Wolfpit Growth Plan
   

WOLFPIT Elementary School

 

School Growth Plan

 

2011-2014

 

School Growth Plan - Flowchart for Alignment

 

 

Step #1

Review District Goals

District Data Team

 

 

 

Step #2

Conduct School Data Analysis and Complete Executive Summary

Used to create and support the School SMART Goal by the School Data Team

 

 

 

Step#3

Create School SMART Goals

Based on the Data Analysis by the School Data Team

 

 

 

Step#4

Create Implementation and Results Indicators (If…Then - adult and student behavior)

Used to support the SMART Goals

 

 

 

Step# 5

Complete Implementation Timeline

Used to support the Implementation Indicators (adult behavior only)

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

 

 

Wolfpit School is a diverse school (both racially and economically) with 304 students from K to 5th grade.   We have now fully implemented the new SRT process and new forms utilizing the SRBI framework (Scientific Research-Based Interventions) into our work at the school. The district adopted a modified form of Wolfpit School’s SRBI forms for use district-wide along with input from a number of other schools and individuals. This new SRT process is currently being provided (with a very positive effect) to improve the academic progress of students who have been struggling academically at the school. The school has also implemented a new vocabulary program (Elements of Reading) in grades 3-5 due to its effectiveness over the past few years in grades K-2. We are also one of six elementary schools in the district running a full K-5 pilot of the GoMath! program which uses the new Common Core State Standards in Math. The district’s math department and the GoMath! company are providing professional development for our staff on the program during the school year.  

 


For the 2011-2014 Wolfpit School Growth Plan, we are using data from the past four years of the CMT in reading and math from our 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students. Also being considered are various assessment pieces, including DRA-2 scores for grades 1-5, Lexia software, CBAS, Common Formative Assessments, District Benchmarks, Kindergarten screening and Concepts about Print (CAP) assessments, writing portfolios (K-5), student reading and math portfolios (K-5), district assessments in reading and math (K-5), GoMath! assessments (K-5), and math journals (3-5).

 

 

The goals for this growth plan were identified by the building-level data team with input from our instructional level data teams and the staff at large which included overall school goals for Literacy, Numeracy, and Communication. The literacy and numeracy goals were selected based on trend data from the past four years of CMT results for our students along with any noted areas of concern from staff, parents, and the community. The communication goal was selected based on the need to ensure that each school in Norwalk communicates well with its parent community.

 

 

Stakeholders are involved in numerous ways at the school. All certified staff have been trained in data teams and data analysis. Parents have been informed of the work of our data teams through a yearly presentation at a PTO meeting.  The Title 1 Parent-School Committee will be meeting regularly to discuss the work of the school to help meet the needs of our students who qualify for Title 1 services. Regular feedback from parents on the work of the school is gathered by our teachers, office staff, and administrators through our PTO meetings, open house, welcome events, conference nights, and other special events at the school. Daily parent and community contact is also fostered through the work of the administrators and office staff of the school.

 

 

 

 

The members of the School Data Team are:

 

Frances Mahoney – Principal                                        Christopher Weiss – Assistant Principal

Linda DiMeglio – Literacy Specialist                             Teri Scatamacchia – Kindergarten Teacher

Matina Panagiotidis – First Grade Teacher                    Shawn Sullivan – Second Grade Teacher

Danielle D’Andrea – Third Grade Teacher                    Tracey Kalmanides – Fourth Grade Teacher

Nicki Gotouhidis – Fifth Grade Teacher                        Lisa Page – ELL Teacher

Anne Beluk – School Social Worker                             Kim Troccolo - Special Education Teacher

 

The grade level representatives on the school data team are also the instructional data team leaders for the weekly instructional data team time for each grade level.

