accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/school...

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2014-15

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

Discovery’s learning community champions the continuous improvement process, with the goal of each learner realizing his or her fullest potential.

Vision Statement:

A community of life-long learners equipped with 21st Century skills

Communication of School Improvement Plan: Briefly explain how the mission, vision and school improvement plan is communicated to all stakeholders.

In addition to the publishing and sharing of this plan with all stakeholders, the school’s vision and mission will be continuously communicated to all through a wide variety of media, such as:

School Website Newsletters Blackboard Connect Face-to-Face meetings and events throughout the school year Other school publications

During preplanning, instructional staff had the opportunity to provide input and help develop this plan.Final Version 8.12.14

Discovery Elementary South

Elizabeth A. Evander Dr. Mark Mullins

Stephanie Connolly

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2014-15

Part 1: Planning for Student Achievement

RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement-Examples may be, but are NOT limited to survey data, walk-through data, minutes from PLC’s or Dept. Mtgs. Move away from talking about every single data source and determine your rationale. Much like the PGP, what is your focus and why?)

Considerations/Examples: What are the areas of success? Where are concerns? What trends do you see? What kind of data are you looking at within your school? What data do you use for teacher practice? How are teachers planning? Are plans Standards Driven? Are Essential Questions meaningful? What do CWT tell you about instruction? How will you monitor the depth of implementation?

In 2014, students in grades 3-6 demonstrated the following achievement outcomes:

3rd Grade—62% meeting high standards in FCAT Reading (+12% change from 2013) 3rd Grade—53% meeting high standards in FCAT Mathematics (+9% change from 2013) 4th Grade—44% meeting high standards in FCAT Reading (-15% change from 2013) 4th Grade—35% meeting high standards in FCAT Writing (-5% change from 2013) 4th Grade—56% meeting high standards in FCAT Mathematics (+9% change from 2013) 5th Grade—50% meeting high standards in FCAT Reading (-13% change from 2013) 5th Grade—47% meeting high standards in FCAT Mathematics (+4% change from 2013) 5th Grade—43% meeting high standards in FCAT Science (-12% change from 2013) 6th Grade—68% meeting high standards in FCAT Reading (+3% change from 2013) 6th Grade—62% meeting high standards in FCAT Mathematics (+9% change from 2013)

We concentrated a great deal of effort on creating and maintaining a school culture based on a common behavioral language and reinforcement of good character traits, through the implementation of Positive Behavior Support. In 2013, we realized a 56% decline in the number of office referrals, as a result of the Tier I implementation of PBS. In 2014, we realized an additional 9% decrease in the number of office referrals through Tier II implementation, for a total of 65% in office referrals in the past two years. This is an important data point, as it indicates students are spending more time on task than being out of the classroom for office-managed behaviors.

Final Version 8.12.14

It is encouraging to note where we concentrate our focus for academic improvements, we meet with relative success. In 2013, we reflected on the achievement outcomes and noted our FCAT Mathematics scores were below the 50th percentile. We committed to attacking the lesson design and planning of mathematics, in addition to improving our instructional practices, which resulted in improvements (+4%--9%) across the FCAT-tested grade levels. At the same time we have celebrated our success in FCAT Mathematics, we recognize a “see-saw” effect in our FCAT Reading, Science, and Writing scores. While we improved in math, we declined in other areas of the curriculum. The essential question is, “What did we do right in in the area of mathematics that can be applied consistently across the curriculum?”

Classroom Walkthrough (CWT) data indicate 76% of lessons are delivered through the traditional “sit and get” method, meaning teachers are delivering direct instruction to the whole group in at least three out of four lessons. This “one size fits all” approach to delivering instruction suggests no differentiation is occurring for the majority of lessons taught. Furthermore, there is no way to ensure any level of student engagement with this practice of instructional delivery.

