, Team Meetings, Collaborative meetings with special educators, and pacing meetings will reflect criteria for identification of students and data to be monitored
Teachers will use the school-based progress monitoring tool and team planning notes will reflect data discussion.
Team planning and Kid Talking notes will reflect group scoring, review of student work and attainment of standards
Use of CBA and other rubrics
Faculty meeting minutes will reflect discussion of text evidence data from August, 2015 to May, 2016 in each subgroup
3.6Review data related to the use of math structure for all student sub-groups at faculty meetings.
3.7Develop a tool to collect, monitor and sort lead data related to instructional goals (SLO, SIP, individual student goals, intervention kids –“cusp kids”, special education kids, FaRMs)
3.8Collect and monitor lag data using the progress monitoring tool (posttest, benchmark, CBA, SRI, PLA, RR, etc.) / August 2015, Feb. 2016, May 2016
September 2015 - October 2015
August 2015 – June 2016 / Faculty meeting minutes will reflect discussion of data related to the successful completion of math problems requiring structure from August, 2015 to May, 2016 in each subgroup
The instructional leadership team will develop a monitoring tool to place on the share drive to house data related to SIP goals 1 and 2 for “cusp kids”.
Progress monitoring tool will be completed for each student pre-k to 5 and team meeting notes will reflect next instructional steps based upon analysis of data