plainfield nj jefferson school final capa report 2008

8/8/2019 Plainfield NJ Jefferson School FINAL CAPA Report 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plainfield-nj-jefferson-school-final-capa-report-2008 1/44

New Jersey Department of Education Jefferson Elementary School2007-2008 CAPA Summary Report Plainfield School District

CAPA REVIEW

PLAINFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

January 14-17, 2008

Introduction The New Jersey Department of Education conducted a CAPA (CollaborativeAssessment for Planning and Achievement) review of Jefferson ElementarySchool on January 14 to 17, 2008. This school is designated as “in need of improvement” for three consecutive years as defined in the NJ Accountability Workbook . No Child Left Behind (NCLB) §1117: School Support and Recognitionrequires that the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) create andmaintain a statewide system of intensive and sustained support for those Title I

schools designated as “in need of improvement” for more than two consecutiveyears. As part of this required support system, the NJDOE developed the CAPAreview process, which assigns teams of skillful and experienced individuals toprovide schools with practical, applicable, and helpful assistance, increasing theopportunity for all students to meet the state’s Core Curriculum ContentStandards. The CAPA summary report identifies areas of strength and concern fordistricts and schools using the 2007-2008 CAPA Teaching and Learning Tool. Thetool uses indicators of effective school practice (from CAPA) in the following sevenstandard areas: curriculum, assessment/evaluation, instruction, school culture,student/family/community support, professional development/evaluation, andleadership. Essential questions are answered regarding the accomplishment of

h i di t



h i di t


economically disadvantaged students. The focus of the team’s work is theidentification of root causes of the lack of student achievement for these groups.




FINDINGS, KEY EVIDENCE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

STANDARD 1: CURRICULUM

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fully

implemented at the school.

1.1 Is there a district curriculum that is aligned with the New Jersey

Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJ CCCS)?

The district language arts literacy curriculum is not rigorous or regularly reviewed

to ensure alignment with the NJ CCCS. The rigorous district mathematics

curriculum is fully aligned to the NJ CCCS.

Strength:Mathematics:

• The curriculum is rigorous, robust, and aligned to NJ CCCS for generaleducation students.

Challenges:Language Arts Literacy:

• The curriculum does not promote deep understanding of important literacyconcepts because it lacks explicit concrete reading and writing connections




Strengths:Language Arts Literacy:

• Curriculum guides are available for all grades and subgroups, includingspecial education.

English Language Learners:

• Bilingual curriculum guides are available for all grades.

Challenges:Language Arts Literacy

• There is a little evidence of the effective use of additional resources andmaterials provided by the curriculum guides, which would promote moreappropriate and challenging lessons.

• There is little evidence that curriculum standards are articulated acrossgrade levels and content areas. Horizontal, inclusive grade-level meetingsare held weekly; however, the schedule does not provide for vertical staff

meetings.• There is some evidence that the distribution of curriculum guides is

incomplete prior to the beginning of the academic year.

• There is evidence that some staff make unsupervised decisions about whatcontent to teach.

Mathematics:

•Few lesson plans reflect the use of curriculum standards to generateinstruction.

• There is little evidence that teachers use the curriculum in planninginstruction.




• There are no formally scheduled vertical articulation meetings, and therelated arts teachers do not formally meet with ELL teachers to discusscoordination of activities.

• There is little effective use of additional resources and materials listed inthe curriculum guides.

1.3 Is there a process to ensure that the curriculum is fully implemented?

There is little evidence of a systematic process to monitor the implementation of the LAL curriculum. There is no systemic process to ensure the effective implementation of themathematics and special education curricula.


• Monitoring of curriculum implementation by district curriculum supervisorsand school-level personnel is uneven and lacks uniformity of purpose.

• There is little evidence that appropriate feedback is given that results inconcrete instructional action related to significantly improved studentacademic progress.

• Walkthroughs appear to have been initiated without a common purposerelated to rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum implementation.

Mathematics:

• There is no district mathematics supervisor.

• The school math coach was brought on staff in the middle of November,




• Though lesson plans are reviewed weekly, there are no comments as totheir content and integration of data analyzed into activities, and noindication that there is follow-up to determine if they are beingimplemented.

1.4 What evidence exists that all students have access to the district’scommon academic core?

There is little evidence that all students have adequate access to the commonacademic core. The curriculum does not provide accommodations for special education or ELLstudents. There is little evidence that students in self-contained classes have fullaccess to the common academic core.

Strengths:Language Arts Literacy:

• In some classes, the implemented curriculum is used to accommodate thelearning needs of some students. In those classes, lessons are planned withactivities that elicit student responses, demonstrating an expectation of high academic performance.

Special Education:

• The special education teachers have access to the district curriculum as

well as individualized education programs (IEPs).