The 2013-2014 school year was wrought with “disconnect” in the practice of student progress reporting. Too often, it was noted that student progress reports were not aligned with how the students were performing on district and state assessments. While students were being reported to be “doing fine in class”, they were failing to meet the required benchmarks, suggesting a lack of rigor within the classroom, throughout the year. Furthermore, there was a noted lack of communication and continuity between the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) and Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST). There was a breakdown in the continuum of the Continuous Improvement Cycle, resulting in students “falling between the cracks”.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?) In the interest of strengthening our Tier I instruction, a master schedule was created to support common planning times for all grade levels and resource/support staff. This has resulted in more ongoing collegial discussions about grade level data, interventions, and Learning-Focused Lesson Planning designed to connect the most effective instructional strategies within all lessons. We have worked on honing our planning skills to maximize the time we have together, making certain our content, process, and products are aligned to the standards, as well as the district pacing and sequence guides. In our planning sessions, monitored closely by school administration, teachers engage in an ongoing process of analyzing grade level data, looking for trends, and identifying those skills needing to be retaught and students requiring remediation within smaller groups. Within these planning sessions, teachers plan to deliver strong Tier I lessons, as well as plan for the intervention groups within their grade level. This has become “the way we do business” at Discovery. We don’t have our methods perfected yet, but we are engaged in the continuous pursuit of excellence in this area. We recognize that we cannot deliver quality instruction without thorough planning, and without using student performance data to inform our instruction.


It has become apparent that what teachers report regarding the progress of their students is oftentimes out of concurrence with the data collected from district and state assessments. As a TEAM, we have begun to regularly engage in discussion about rigor: What is it? What does it look like and sound like in the classroom? Teachers have embraced the notion that how they measure their students’ mastery of the grade level standards needs to more closely resemble the types of measurements their students will face on district required and state required assessments. This year, we will increase our focus on rigor, as it relates to content, process, and products within our lessons. We will work to ensure we are planning with content complexity in mind and teaching to the fullest intent of the grade level standards.

In the past school year, our focus was mostly in the area of mathematics (L-F planning, data analysis, professional development, etc.), with favorable results. As previously noted, our data seem to also indicate a “see-saw effect”, in which our math achievement improved, while other content areas declined. As a TEAM, we recognize the need to consistently apply our lesson design and planning practices, along with improved instructional delivering, across all core content areas. As a result of the CWT data, Discovery’s administration began looking for solutions to the student engagement issue, as well as related professional development opportunities, to assist teachers in acquiring the skills necessary to engage their students fully in the learning process. A team of teachers and teacher leaders were sent to another elementary school (within the district) that was meeting with success through the consistent implementation of Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures. The decision was made to commit to the training of instructional staff in the practice of using Kagan structures within each lesson. During the summer break, thirty-two teachers donated one week of their time to participate in the Kagan Summer Institute. This was a 5-day intensive workshop, where teachers were immersed in learning the Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures. During the 2014-2015 school year, we have committed to embedding Kagan structures into each and every lesson, in order to maximize the level of student engagement in the learning process. Students have already begun to improve the manner in which they interact with their grade level content and with each other.

A relative area of weakness for us last school year was our Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) and our Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST) processes. We lacked the proper infrastructure to allow for consistent communication between both ends of the continuum, creating gaps through which students were able to fall. In order to address those shortcomings, we have restructured the manner in which we address the individual needs of our most fragile and at-risk students. We now have a more efficient way we identify and track students. In addition, ALL critical stakeholders actively participate together in the problem-solving process, on an ongoing/weekly basis. Agendas are created, problems are analyzed, interventions are prescribed, progress is tracked, and data are collected and reported back to the team at the next meeting. Minutes of each meeting are kept, along with an action plan that is developed during each meeting, holding each responsible party accountable for following through on the plan for intervention that was designed. The goal is to fully engage in the problem-solving process with fidelity, in order to realize positive change.

During the 2014-2015 Pre-School Planning Week, the instructional staff engaged in analysis of the school wide and grade level data. They were surveyed and asked to respond to the questions: “What worked?” and “What do we need to do differently?” The teachers’ feedback overwhelmingly expressed support of our collaborative planning practices, as well as our focus on standards-based (Learning-Focused) lesson planning and instruction in mathematics. Teachers suggested those practices needed to be applied across ALL content areas with fidelity.

