albemarle county public schools school …...q3 kpi data q4/eoy kpi data 1. learning walk data...

2011-2012

Albemarle County Public Schools School Improvement Plan

To view Division Goals, Priorities, Strategies, and KPIs: http://www.k12albemarle.org/strategicplanning

Division Goals and School Board Priorities

Goal 1

Prepare all students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.

Priority 1.1

Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.

Goal 2

Eliminate the Achievement Gap.

Priority 2.1 Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.

Goal 3 Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and administrators.

Priority 3.1

Improve the organization's capacity to build and maintain a high-quality workforce.

Goal 4

Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.

Priority 4.1 Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.

Priority 4.2 Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.

Goal 5

Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s

vision, mission, and goals.

Priority 5.1 Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.

Priority 5.2 Implement the Division's Student Information System (SIS) and Parent Portal.

http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sc_id=1301600869403&sectiondetailid=97231

http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=97266




General Information

School Name: Hollymead Elementary School

Principal Name: Clare Keiser

Members of School

Improvement Team:

Glenn Bernhardt

Tom Briedis-Ruiz

Becky Brown

Jack Carroll

Jacqui Cecalupo

Kelly Davenport

Clare Keiser

Lisa King

Beth Kohler

Ann Lancaster

Debbie Mayo

Warren Meehan

Amy Morris

Beth Russell


School Improvement Plan – SIP Goal 1

2011-2012

Strategic Goal(s): Place an “X” in front of those that apply

X Goal 1: Prepare all Students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.

X Goal 2: Eliminate the Achievement Gap.

Goal 3: Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and

administrators.

Goal 4: Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.

Goal 5: Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the Division’s


PL

AN

Board Priority(ies): Place an “X” in front of those that apply

X Priority 1.1: Develop Lifelong-Learner (LLL) competencies in all students.

X Priority 2.1: Prepare all students for workforce/college readiness.

Priority 4.1: Promote strategic alignment with the Vision, Mission, and Goals throughout the organization.

Priority 4.2: Expand two-way communication with and outreach to our stakeholders.

Priority 5.1: Identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in operational departments and instructional programs.

SIP Goal:

To provide differentiated and quality instruction to maximize student achievement.

SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound):

During the 2011-2012 school year, teachers will plan and implement lessons that show evidence of differentiated instruction, use of high-yield

instructional strategies, engaging qualities, and lifelong learner standards with a primary focus in math and reading.





Supporting Data / Gap Evidence:

Learning Walk Two Year Trend Data

2009-2010 – 355 Learning Walks 2010-2011 – 367 Learning Walks

Level of Engagement

2009-2010

2010-2011

Off-Task 1 0

On-Task 49 26

Engaged 50 74

Predominant Level of Thinking

2009-2010

2010-2011

Low 30 12

Middle 60 69

High 10 19

Instructional Strategies

2009-2010

2010-2011

Activating Prior Knowledge 14 17

Generating and Testing Hypotheses 3 7

Homework and Practice 15 3

Nonlinguistic Representations 14 18

Questioning/Inquiry 27 24

Reinforcing Effort/ Providing Recognition 14 7

Similarities & Differences/ metaphors/analogies 8 15

Summarizing/ Note-taking 5 9

Engaging Qualities

2009-2010 2010-2011

Personal Response 48 69

Clear/Modeled Expectations 75 97

Emotional/ Intellectual Safety 33 30

Learning with Others 38 48

Sense of Audience 5 9

Choice 16 34

Novelty and Variety 28 25

Authenticity 21 31


Reading and Math SOL Scores Three-Year Trends Reading

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade

2010-2011 86.7 89 92.6

2009-2010 87.8 93 95

2008-2009 90.6 93.2 93.8

Math

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade

2010-2011 91.8 91.7 91.5

2009-2010 93.8 93.4 93.6

2008-2009 92.6 90.7 93.4

Anticipated Obstacles: numbers of students with specific intervention and/or enrichment needs; variance in understanding of how and when to

differentiate instruction based on content, process, and or product., variance in student current-state performance levels, student mobility rate

Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Learning Walk data, student performance levels in math and reading, numbers of

students receiving intervention for math and/or reading.