• The ELL teachers have access to both the district curriculum and a district-




• The curriculum offers little accommodation for the learning needs of students in self-contained special education and ELL classes.

• There are no course offerings for gifted and talented students.

• There are a few specialized courses offered for students after school, whichprovide opportunities for students to receive assistance for the NJ CCCS;however, acceptance into these classes is restricted to students on thecusp. In addition, the lack of transportation limits the number of studentswho are able to attend.

Special Education:• Because the target audience for after-school academic programs is those

students on the cusp, those special education students who are not on thecusp cannot participate in those programs, even though they would benefitfrom the additional instruction.

• The level of expectations is not consistent throughout all classes. Qualityand content of program vary among classes and often lack academic rigor.

English Language Learners:• ELL students are not always provided the opportunities to participate in the

after-school academic programs due to the limited nature of the programoffering.

• The level of expectations is not consistent throughout all classes. Qualityand content of program vary among classes and often lack academic rigor.

• Some ELL classes have larger student populations than the regular

education classes and do not have paraprofessionals available to providesmall-group instruction.

• The bilingual and ESL programs are sporadically monitored by supervisorsfluent in the target language




2.1 Are assessments designed to measure performance in ways that

advance learning through the development of critical thinking and

problem-solving skills?

There is little evidence that classroom assessments are frequent or rigorous.

Strength:Mathematics:

• Classroom walkthroughs indicate that teachers are quick to praise students

when they answer correctly, and to give students meaningful assistancewhen they need help.


• There is little evidence that a variety of methods are used to assess studentprogress in a consistent, frequent, and vigorous manner.

• Although a few teachers report use of embedded assessments, there is littleevidence that informal assessment strategies (thumbs-up, slates, etc.) areembedded in instructional process.

• Folders contain student work of uneven quality and quantity. The quantityof work contained in most folders is insufficient to support consistent,rigorous instruction demonstrating student growth over time or daily,meaningful instruction from September until December.

• Benchmark assessments in the form of a “core product” are required by the

district at regular intervals, but there is no organizational practice thatwould facilitate the effective, consistent administration of the assessments.

Mathematics:





• There is little evidence that a variety of methods is used to assess studentprogress in a consistent, frequent, and vigorous manner.

• There is little evidence that informal assessment strategies (thumbs-up,slates, etc.) are embedded in instruction.

• Folders contain student work of uneven quality and quantity. The quantityof work contained in most folders is insufficient to support either consistentor rigorous instruction.

• Portfolios contain only completed student work. There isn’t evidence of sustained revision, which would lead to proficient writing.

2.2 How do students know what is expected, and are they able to

articulate expectations, share their work, and reflect on others’ work?

In LAL and special education, there is little evidence that students knowexpectations, share their work, or reflect on their own or others’ work.In mathematics, students are provided with exemplars with rubric scores on aquarterly basis. There is some evidence that students share their work or reflecton their own or others’ work.

Strengths:Mathematics:

• Standards-based exemplars with rubric scores are used quarterly to showstudents what high quality work looks like.

• Students interviewed indicate that they use rubrics to grade their own workas well as that of their peers




• There is little evidence of revision to meet or exceed performancestandards based on meaningful teacher feedback, and no evidence of

revision based on peer feedback either posted or in student folders.

Mathematics:

• Appropriate mathematics rubrics are not evident in many classrooms.Papers that are graded using rubrics also have numerical grades affixed.

• There is no consistency in the use of these rubrics. For example, in some

instances, poor quality work receives the same rubric score as work of higher quality.

• There is limited teacher commentary on student work.

Special Education:

• There is a need for consistent, meaningful feedback for all students. Rubricsare used, but there are no pertinent comments as to the strengths, areas of need, or ways to improve the work.

• Not all teachers provide learning objectives.


• There is a need for consistent, meaningful feedback for all students. Rubricsare used, but there are no pertinent comments as to the strength or areasof need of the written response.

• Classes are routinely teacher-directed with little evidence of student choice

of assignment.• In the majority of classes, there is no evidence of routine student instruction

designed to demonstrate student competence.

• Rubrics are not language appropriate for the students




• Although horizontal grade-level meetings are inclusive of special education,bi-lingual, and ESL teachers, there is little evidence that information from

these meetings leads to meaningful classroom usage or significantlyimpacts instructional methods.

Mathematics:

• Analysis of data is inconsistent throughout all grade levels.

• There is no vertical articulation within the school.

• Cross-content articulation is informal and done at the discretion of the

teachers.• Grade-level meetings are held weekly; however, agendas and minutes

indicate that most time is spent on “housekeeping” and matters other thananalysis of student test results in order to modify instruction.