 

Some unique factors that may impact the success of our plan include our highly diverse student body in terms of racial, economic, and language diversity. As of this past year, 53.5% of our student population were either Hispanic (31.3%), Black (18.7%), or Asian (3.5%) and 37.1% of our student population qualify for free or reduced lunch. In addition, 18% of our students were receiving ELL services. We have a well trained staff on the SRT process (using the SRBI framework), Data Teams, Data Driven Decision Making, Readers and Writers Workshop, and Common Formative Assessments.  We are also piloting the Go Math! Program (based on the new Common Core State Standards).  In addition, we have a literacy specialist (now half time at the school) who provides assistance to all of our teachers on improving the literacy program of the school. We also now have three (up from two previously) Title 1 tutors who provide additional targeted interventions and assistance to students in the Title 1 program.

 

Data is regularly analyzed at instructional data team meetings and based on the analysis, areas of need are selected. The 5 step CALI process is utilized to note student progress, analyze student work and results, set SMART goals, identify areas of weakness/strength and determine effective teaching strategies. After these strategies are put in place, their success is reviewed to determine which were successful. Unsuccessful strategies are removed or modified while successful ones are shared and their use is expanded within the school. Each major subgroup is also considered in this analysis to assist with pinpointing the most effective strategies and in determining success.

 

The Wolfpit School Growth Plan is connected to the District Improvement Plan with its focus on CMT results and school and district targets for the next three years. The school targets for 2012-2014 have been set with the goal of meeting or exceeding the district targets in each area. As we reach or exceed our goals, we are contributing to the district reaching or exceeding its goals. Together we are working to improve the education for every student in the Norwalk Public Schools. 

 

 ‚ÄčThe goals to improve student achievement are:

School Goal 1: Improve performance in literacy, particularly in reading and writing, of all students in grades K-5 measured by local and state assessments.

School Goal 2: Improve performance in numeracy for all students in grades K-5 as measured by local and state assessments.


Growth Plan Data Sheet - WOLFPIT Elementary School

 Goal 1: Literacy   NCLB Targets: 79% through 2010. NCLB Target: 89% in 2011 through 2013
 School Reading Scores - Percentage at or above Proficiency
CMT  06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 2011-12 District Targets
Actual Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
School Target  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
 Grade 3  78.8 55.8 69.2 59.6 75.8 76 74 78 80
Grade 4 57.8 68 65 78 67.2 76  73 77 81
Grade 5  70.5 65.2 87.5 70 80.5 78 78 80  84


Goal 2: Numeracy NCLB Targets: 82% through 2010. NCLB Target: 91% in 2011 through 2013 
 School Math Scores - Percentage at or above Proficiency
 CMT 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 2011-12 District Targets
 Actual  Actual Actual Actual Actual School Target 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
 Grade 3 84.6 81.4 76.9 78.9 87.9 88 86 88  90
 Grade 4 55.6 82 77.5 81 77.6 88 86 89 91
 Grade 5 79.6 60.9 91.7 87.3 92.7 90  90 91 93

Literacy Goals:

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 1 scoring at proficient or higher in reading will increase from 33% to 80%* by the end of the year as measured by the DRA-2 in May.

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 2 scoring at proficient or higher in reading will increase from 61% to 85%* by the end of the year as measured by the DRA-2 in May.

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 3 scoring at proficient or higher in reading will increase from 85% to 90%* by the end of the year as measured by the DRA-2 in May.

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 4 scoring at proficient or higher in reading will increase from 68% to 80% by the end of the year as measured by the DRA-2 in May and the students will achieve 76% proficient or higher as measured by the CMT administered in March. 

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 5 scoring at proficient or higher in reading will increase from 54% to 80% by the end of the year as measured by the DRA-2 in May and the students will achieve 78% proficient or higher as measured by the CMT administered in March.

 

 

 

Data Analysis:

· According to the CMT reading results for grades 3-5, there is a need for improvement in the area of making reader/text connections (strand 3) and examining the content and structure(strand 4). According to the CMT writing results for grades 3-5, there is a need for improvement in the area of composing/revising.

· According to the DRA-2 results from the fall administration, 60% of the students in grade 1-5 are reading at a proficient or higher level on their grade level.