Teachers expressed a concern for students in the 4th and 5th grades, given those grade levels have more accountability and are “loaded down” with more state assessed subject areas (Writing in 4th and Science in 5th), in addition to Reading and Mathematics. The concern was for the depth of instruction not going deeply enough in all the state assessed subject areas, and perhaps teachers were being “spread too thinly”. Teachers also cited examples of other elementary schools in our district which were implementing the departmentalized approach to instruction, which allows teachers to “specialize” in a given subject matter. It was suggested we continue applying our planning methods, but teachers in grades 4th, 5th, and 6th grades would departmentalize. This would serve the need to teach more deeply within the content, rather than the “mile wide, inch deep” approach of the past years. Without more time


in the day and personnel resources to have “on the wheel” for these specialized subject areas, the departmentalized approach will be implemented this school year.

Finally, teachers expressed concerns over the manner in which Title 1 resource personnel were being utilized throughout the school day. The feeling was that those valuable resources were being “pulled in too many directions” (too many students in multiple grade levels), and they did not spend enough time on task with our neediest students in concentrated blocks of time. To address that issue, there is a Title 1 teacher assigned to each grade level in 3rd through 6th grades. These Title 1 teachers serve as Instructional Coaches at their assigned grade levels. They are responsible for collaboratively planning with the teachers on that grade level, with a focus on standards-based planning and instruction. Additionally, the Title 1 Instructional Coaches work with students (in small groups) throughout the day in ELA and Math blocks, as well as during Intervention Blocks. They actively participate in our MTSS meetings, providing the agendas and subsequent action plans, helping teachers identify struggling students and helping to provide the prescribed interventions. They also assist classroom teachers with IPST paperwork and data collection, in an effort to effectively facilitate the problem-solving process.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)According to Rick and Becky Dufour (2010), if we believe all kids can learn, we should be asking these four Critical Corollary Questions:

1. What is it we expect them to learn?2. How will we know when they have learned it?3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?4. How will we respond when they already know it?

The DuFours go on to say teachers must make decisions regarding what is essential. Teachers must study standards, discuss in teams, and commit to the standards and what is essential. In order to improve student achievement, teachers must clarify what each student is expected to learn, and monitor each student’s learning on a timely basis. This research makes a compelling argument for Standards Based Instruction (SBI) in our school. It also makes the compelling argument for us to have the most efficient and effective problem-solving process we can (through MTSS and IPST), in order to address the questions pertaining to putting interventions in place when students don’t learn or already have mastered grade level content/skills.

Regarding Classroom Instruction That Works (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollack 2001), Dr. Robert Marzano listed nine categories of instructional strategies that have “a high probability of enhancing student achievement”. Dr. Marzano cautions us, however, against focusing on a narrow range of strategies. He presents a broader set of strategies related to instruction, management, and assessment and demonstrates how those can be used to broaden and deepen instruction that leads to improved student learning. Marzano further states, “This is just a beginning. The common language of instruction should become part of discussion and feedback with teachers. Both discussion and feedback are critical to developing expertise.”


Finally, Dr. Max Thompson (2009) supports Marzano’s research and developed the LEARNING-FOCUSED Strategies Model as a continuous improvement model designed to assist teachers in using research-based exemplary practices to increase learning and achievement. Thompson states, “Research and evidence shows that in order to be most effective, schools should implement 2-4 exemplary strategies consistently and pervasively. This means every teacher is using the chosen strategies in almost every lesson. The LEARNING-FOCUSED Acquisition Lesson Plan is one such exemplary strategy. Used as a common lesson planning tool, it connects three of the top learning strategies in every acquisition lesson (students summarize, learn vocabulary in context, and use non-verbal representations to store and organize information). The L-F framework will help teachers choose additional strategies that fit the purpose of what you want students to learn.”

This aligns with Marzano’s recommendations concerning the range of strategies teachers use in their instruction, as well as the DuFour’s research that strongly encourages the collaboration of teachers in the lesson design and planning of their instruction. Lastly, the Brevard Public Schools Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System (IPPAS), which is aligned with Brevard’s Effective Strategies for Teaching (B.E.S.T.), places Lesson Design and Planning as the first dimension in the evaluation rubric. Since a teacher’s lesson plan is the vehicle for addressing all the components of the Balanced Achievement Model, it seems appropriate that we should begin there.