Special Education:

• Disaggregated data were shared with staff at the opening district meetingin September. However, there has been no follow-up for staff to fullyunderstand what they are looking for or how to modify instructionalpractice.

• Though staff indicate that they do collaborate horizontally, there are noformal, vertically scheduled meetings.

• Most of the assessments reviewed and posted are publisher-developed. There are few assessments that mirror the question format of the NJ ASK tests.

English Language Learners:• Disaggregated data were shared with staff at the opening district meeting

in September. However, there has been no follow-up for staff to fullyunderstand what they are looking for or how to modify instructional




3.1 To what extent are all students engaged in learning? To what

extent do special program teachers (e.g., ELL, Title I, special education,

gifted and talented) collaborate with regular education teachers?

There is little evidence of student engagement in learning. Most instruction isteacher-centered and teacher-directed.


• The majority of instruction is direct, whole-class instruction. Questions donot challenge student thinking in the majority of observed classes.Differentiated instruction is seldom observed in either regular or specialeducation classes. Bilingual and ELL classes sometimes attempt todifferentiate instruction with inconsistent degrees of effectiveness. Thereare no observed activities designed to promote higher-level inquiry orhands-on learning. There is no evidence of student choice.

• Guided reading is observed in a few bilingual and regular literacy classes.

This strategy has not been adopted for use on a consistent basis in thelanguage arts regular classes.

• Some teachers use learning centers, but there is no evidence that activitiesare differentiated or designed to demonstrate concept mastery.

• There is no evidence that flexible scheduling is used to enable students toreceive academic interventions or engage in significant academic pursuits.

• There is no evidence that teachers engage in activities thath allow students

to apply knowledge to the solution of real-world problems or challenges.• The Read 180 program is compromised by lack of a 90-minute time period.

Internal and external support for implementation is erratic.

• Student engagement is uneven as evidenced by some instances of




• Most instruction is teacher-centered and teacher-directed. In somewalkthroughs, there is evidence that not all students are positively

engaged.• There is little evidence that students are being challenged.

• Teacher schedules do not provide the appropriate time for instruction. Inmany instances, time assigned to mathematics is used for morningexercises, the flag salute, attendance, and other “housekeeping” activities.In some cases, as much as 25 minutes is spent on these details at a cost tothe time spent on mathematics.

• Materials to support the special education students and the growing Latinopopulation are very limited.

• Higher-level and challenging inquiry are not observed during the classroomwalkthroughs.

• There are no inclusion classes. Students with special needs are pulled outfrom the class for a period of time for individualized instruction that is notalways connected to the core curriculum. The blocks of time for specialeducation and general education classes present conflicts in terms of student removal.

Special Education:

• The master schedule does not provide for the district-required timeallotments for language arts literacy and mathematics.

• Staff share their concern in not understanding the needs and strategies forthe special education students.

• The majority of instruction observed is whole-group and teacher-dominated. There is little differentiated instruction observed in the classroom or in theplan books reviewed.

• The master schedule does not provide for true inclusion but rather for pull




• There are not enough ESL teachers to support the increasing ELL studentpopulation. Most classes are only scheduled every other week. Instruction is

further hindered when substitutes are needed as the ESL teachers areasked to cover classes or translate. This shortchanges the ESL students inthe required minutes of instruction and support that they need.

• There is little evidence of unit planning or interdisciplinary planning.Interdisciplinary instructional activities are not observed. Teachers are notaware of the district’s interdisciplinary curriculum designed to infuse finearts into literacy and math.

3.2 Have learning goals for each student been developed and

prioritized according to NJ CCCS? How are the goals developed?

There is no evidence that individual student goals have been developed in LAL orspecial education. The mathematics program provides opportunities for the development of and

reflection on individual student learning goals; however, the implementation of the program is not rigorous.

Strengths:Mathematics:

• The mathematics program used to deliver the curriculum to students isEveryday Mathematics. Instructional strategies/activities within the program

are aligned with the curriculum and with the NJ CCCS. The mathematicsprogram itself uses a spiral approach to learning, thus providing reviewtime for skills, knowledge, and concepts already learned.




• Students are not sure of why these skills are being taught. Some voice theopinion that they are being taught in order to be able to “pass the test.”

Special Education:

• The what, why, and purpose of instruction varies among staff. Thoughobjectives appear on some chalkboards, in only one class observed is therean explanation of what is being taught, why, and its relevance to students. The majority of the students cannot articulate the why or how it ismeaningful, other than they need it to “pass the test”.

•

There are limited best practices observed. There is not always evidencethat effective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in all

classrooms.


• The what, why, and purpose of instruction varies among staff. Thoughobjectives appear on some chalkboards, in only one class visited is there anexplanation of what is being taught, why, and its relevance to students.