ST

UD

Y

KPI (Quantitative - Using a

number or percentage)

Indicating Progress Towards

SIP Goal:

Q1 KPI Data

Q2 KPI Data

Q3 KPI Data

Q4/EOY KPI Data

1. Learning Walk Data focused on

the predominant level of thinking,

strategies impacting student

learning, engaging qualities, level

Based on 58 Learning

Walks through October

28, 2011


Walks through January 20,

2011


Walks through March 30,

2012


Walks through June 8,

2012


of engagement and Lifelong

Learner Standards. Predominant Level of

Thinking:

Low – 34%

Middle – 57%

High – 9%

Strategies Impacting

Student Learning:

Activating Prior

Knowledge – 18%

Generating/Testing

Hypotheses – 4%

Homework and Practice –

7%

Nonlinguistic

Representations – 7%

Questioning/ Inquiry –

29%

Reinforcing Effort/

Providing Recognition –

7%

Similarities/Differences –

25%

Summarizing/Note-taking

– 4%

Engaging Qualities:

Personal Response – 52%

Clear/Modeled

Expectations – 62%

Emotional/Intellectual

Safety – 34%

Affiliation – 41%

Affirmation – 2%

Choice – 10%

Novelty/Variety – 5%

Authenticity – 21%

Predominant Level of

Thinking:

Low – 29%

Middle – 61%

High – 10%


Student Learning:

Activating Prior

Knowledge – 16%

Generating/Testing

Hypotheses – 3%


9%

Nonlinguistic



28%

Reinforcing Effort/


10%


16%


– 7%

Engaging Qualities:


Clear/Modeled



Safety – 30%

Affiliation – 42%

Affirmation – 4%

Choice – 22%




Thinking:

Low – 26%

Middle – 64%

High – 10%


Student Learning:

Activating Prior

Knowledge – 15%

Generating/Testing

Hypotheses – 4%


8%

Nonlinguistic



28%

Reinforcing Effort/


11%


16%


– 8%

Engaging Qualities:


Clear/Modeled



Safety – 30%

Affiliation – 46%

Affirmation – 4%

Choice – 21%




Thinking:

Low – 18%

Middle – 68%

High – 14%


Student Learning:

Activating Prior

Knowledge – 16%

Generating/Testing

Hypotheses – 4%


6%

Nonlinguistic



23%

Reinforcing Effort/


11%


16%


– 12%

Engaging Qualities:


Clear/Modeled



Safety – 33%

Affiliation – 47%

Affirmation – 5%

Choice – 23%




Level of Engagement:

Engaged – 47%

On-task – 53%

Off-task – 0%

Lifelong Learner

Standards (refer to

standards for description):

1 – 0%

2 – 12%

3 – 16%

4 – 12%

5 – 48%

6 – 7%

7 – 34%

8 – 5%

9 – 2%

10 – 0%

11 – 0%

12 – 14%


Engaged – 57%

On-task – 43%

Off-task – 0%

Lifelong Learner

Standards (refer to


1 – 0%

2 – 7%

3 – 14%

4 – 8%

5 – 40%

6 – 11%

7 – 28%

8 – 10%

9 – 4%

10 – 0%

11 – 4%

12 – 11%


Engaged – 62%

On-task – 38%

Off-task – 0%

Lifelong Learner

Standards (refer to


1 – 1%

2 – 7%

3 – 13%

4 – 8%

5 – 36%

6 – 11%

7 – 27%

8 – 10%

9 – 3%

10 – 1%

11 – 4%

12 – 10%


Engaged – 72%

On-task – 28%

Off-task – 0%

Lifelong Learner

Standards (refer to


1 – 2%

2 – 6%

3 – 13%

4 – 6%

5 – 32%

6 – 14%

7 – 23%

8 – 10%

9 – 3%

10 – 2%

11 – 3%

12 – 11%

2. Performance level in math and

reading as indicated on report

cards.

Math

On Grade Level – 94.4%

Above Grade Level – 1%

Below Grade Level –4.5%

Reading

On Grade Level – 72.3

Above Grade Level - 18.6

Below Grade Level - 9.1

Math

On Grade Level – 86%


Below Grade Level – 6%

Reading




Math




Reading




This information was not

available at the time of this

report and will be updated

when it is available.

3. Number of students receiving Tier

II and Tier III intervention in

math and/or reading.