Adding to all this research, is Barbara Blackburn, author of Rigor Is NOT A Four-Letter Word (2008). She defined rigor as creating an environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so that he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels. Furthermore, real rigor is the result of weaving together all elements of schooling to improve the achievement and learning of every student. We will be collaborating this year on ways to ensure the lessons we plan and deliver are rigorous enough that our students are set up for success.

Dr. Spencer Kagan began a research program in 1968, where he discovered that, worldwide, children of all ages responded with enhanced cooperativeness when placed in certain types of situations. Dr. Kagan began a research program to apply those findings to classrooms, creating simple ways teachers could structure the interaction of students. Dr. Kagan’s structures not only led to greater cooperativeness, but also led to greater academic achievement, improved ethnic relations, enhanced self-esteem, harmonious classroom climate, and a range of social skills. Thus, Dr. Kagan fathered the structural approach to cooperative learning which is now used in classrooms at all grade levels, worldwide, to produce positive results. Many of our instructional staff have already been trained in the use of Kagan’s structures, and these structures are being implemented daily in the classroom, in order to improve student performance. The nature of these cooperative learning activities also helps meet the need we have at Discovery to provide students with more positive life skills.

Finally, we have begun exploring the research of Dr. Carol Dweck. In her 2006 book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, individuals can be placed on a continuum according to their implicit views of where their ability comes from. Some individuals believe their success is based on innate ability. Dr. Dweck says these individuals have a “fixed” mindset, or theory of intelligence. Others, who believe their success is based on hard work, effort, learning/training, and determination are said to have a “growth” mindset or an “incremental” theory of intelligence. Individuals may not consciously be aware of their own mindset, but their mindset can still be recognized based on their behavior, particularly when in their reaction to failure. Fixed mindset individuals fear failure because they believe it is a negative reflection


of their basic abilities. Growth mindset individuals do not fear failure as much because they realize their performance can be improved, and learning comes from failure. For our students at Discovery Elementary School, the awareness of mindsets may play an important role in their lives and how successful they are…in school and in life. Our goal is to help students have an awareness of their own mindset, and to give them the tools for developing more personal “grit” in the face of their challenges. By helping our students develop more of a growth mindset, we will see the academic and personal achievement we want to see. We see this research as not just another initiative we have to put into practice, but an important concept on which to build year-after-year. It is also important to note that Growth Mindset relates nicely with our goals toward success within our school wide discipline model (PBS). We will make it a priority to celebrate students’ efforts and perseverance, as they engage in the process of pursuing higher achievement.

CONTENT AREA:

Reading Math Writing Science Parental Involvement

Drop-out Prevention Programs

Language Arts

Social Studies

Arts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)Year-Two: In order to design and deliver standards-based lessons that ensure all students are engaged and challenged, the instructional staff at Discovery Elementary will use the LEARNING-FOCUSED Acquisition Lesson Plan model to connect the most effective instructional strategies for learning in every lesson, every day.


Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible

Timetable Budget In-ProcessMeasure

1. Instructional staff lacks experience with implementing strategies for increasing student engagement.

1.Provide immediate and ongoing professional development in Kagan structures.2. Provide coaching sessions from Kagan Coach in the fall semester.3. Send untrained personnel to see Kagan “in action” at another school.4. Teachers will be provided opportunities to visit one another’s classrooms to observe the implementation of Kagan, as well as being observed themselves and receiving feedback on the quality of implementation. They will also be encouraged to visit a “sister school” in our district to observe and collaborate with teachers in the use of Kagan

Administration

SLT=Shared Leadership Team(including Peer Coaches)

June-December 2014 for initial trainings

Ongoing (during weekly collaborative planning times and faculty meetings)

Early Release Wednesdays

$5,000 for Kagan Coach

(Title 1 Funds)

Agendas and Minutes from meetings

Coaching Schedule

Teacher lesson plans and feedback notes


structures.5. Mentors and mentees will engage in the “VORP” process, which comes from the district Mentor Council.