 

Implementation Indicators

 

1. If 100% of the teachers differentiate instruction (which may include providing and monitoring their students’ book selections (ex. leveled libraries)), then a balanced literacy block will result.

 

2. If 100% of the classroom teachers use the Elements of Reading vocabulary program, then language arts instruction will be enhanced.

 

3. If 100% of the teachers give effective written and/or oral feedback during the literacy block to students, then literacy instruction will improve.

 

4. If 100% of the classroom teachers and subject area specialists participate in instructional data teams, then the teachers will be able to analyze data and revise plans of action.

 

5. If 100% of the classroom teachers and subject area specialist participate in the SRT process (SRBI framework), then teachers will be able to monitor and appropriately create strategies for interventions.

 

Results Indicators – describe with an “If/Then” statement that defines student action and the expected student results that will support the school goals. (i.e. If all students are trained in CRISS Strategies, then reading comprehension will improve as measured by pre/post CFA results)

 

1. If all students actively participate during the balanced literacy block, then student achievement will increase as measured by the DRA-2, CMT, CFAs, District Benchmarks, and CBAS.

2. If all students actively participate in the Elements of Reading vocabulary program, then written and expressive language proficiency will increase as measured by the DRA-2, CMT, CFAs, District Benchmarks, and CBAS.

3. If all students receive effective oral and/or written feedback during the balanced literacy block, then student achievement will increase as measured by the DRA-2, CMT, CFAs, District Benchmarks, and CBAS.

4. If all students actively participate in their learning by using the strategies teachers discuss during Instructional Data Team meetings, then student achievement will increase as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, the DRA-2, District Benchmarks, the CMT, and CBAS.

5. If all students who are identified as needing early intervention through the SRT process (using the SRBI model) participate in intervention sessions, then their achievement in reading will improve as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, the DRA-2, District Benchmarks, the CMT, and CBAS


School Growth Plan - Implementation Timeline

 

Adult Action– are the steps necessary to complete the implementation indicator for each goal

Person Responsible – specifically names the person(s) responsible for the completion of the Adult Action

Resources – materials needed to complete the Adult Action

Evidence of Completion (Replaces: Monitor Notes/Implementation Indicators on Chart)

    • Did the adults do what they said they would do?
    • What evidence will you use to document that adult behaviors changed as a result of your actions?
    • What evidence will you use to document that student outcome(s) is/are improving?

Implementation Timeline

Adult Actions

(Specify Completion Date)

 

Person Responsible

Resources

Evidence of Completion

1. If 100% of the teachers differentiate instruction (which may include providing and monitoring their students’ book selections (ex. leveled libraries)), then a balanced literacy block will result. (by May 2012).

 

2. If 100% of the classroom teachers use the Elements of Reading vocabulary program, then language arts instruction will be enhanced (by May 2012).

 

3. If 100% of the teachers give effective written and/or oral feedback during the literacy block to students, then literacy instruction will improve (by May 2012).

 

4. If 100% of the classroom teachers and subject area specialists participate in instructional data teams, then the teachers will be able to analyze data and revise plans of action(by May 2012).

 

5. If 100% of the classroom teachers and subject area specialist participate in the SRT process, then teachers will be able to monitor and appropriately create strategies for interventions (by May 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

All classroom teachers

and subject area specialists, Literacy Specialist, DiMeglio, Special education teachers, Lyons and Troccolo, ELL Teacher, Page, Administrators Mahoney and Weiss

 

 

 

 

 

All Classroom teachers and subject area specialists, Literacy Specialist

 

 

 

SRT coordinator, Scatamacchia, SRT team, Classroom Teachers, Literacy Specialist, Social Worker, Beluk, Speech Pathologist, Goico

Lexia, Teacher made CFAs, Leveled texts, Bookroom, Reading Tutors, Library resources, Study Island, CAP, DRA-2, Haskins strategies and materials, Administrators

 

Elements of Reading vocabulary program

 

 

 

 