Reading – 64 students

Math – 35 students Math Tier II – 32

Tier III – 1

Reading Tier II – 34

Math Tier II – 30

Tier III – 2


Math Tier II – 29

Tier III – 2



Tier III – 10 Tier III – 8

Writing

Tier II – 3

Tier III – 0

Tier III – 7

Writing

Tier II – 3

Tier III – 0

Key Strategies and Qualitative

Progress Indicators

Q1 Progress on

Strategies

Q2 Progress on

Strategies

Q3 Progress on

Strategies

Q4 Progress on

Strategies & EOY

Reflections

1. Use flexible grouping strategies

Math – 65%

Reading – 70%

Science – 10%

Social Studies – 5%

Word Study – 70%

Writing – 40%

Other – 15%

Math – 73%

Reading – 73%

Science – 17%


Word Study – 76%

Writing – 37%

Other – 20%

Math – 76%

Reading – 78%

Science – 10%


Word Study – 78%

Writing – 34%

Other – 12%

Math – 79%

Reading – 82%

Science – 12%


Word Study – 84%

Writing – 48%

Other – 8%

DO

&

2. Evidence of project-based and/or

differentiated (process, product,

or content) lessons.

Teachers reported

always or sometimes

differentiating lessons as

follows:

Math – 68%

Reading – 70%

Science – 50%


Word Study – 70%

Writing – 65%

28.5% of teachers report

having already

completed one or more

project-based learning

activities at the end of

the first quarter.

Teachers reported

always or sometimes


follows:

Math – 89%

Reading – 91%

Science – 76%


Word Study – 91%

Writing – 94.3%

Teachers report having

completed the following

number of project-based

learning activities through

the end of the first

semester:

0 – 22%

Teachers reported

always or sometimes


follows:

Math – 78%

Reading – 89%

Science – 71%


Word Study – 89%

Writing – 82%




learning activities

through the end of the

third quarter:

0 – 15%

Teachers reported

always or sometimes


follows:

Math – 73%

Reading – 93%

Science – 75%


Word Study – 96%

Writing – 72%




learning activities through

the end of the fourth

quarter:

0 – 6%

ST

UD

Y &


1 – 22%

2 – 15%

3 – 24%

4 – 0%

5 or more – 18%

Work samples and

artifacts were shared

during the Mid-Year

Review.

1 – 15%

2 – 27%

3 – 20%

4 – 7%

5 or more – 12%

PLC minutes, work

samples, photos, videos,

and other artifacts are

evidence of completed

projects.

1 – 6%

2 – 24%

3 – 18%

4 – 12%

5 or more – 35%

PLC minutes, work

samples, photos, videos,

and other artifacts are

evidence of completed

projects.

3. Learning Walks focused in math

or reading for core content

teachers during the first semester.

94% of Learning Walks

for regular classroom

teachers focused on math

and/or literacy

89.2% of Learning Walks

for regular classroom

teachers focused on math

and/or literacy

First semester data has

been completed.

At the end of the third

quarter, 68.1% of

learning walks for regular

classroom teachers were

focused on math and/or

literacy.

First semester data has been

completed.

At the end of the fourth

quarter, 58.7% of learning

walks were focused on

math and/or literacy.

4. Minutes demonstrating

discussion and instructional

decisions from PLC meetings.

100% of PLC minutes

indicate evidence of

discussion surrounding

curriculum, instruction,

assessment, and/or data

analysis.

100% of PLC minutes





analysis.

100% of PLC minutes





analysis.

91% of PLC minutes





analysis.

AC

T



2011-2012





administrators.




PL

AN







SIP Goal: All students at Hollymead will demonstrate progress in writing.

SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound): During the 2011-2012 school-year, all students at

Hollymead will demonstrate on or above grade level progress in writing as evidenced on writing samples.

Supporting Data / Gap Evidence: During the 2002-2010 school year, Hollymead began implementing Being a Writer, bringing a

systematic writing program to all grade levels. Scores on the fifth grade writing SOL test did not vary significantly in the first year of

implementation (91% pass rate) when compared with the year prior to implementation (91.1%). While room for improvement exists of all

students, those identified with Special Needs performed significantly below their grade level peers on this test (65.6%).

During the 2010-2011 school year, 9.8% of Hollymead students (grades K-5) demonstrated below grade level proficiency in the analysis of





writing samples; 82.2 % demonstrated grade level proficiency, and 7.9% demonstrated above grade level proficiency.

Teachers reported that students (grades K-5) demonstrated improved progress in writing during the 2010-2011 school year as follows: 84.3%

progressed; 14.9% remained stagnant; 0.1% regressed.

Anticipated Obstacles: time/structure within the school day for writing; limited time for vertical collaboration/analysis of writing samples;

current state understanding of the Being a Writer program; identified needs to supplement the Being a Writer program.

Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Analysis of writing samples, evaluation of student progress through portfolios/ journals,

and evidence of planned and implemented Being a Writer lessons.

ST

UD

Y




SIP Goal:

Q1 KPI Data

Q2 KPI Data

Q3 KPI Data

Q4/EOY KPI Data

1. Percentage of students who

demonstrate grade level or above

proficiency in the analysis of writing

samples.

This data will be

assessed at the mid-year

review of KPI data.







This information was not

available at the time of

this report and will be

updated when it is

available.

2. Percentage of students who

demonstrate improved progress as

evidenced through writing samples.

91.5% of students have

demonstrated improved

progress in writing from

the initial baseline to the

end of the first quarter.

89% of students have




end of the first semester.

10% of students remained

stagnant in writing from



1% of students

demonstrated regression in

writing from the initial

baseline to the end of the

first semester.










<1% of students

demonstrated regression

in writing from the initial


first semester.





end of the fourth quarter.




end of the fourth quarter.

<1% of students

demonstrated regression

in writing from the initial


fourth quarter.



Progress Indicators

Q1 Progress on

Strategies

Q2 Progress on

Strategies

Q3 Progress on

Strategies

Q4 Progress on

Strategies & EOY

Reflections

1. Implement Being a Writer with

fidelity to the program.

78.6% of teachers of

writing report teaching the

program with fidelity. The

remaining teachers

indicate using the program

as a basis but

supplementing lessons.

70% of teachers of writing

report teaching the

program with fidelity. The

remaining teachers

indicate using the program

as a basis but


63% of teachers of

writing report teaching

the program with fidelity.

The remaining teachers

indicate using the

program as a basis but


Teachers of writing

indicate that they plan

and implement an

average of 2.7 Being a

Writer lessons per week.

Based on outcomes of the

Mid-Year Review, a

school-wide focus and

analysis of teaching

grammar has begun.

60% of teachers of

writing report teaching

the program with fidelity.

The remaining teachers

indicate using the

program as a basis but


Teachers of writing

indicate that they plan

and implement an

average of 2.6 Being a

Writer lessons per week.

DO

&

2. Participate in vertical and PLC

collaboration to discuss student

progress in writing and analyze

written works.

96% of teachers of

writing report discussing

students’ written work in

PLC meetings.

93% of teachers of



PLC meetings.

97% of teachers of



PLC meetings.

86% of teachers of



PLC meetings.

ST

UD

Y &

3. Use common language across

grade levels when writing is

involved

This practice is in place

with the fidelity to the

Being a Writer program.












2011-2012





administrators.




PL

AN







SIP Goal: Improve overall school climate through a focus on Responsive Classroom and bullying prevention.

SIP Objective (SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timebound): During the 2011-2012 school year, the students and

staff at Hollymead will focus on improving school climate through the training, use, and analysis of various climate-related tools.

Supporting Data / Gap Evidence:

The Spring 2011 School Climate Survey (given to 100% of the students in grades 3-5) indicated that there is evidence of bullying occurring

throughout areas of the school and across grade levels. When comparing the amounts of bullying and location of where bullying occurs, there

was an increase between the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 surveys in the occurrences of bullying in the classroom, hallways, cafeteria, outside,

and at the bus or bus stop. Many of these areas showed significantly higher instances of bullying than in other schools in Albemarle County.

Decreases occurred in bathrooms. Reports of teasing decreased in all indicators between the spring and fall surveys. 22% of students reported





telling someone that they were bullied in the month prior to the spring survey, telling an adult at school (45%), a friend (34%), or a parent

(32%). The percentages related to telling someone about bullying were higher than other schools in the school division. Indicators of school

climate showed that Hollymead has a substantially lower rate of teasing when compared to other schools in the school division.

Recommendations from the Spring 2011 School Climate Survey suggested that bullying prevention be established as a school-wide goal, that

classroom meetings should be held to discuss bullying, victims of bullying should be identified and individual interventions should be put

into place to assist them, and parents should be engaged in bullying prevention.

Anticipated Obstacles: While a number of teachers have had the weeklong Responsive Classroom I and/or II training, a critical mass does

not yet exist of those trained; difference in opinions about what a strong school climate or sense of community should look like; different

interpretation of school rules and expectations for students; interweaving Responsive Classroom and Olweus practices.