2. Instructional staff lacks the ability to recognize rigor and how to design and deliver lessons that are rigorous.

1.Explore examples of rigor through VIPS.2.Provide time for collaborative planning for rigor and analysis of standards.3. Engage in professional studies of research related to rigor in the classroom.

Administration


August PDD



$0 Agendas and Minutes from meetings

Copies of articles shared and explored


3. Instructional staff lacks understanding of the structure of an effective literacy block designed to address the rigor of the FL Standards and integrate SS/Science into ELA.

1.Engage Literacy Coach for PD opportunities.2.Provide time and opportunities for teachers to visit highly effective teacher classrooms.

Administration


August PDD





4.Instructional staff reports “too much guesswork” regarding expectations of “Distinguished” teaching looks like

1.Provide teachers with a list of content area “Look Fors” and “Ask Fors”.2. Engage in regular feedback meetings with

Administration







within the content areas.

teachers on their instructional delivery.3. Utilize the Leverage Leadership book as a guide for effective feedback.

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection- begin with the end in mind .

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of professional practices throughout the school) In 2013, Classroom Walkthrough data indicated 76% of lessons taught were delivered solely through direct instruction (lecture style) to the whole group. Given what we know about B.E.S.T Practices and how students learn most effectively, this data point would indicate a lack of authentic student engagement in the majority of the lessons. Teachers are doing the majority of the working and thinking, while students are being “spoon fed” content.

In 2014, Classroom Walkthrough data will indicate 50% (or less) of lessons taught will be delivered solely through direct instruction (lecture style) to the whole group. Teachers will be actively engaging students in the learning process through the regular use of Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures.

In 2013, Classroom Walkthrough data indicated more than 50% of questions asked and student tasks/products were at the lower levels of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (recall and skill/concept). Given what we know about the importance of providing students with extended thinking opportunities, this data


point would indicate we are missing opportunities to probe and guide students to an appropriate answer, thereby preventing students from reaching their fullest potential.

In 2014, Classroom Walkthrough data will indicate more than 50% of questions asked and student tasks/products will be at the higher levels of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (Strategic and Extended Thinking). Teachers will design lessons that move students to more challenging work, while simultaneously providing ongoing scaffolding to support students’ learning, as they “stretch” to those higher levels.

During the 2014-2015 Pre-School Planning Week, the instructional staff engaged in an informal survey. The survey asked several questions pertaining to “What worked? (in 2013)” and “What do we need to do differently?” Questions were asked specifically about rigor: “What is it?” “What does it look like?” “What does it sound like?” Most teachers were able to discuss rigor in terms of what it means and the importance of it in what we do. However, most teachers stated they needed more guidance and professional development in the application of rigor within lesson plans and instructional delivery, as well as how student engagement plays a key role in rigor.

In 2014-2015, we will engage in ongoing collegial discussions about our instructional practices and how teachers can design lessons to promote positive student engagement and high levels of student accountability for demonstrating learning.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures student achievement)In 2015:Student Achievement Scores at Discovery Elementary School will have a percentile ranking in Reading and Mathematics higher than the 50th percentile.

Student Achievement Scores at Discovery Elementary School will have a percentile ranking in Science higher than the 50th percentile.

Student Achievement Scores at Discovery Elementary School will have a percentile ranking in Writing higher than the 50% percentile.

In the spring of 2014, students engaged in the BPS Student Survey. A key question asked of students was, “How do you see yourself?” Specifically, students were asked to rate themselves on whether or not they worry about making mistakes. Only 19% of students responded they don’t worry about making mistakes. From Mindset research, we know students need to feel comfortable making mistakes, as this is an important indicator for how successful they are likely to be.

In the spring of 2015, students will engage in the BPS Student Survey. After a year of educating students Final Version 8.12.14

on Growth Mindset and having “grit”, the goal would be to have at least 38% of students report they don’t worry about making mistakes.

Part 2: Support Systems for Student Achievement (Federal, State, District Mandates)

For the following areas, please write a brief narrative that includes the data for the year 2014-2015 and a description of changes you intend to incorporate to improve the data for the year 2014-2015. Instructions and support are provided in each section to assist with what data you may include. The instructions are intended to be a guide and may be deleted from each cell to allow for appropriate typing space.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iv) and 1115(c)(1)(A)-(C), P.L. 107-110, NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b) and Senate Bill 850.