RTI book (Nancy Boyles),Fountas&Pinnell,Calkins (Units of Study for Primary Writing),Empowering Writers, NPS ELA Curriculum

 

Data team logs, student data, assessments, DT Times, Wednesday Professional Activity Times, School DT times

 

 

 

Speech, Social work, SRT documents and action plans

Lesson plans, Classroom observations, results of CFAs, district benchmark assessments, CMT results, DRA-2, School and Instructional Data Team minutes, Walkthroughs

 

Lesson plans will reflect Readers Workshop and use of Elements of Reading, Classroom observation, Student Portfolios, Walkthroughs

 

Lesson plans, Observation, Reading Response Journals, Walkthroughs

 

 

 

Instructional and School data team minutes

 

 

 

 

 

Number of referrals to PPT, implementation of action plans and revision of action plans, number of cases closed

 


Numeracy Goals:

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 3 at proficient or higher will be 88% by the end of the school year as measured by the CMT administered in March.

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 4 at proficient or higher will be 88% by the end of the school year as measured by the CMT administered in March.

The percentage of Wolfpit students in grade 5 at proficient or higher will be 90% by the end of the school year as measured by the CMT administered in March.

 

 

Data Analysis:

· According to the CMT math results for grades 3-5, there is a need for improvement in the area of estimating solutions to problems(strand 11), and mathematical applications(strand 25).

· According to the CMT math results for grade 4, equivalent fractions (strand 3), time (strand 14), and approximating measures (strand 15) were also areas in need of improvement.

· According to the CMT math results for grade 5, computation with whole numbers and decimals(strand 7), solving word problems (strand 9), estimating solutions (strand 11), and customary and metric measures (strand 16) were also areas in need of improvement.

Implementation Indicators – describe with an “If/Then” statements that defines the adult actions to be implemented that will support the school goals. This is stated in terms of a percentage of staff that is expected to implement the action. The “then” part of the statement is the evidence that the adult action has been implemented (e.g. If 100% of teachers are trained in CRISS strategies, then teacher’s lesson plans will reflect CRISS strategies).

 

1. If 100% of the teachers differentiate instruction through the implementation of the new GoMath! program, then the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in math will be implemented in each classroom.

 

2. If 100% of classroom teachers will implement math portfolios and GoMath! work texts (K-5), and math journals (3-5), then teachers can analyze the results of student achievement.

 

3. If 100% of the teachers give effective written and/or oral feedback during the numeracy block to students, then numeracy instruction will improve.

 

4. If 100% of the teachers participate in instructional data teams, then the teachers will be able to analyze data and revise plans of action.

 

5. If 100% of the teachers participate in the SRT/SRBI process, then teachers will be able to monitor and appropriately create strategies for interventions.

 

 

Results Indicators – describe with an “If/Then” statement that defines student action and the expected student results that will support the school goals. (i.e. If all students are trained in CRISS Strategies, then reading comprehension will improve as measured by pre/post CFA results)

 

1. If all students actively participate in the GoMath! program during the math instruction block, then students will meet grade level expectations and student achievement will increase as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, District Benchmarks, the CMT, CBAS, and GoMath! assessments.

 

2. If all students actively contribute/participate in completing GoMath! work texts, creating math portfolios(K-5), and math journals (3-5), then student achievement will increase as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, District Benchmarks, the CMT, CBAS, and GoMath! assessments.

 

3. If all students receive effective oral and/or written feedback during the numeracy block, then student achievement will increase as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, District Benchmarks, the CMT, CBAS, and GoMath! assessments.

 

4. If all students actively participate in their learning by using the strategies teachers discuss during Instructional Data Team meetings, then student achievement will increase as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, District Benchmarks, the CMT, CBAS, and GoMath! assessments.

 

5. If those students who are identified as needing early intervention through the SRT process (using the SRBI model) participate in intervention sessions, then their achievement results in math will improve as measured by results from pre/post CFAs, District Benchmarks, the CMT, CBAS, and GoMath! assessments.