Key Performance Indicators (Measurable Outcomes): Morning Meetings, continued training in Olweus Anti-Bullying program and

Responsive Classroom, student climate survey

ST

UD

Y




SIP Goal:

Q1 KPI Data

Q2 KPI Data

Q3 KPI Data

Q4/EOY KPI Data

1. Evidence of Morning Meetings

held at least two to four times per

week in each homeroom class.

83.3% of homeroom

classes have Morning

Meeting on a daily basis.

16.7% of homeroom


Meeting 2-4 days/week.

77% of homeroom



24% of non-homeroom

teachers participate in a

Morning Meeting on a

daily basis.

11.5% of homeroom



41% of non-homeroom

teacher participate in a

Morning Meeting 2-3

days/week.

70% of homeroom



22% of homeroom



7% of homeroom classes

have Morning Meeting on

an as-needed basis.

17% of non-homeroom


Morning Meeting 1-3

days/week.

81.8% of homeroom



9.1% of homeroom



9.1% of homeroom


Meeting one time per

week.

29.4% of non-homeroom


Morning Meeting 1-3

days/week.


2. Climate Committee training of

staff in Olweus anti-bullying

practices.

To date, the Climate

Committee has provided

two training sessions for

the Instructional Staff

regarding the Olweus

Bullying Prevention

Program. One additional

training session is

scheduled.

The Climate Committee

has completed all of the

training sessions for the

Instructional Staff


Bullying Prevention

Program.




Instructional Staff


Bullying Prevention

Program.




Instructional Staff


Bullying Prevention

Program.

Feedback regarding the

program and training has

been compiled to inform

further work in this area.

3. Responsive Classroom Steering

Committee provides RC strategies

and activities to the staff on a

regular basis.

This has been done on a

monthly basis to this

point. The intent is for

this to occur with greater

frequency.

While the committee

exists, it has not met on a

regular basis. Teachers

trained in RC provide

supports to the others

through PLCs.

The intent continues for

the RC Steering

Committee to provide

additional supports for

teachers.

A new Responsive

Classroom Committee

has been formed and an

initial plan for further

Responsive Classroom

supports has been

developed. It will be

modified through the

third quarter with

implementation

beginning in the fourth

quarter.

A Responsive Classroom

plan has been developed

and will be implemented

during the 2012-2013

school year.

By the end of the summer

approximately ¾ of the

staff will have attended

RCI and/or RC II

weeklong training.

4. Student climate survey (two

times/ year in grades 3-5). The Student Climate

Survey was given to

students in grades 3-5 in

November. The results are

not yet available.

The Student Climate

Survey was given to

students in grades 3-5.

Peer nominations

indicated on the survey

have been reviewed.

The Student Climate

Survey was given to


Peer nominations


continue to be reviewed.

The Student Climate

Survey was given to


Peer nominations


continue to be reviewed.


Progress Indicators

Q1 Progress on

Strategies

Q2 Progress on

Strategies

Q3 Progress on

Strategies

Q4 Progress on

Strategies & EOY

Reflections

1. Staff participation in Responsive

Classroom Book Club.

All instructional staff

members are reading

either Yardsticks or The

During the second quarter,

all instructional staff

members completed the


Book Clubs were

completed by the end of


Book Clubs were

completed by the end of

DO

&


Power of Our Words. To

date, two formal Book

Club meetings have been

held and two others are

scheduled.

Book Club discussions

around their reading of

either Yardsticks or The

Power of Our Words.

the second quarter. the second quarter.

2. Structures placed in master

schedule to allow for Responsive

Classroom practices to occur.

The master schedule has

30 minutes built in daily to

allow for Morning

Meeting to occur first

thing in the morning.

In all grade levels, recess

is scheduled just prior to

lunch.

Teacher trained in RC

frequently implement

“quiet time” after lunch.


30 minutes built in daily to

allow for Morning





lunch.





30 minutes built in daily

to allow for Morning





lunch.





30 minutes built in daily

to allow for Morning





lunch.


continue to implement


ST

UD

Y &

3. Discussions regarding Responsive

Classroom practices held

regularly during PLC meetings.

25% of teacher report

having PLC discussions

around Responsive

Classroom on a weekly

basis; 20% report those

conversations on a

monthly basis; and 55%

report having them on

an as-needed basis.



around Responsive

Classroom on at least a

weekly basis; 25% report

those conversations on a



an as-needed basis.



around Responsive






an as-needed basis.



around Responsive






an as-needed basis.

AC

T

albemarle county public schools school …...q3 kpi data q4/eoy kpi data 1. learning walk data...

Documents