Discovery conducts weekly MTSS/RtI meetings in which attendees include Principal, Assistant Principal, Literacy Coach, Guidance Counselor, School Psychologist, Staffing Specialist, Grade Level Instructional Coaches, and classroom teachers. Agendas are created prior to meetings, and these agendas identify specific students being brought to the team for the problem-solving process. Teams discuss intervention and progression of students specific to each grade level. A3/Performance Matters/Decision Trees are used to track data and determine students' placement in tiered learning groups. The Literacy Coach will be available to administer further diagnostics as needed. The guidance team and educational psychologist will be available to complete academic testing and interventions as needed. As a result of each meeting, an action plan for each accountable party is designed with input from the team. A timeline for each action plan is determined, in order to keep our monitoring process in place and hold all accountable for the implementation of the plan.


a) Describe the process through which school leadership identifies and aligns all available resources (e.g., personnel, instructional, curricular) in order to meet the needs of all students and maximize desired student outcomes. Include the methodology for coordinating and supplementing federal, state and local funds, services and programs.

b) Describe your school’s data-based problem-solving processes for the implementation and monitoring of your MTSS and SIP structures to address effectiveness of core instruction, teacher support systems, and small group and individual student needs.

c) Provide the person(s) responsible, frequency of meetings, and any problem-solving activities used to determine how to apply resources for the highest impact

d) Describe the systems in place that the leadership team uses to monitor the fidelity of the school’s MTSS.e) Describe the plan to support understanding of MTSS and build capacity in data-based problem solving for staff and parents.

(See Accountability and Testing website/SIPTOOLS/MTSS for a checklist that may help you with this section.)

PARENT AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT: (Parent Survey Data must be referenced) Title I Schools may use the Parent Involvement Plan to meet the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(F) and 1115(c)(1)(G), P.L. 107-110, NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b). Consider the level of family and community involvement at your school (this may include, but is not limited to, number of parent engagement opportunities offered in the school year; average number of parents in attendance at parent engagement opportunities; percent of parents who participated in parent engagement opportunities; percent of students in lowest performing quartile or subgroups not meeting AMOs whose parent(s) participated in one or more parent engagement opportunities)Discovery presented 40 opportunities for parent participation in the 2013 – 2014 school year. This includes PTO/SAC meetings, music performances, fun family activities, parent/teacher conferences, parent training events and Holiday events. Our participation was higher for the fun family events and activities than it was for parent training events. Our average participation was less than 50%. The administration and the Title 1 team reviewed the Spring Parent Survey question 3 concerning communication states “What are the best ways to communicate with you and keep you well informed?”, 74% chose “Notes from teacher”, 69% chose “E-Mail”, and 57% chose “Personal phone call”. We will continue to use Blackboard Connect to send phone messages and invitations as well as flyers, newsletters and displays on our school marquee. In order to address the percent parents of students in lowest performing quartile or subgroups not meeting AMO’s participation, we will have classroom teachers and/or instructional coaches make personal phone calls to invite and inform parents of upcoming meetings and events.We have also addressed Parent Survey question #9 that states “What days and times are best for you to attend school events?” The responses vary greatly between days of the week and time of day. For the 2013 – 2014 school year we have changed the day and time of our PTO/SAC meetings to early evening on the first Thursday of the month (6:30 pm) and plan to have parent training and information meetings during the school day and right after school. We hope this will improve the attendance. We will present parent information/training events to support our families in the areas of homework help (44%), anti-bullying (37.8%), study skills (40.3%) and new FL Standards.

To aid our youngest students in their transition to a formalized academic setting, we hold annual meetings for parents in the form of Kindergarten Round-Up and Pre-K Open House. Pre-school teachers also engage in home visits with the families of our pre-K students, in order to ensure a smooth transition for those students.

STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS (Required):Address Elements of Student Survey Results found in the District Strategic Plan and describe how you will improve student perceptions of these indicators.