 


School Growth Plan - Implementation Timeline

 

Adult Action– are the steps necessary to complete the implementation indicator for each goal

Person Responsible – specifically names the person(s) responsible for the completion of the Adult Action

Resources – materials needed to complete the Adult Action

 

Evidence of Completion (Replaces: Monitor Notes/Implementation Indicators on Chart)

    • Did the adults do what they said they would do?
    • What evidence will you use to document that adult behaviors changed as a result of your actions?
    • What evidence will you use to document that student outcome(s) is/are improving?

 

Implementation Timeline

Adult Actions

(Specify Completion Date)

 

Person Responsible

Resources

Evidence of Completion

1. If 100% of the teachers differentiate instruction through the implementation of the new GoMath! program, then the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in math will be implemented in each classroom (by spring 2012).

 

2. If 100% of classroom teachers will implement math portfolios and GoMath! work texts (K-5), and math journals (3-5), then teachers can analyze the results of student achievement (by spring 2012).

 

3. If 100% of the teachers give effective written and/or oral feedback during the numeracy block to students, then numeracy instruction will improve (by spring 2012).

 

4. If 100% of the teachers participate in instructional data teams, then the teachers will be able to analyze data and revise plans of action (by spring 2012).

 

5. If 100% of the teachers participate in the SRT/SRBI process, then teachers will be able to monitor and appropriately create strategies for interventions (by spring 2012).

Classroom Teachers, District Math Coaches, Glick and Fisher, Math Supervisor, Creller

 

 

 

 

Classroom teachers, Instructional Data Team leaders, Administrators

 

 

 

All classroom teachers, Special education teachers, Lyons/Troccolo, ELL Teacher, Page, Admin. Mahoney/Weiss

 

 

All Classroom teachers and subject area specialists

 

 

 

SRT coordinator, Scatamacchia, SRT team, Classroom teachers

 

Go Math! Materials, Study Island, Math Manipulatives, GoMath! Monthly PD

 

 

 

 

Materials to implement math portfolios and math journals, the GoMath! work texts.

 

 

 

Go Math! Materials, Study Island, Math Manipulatives

 

 

 

Data team logs, student data, assessments, DT Times, Wed. Professional Activity Periods, School DT times

 

SRT documents and action plans

 

 

Lesson plans, Classroom observations, results of CFAs, CBAS, CMT results, GoMath! assessments, School/Instructional Data Team minutes, Small Group Tiered Instruction, Walkthroughs, Differentiated Activities

 

 

Lesson plans, Classroom observations, Student Portfolios/Journals,School/Instruc. DT minutes, Small Group Tiered Instruction, Walkthroughs, Differentiated Activities

 

 

 

Lesson plans, Observation, Walkthroughs

 

 

 

 

Instructional and School data team minutes

 

 

 

 

Number of referrals to PPT, implementation of action plans and revising of action plan, number of cases closed

 


School Compliance Activities for 2011-2014                                            

 

Ø      All schools will have Instructional/Grade - Level Data teams (IDTs) and a School Data Team (SDT) operating at an Exemplary level, as measured by the CSDE rubric.

 

Ø      School Growth Plans for 2011-2014 will be reviewed and rated at a minimum expected rating of Proficient by the DDDMT, as measured by a rating rubric designed for this purpose, by November 2011.

 

Ø      Classroom Walkthroughs will be conducted at all schools in order to provide evidence that adult actions are focusing on the school and district goals.

 

Ø      Family and Community engagement will use the District adopted survey to focus on improving school communication to support student learning.

 

Improve Individual School Communication with Families and Community

Year 1: 2011-2012 School year

 

Conduct a School Communication needs assessment and review outcome

Year 2: 2012-2013 School year

 

Develop and Implement Plan to Improve School Communication

Year 3: 2013-2014 School year

 

Revise and Implement Plan to Improve School Communication

 

 

***School Growth Plans will provide evidence that Compliance Activities are being addressed