Strategic Plan Indicators: Promotes 21st Century Skills 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5 Safe Learning Environment 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5

Elementary Student Survey: 21st Century Skills – Refer results pages 3 – 4 Online Safety – Refer results pages 4 - 6 School Safety – Refer results pages 6 - 7

Secondary Student Survey: 21st Century Skills – Refer results pages 4 - 6 Online Safety – Refer results pages 6 - 7 School Safety – Refer results pages 7 – 8

In reviewing our student survey results we found that, thirty-three percent of students stated they


https://www.fldoe.org/flbpso/pi/pipp.asp

https://www.fldoe.org/flbpso/pi/pipp.asp

sometimes or never share responsibilities with teammates or work as a team. Thirty percent of our students stated they sometimes or never communicate effectively when speaking, writing and listening. Thirty-five percent of students stated they sometimes or never learned the practical use of technology in school. Twenty-seven percent of students stated they sometimes or never acquired the skills to research reliable information on line.


Early Warning Systems (SB 850)1. Describe the school’s early warning system and provide a list of the early warning indicators used in the system. This list must include the following:

ELEMENTARY Attendance below 90 percent, regardless of whether absence is excused or a result of out-of-school

suspension One or more suspensions, whether in school or out of school Course failure in English Language Arts or mathematics Level 1 score on the statewide, standardized assessments in English Language Arts or mathematics Students who are not proficient in reading by third gradeSECONDARY

Attendance below 90 percent, regardless of whether absence is excused or a result of out-of-school suspension

One or more suspensions, whether in school or out of school Course failure in English Language Arts or mathematics Level 1 score on the statewide, standardized assessments in English Language Arts or mathematics

2. Provide the following data related to the school’s early warning system: The number of students by grade level that exhibit each early warning indicator listed above The number of students identified by the system as exhibiting two or more early warning

indicatorsFill in BLANKS with Number of Students

Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Attendance <90

14 37 34 29 26 17 19 176

1 or more ISS or OSS

1 3 5 7 8 12 7 43

Level 1 in Reading or Math

N/A N/A N/A 2 47 36 36 121

Course Failure in ELA or Math

0 0

Students exhibiting 2 or more indicators

14 37 31 40 45 43 39 257

3. Describe all intervention strategies employed by the school to improve the academic performance of students identified by the early warning system (i.e., those exhibiting two or more early warning indicators).

In 2013-14, Discovery Elementary entered in to year 2 of the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) implementation process. This program encourages teachers to reward students for making positive choices instead of focusing only on correcting negative behavior. PBS emphasizes data based decision making, measurable outcomes, evidence based practice, and a school specific system that supports the application of these practices. Over the summer, a team from Discovery attended Tier 2 training in order to address the needs of students who require more intensive monitoring than is provided in Tier 1. That team is now responsible for attending IPST meetings to assist teachers in implementing


strategies to support those students.

CTE/STEM:1. All Levels

a) # of STEM-related experiences provided for students (e.g. robotics competitions; field trips; science fairs) 15b) Participation in STEM-related experiences provided for students

Lego Robotics Jr. Lego League LegoLand STEM classes Mr. Science Night Gross Out Science Night Science Fair 3-6 Science Family Workshop Harris Robotics Engineering—2nd Grade School-based Science Lab Junior Achievement—JA In A Day Event Publix Math Night Title 1 Math Night Math Team and competition SuccessMaker Saturday 6th Grade Google Docs and Edline Training

The following data may be considered by high schools.a) Students enrolling in one or more accelerated STEM-related courses b) Completion rate (%) for students enrolled in accelerated STEM-related courses c) Students taking one or more advanced placement exams for STEM-related coursesd) Passing rate (%) for students who take advanced placement exams for STEM-related coursese) CTE-STEM program concentratorsf) Students taking CTE-STEM industry certification exams g) Passing rate (%) for students who take CTE-STEM industry certification exams

The following data may be considered by middle and high schools. a) Students enrolling in one or more CTE courses b) Students who have completed one or more CTE courses who enroll in one or more accelerated courses c) Completion rate (%) for CTE students enrolled in accelerated courses d) Students taking CTE industry certification exams e) Passing rate (%) for students who take CTE industry certification exams f) CTE program concentrators g) CTE teachers holding appropriate industry certifications

College and Career Readiness This section is required for secondary schools, per Sections 1003.413(2)(g),(h), and (j) and 1008.37(4), F.S. COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ( TO BE COMPLETED BY SECONDARY SCHOOLS) This section meets the


requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc), P.L. 107-110, NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b). 1. Describe the strategies the school uses to support college and career awareness. 2. Describe how the school integrates vocational and technical education programs. 3. Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback Report, which is maintained by the Department of Education, pursuant to Rule 6A-10.038, F.A.C. Incorporated by reference in Rule 6A-1.099811, F.A.C. (August 2013)

(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)

Highly Qualified Teachers Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.

Descriptions of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date

1.2.3.

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).

Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field/and who are not

highly effective

Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support the staff in becoming

highly effective

0

ALIGNMENT OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANAND

TITLE I SCHOOLWIDE PLANFinal Version 8.12.14

Required Elements of a Title I Schoolwide Plan (SWP) /School Improvement Plan (SIP)

(Section 1114 – Components of a Schoolwide Program)

Check the area(s) where each element is addressed in the SIP.

Additional information and references from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):

1. Include data from comprehensive needs assessment of the school

__Rationale

Include academic achievement of students in relation to the state academic content and achievement standards. Be sure to include migrant, if applicable.

2. Provide opportunities for all children to meet state standards

__Analysis of Current

Practice

__Strategies

__MTSS

3. Utilize scientifically based strategies to strengthen the core academic program __ Analysis of Current

Practice

__Best Practice

__Strategies

Strategies, materials and programs that are research based are a required element of any objective.

4. Include additional strategies that increase the amount and quality of learning time __Strategies

__MTSS

__CTE/STEM

All schools are required to indicate what additional learning opportunities are made available during school, before and/or after school, and during summer, when applicable, and help provide enriched and accelerated curriculum.

5. Include strategies for meeting the educational needs of historically underserved subgroups, low-achieving, and at-risk students

__Strategies

__MTSS

__Early Warning

System

These may include counseling, pupil services, and mentoring services.


6. State the means of determining whether student needs in the above requirement (#5) are being met

__Strategies

__MTSS

__Early Warning

System

Address how the school will determine the educational needs of historically underserved subgroups, low-achieving, and at-risk students are being met

7. Incorporate instruction by highly qualified teachers

__Highly Qualified

Teachers

All instructors working in a Title I school are required to be Highly Qualified (Section 1119). If you have personnel that do not meet the requirements, list strategies to support staff to become highly qualified.

8. Include strategies that support high quality and ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals

__Best Practice __Strategies

__MTSS

Each school receiving Title I funds shall devote sufficient resources to effectively carry out this requirement.

9. Include strategies to attract high quality, highly qualified teachers

__Highly Qualified

Teachers

Schools must indicate how they mentor, attract and retain high-quality and highly qualified teachers.

10. Include strategies to increase parent involvement

__Parental

Involvement

Each Title I school is required to complete a Parent Involvement Plan (PIP) and that plan may be used to meet the requirements of this section in the SIP.

11. Include strategies that assist preschool children in the transition from preschool to kindergarten

__Transition from

Preschool

Elementary schools must identify how they will assist students in early childhood programs, such as Head Start and VPK, with the transition into elementary school.

12. Include teachers in using student achievement data to plan the overall instructional program __ Analysis of Current

Practice

__Strategies

Described in Section 1111 (b) (3) in order to provide information on, and to improve, the achievement of individual students and the overall instructional program.


__MTSS

13. Provide additional assistance for low-achieving students that shall include measures to ensure that students’ difficulties are identified in a timely manner

__MTSS

Every school is required to incorporate strategies on how they will address the needs of low performing students that experience difficulty mastering the proficient and advanced levels of academic achievement standards (Section 1111 (b)).

14. Specify coordination with other federal, state, and local programs

__ Analysis of Current

Practice

__Best Practice

__MTSS

Schools should include any alignment to other state, federal and local programs that support the educational programs of the school such as violence prevention, nutrition programs, Early Childhood, and Head Start.

_________________ _________________________ __________

School Name Principal’s Signature Date


accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/school...

Documents