• The majority of the students cannot articulate the why or how it ismeaningful, other than they need it to “pass the test.”

• There are limited best practices observed. There is little evidence thateffective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in allclassrooms.

3.3 What evidence is there that all teachers have a deep knowledge and understanding of their content and how to teach it?

There is little evidence that most LAL and special education teachers are




• The school lacks a strategic plan delineating the processes, responsibilities,timelines, and assessments necessary to implement seamlessly best

practices instruction.• Support (materials, texts, best practices, pedagogy) for teachers newly

assigned to classrooms and/or grade levels are minimal.

• Some teachers require additional support in effective classroommanagement techniques.

• A high standard for the speech and tone of a few adults working withstudents is not maintained.

Mathematics:

• Some teachers demonstrate that they are not proficient in teachingmathematics, although they may be able to teach “tricks” for arriving atcorrect solutions to problems. The mathematics behind these “tricks” eitheris non-existent or the teacher is unaware of/unable to explain themathematics itself.

• The relationship between mathematics and solving real-world problems is

seldom mentioned.

• Teachers demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the pedagogy of the day:differentiated instruction, small-group learning, peer learning, and the useof learning centers and manipulatives.

• While all classrooms have a supply of manipulatives necessary for theEveryday Mathematics program, no teacher is observed using any of them.

Special Education:• The majority of staff demonstrate content knowledge but lack the use of

best practices to fully engage the students in the learning process. There islittle evidence of grade-level use of an interdisciplinary approach especially




• The school lacks a strategic plan delineating the processes, responsibilities,timelines, and assessments necessary to implement best practices

instruction specifically applicable to bilingual and ELL learners.• A full-time bilingual literacy coach has not been assigned to provide

continuity of service to bilingual teachers, and support provided by thedistrict is minimal.

3.4 How is technology used in the organizational and instructional

practices of the school?

There is little evidence that technology is effectively used in the school’sorganizational and instructional practice.

Strengths:Special Education:

• All classrooms have a minimum of two working computers.English Language Learners:

• All classrooms have a minimum of two working computers.


• The lack of a strategic plan for the school that incorporates designatedlearning by grade level, time slots for instruction, assessment, and

systematic upgrades of hardware and software severely hinders theimplementation of a technology program that promotes studenttechnological proficiency.




• Staff would like to see varied instructional programs for students and staff to incorporate technology into the daily instructional program.


• Technology use varies from teacher to teacher. Although some use it forresearch and supplemental material, the main use of computers is wordprocessing.

• The technology coordinator is shared with another building and has noscheduled classes for students.

•Staff would like to see varied instructional programs for students and staff incorporating technology into the daily program.

• The lack of a strategic plan that incorporates designated learning by gradelevel, time slots for instruction, assessment, and systematic upgrades of hardware and software severely hinders the implementation of atechnology program that adequately addresses the needs of an increasingbilingual population.

STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTURE

The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a




Challenge:

• There is inconsistency in classroom rules and consequences across classes.

4.2 How does the school community express high expectations for all

its members?

There is little evidence that the school holds high academic expectations for all

students.

Strengths:

• The Student and Family Support Services (SFSS) team, this school’sintervention and referral services (I&RS) team, is extremely dedicated andactive in identifying and supporting students in need.

• Many staff, including secretaries and custodians, have taken on roles of counseling and mentoring students.

Challenges:

• While high expectations are held for students for appropriate socialinteraction, the expectations for high student academic engagement is notevident in many classes.

• With the rapid change in student demographics, there is need for teachersto be provided with more opportunities to develop skill in recognizing

student problems that may be a result of the outcome of these changes inthe school.




• There are other opportunities within the school that encourage students,either as individuals or within small groups, to develop the social skills

necessary to make better decisions.

Challenges:

• The challenge is to assess the results of the opportunities provided for students to

address issues in their own lives, their community, and their world.

• Most students currently are not working in cooperative groups in mostclasses and are not building the skills necessary to work as independent

learners.• Students are not being given the academic opportunities for choice within

the classes.

• All PTO and other staff involved with parents in the building are aware of and committed to supporting the role that parents play in the academicachievement of their students. Their vision is to promote active parentinvolvement, including the involvement of the Hispanic/Latino community,for this purpose. However, since many of these key persons are new to the

building, the challenge is to develop and implement a plan to make thisvision come alive.

• There are some opportunities within classrooms for students to addressissues in their own lives.

STANDARD 5: STUDENT, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT

The school community develops alliances with families, higher

education, and community organizations to enhance and support the




This alignment is done in general using the NJ ASK and other testing data totarget skills needed in general for grade levels.

Challenges:

• The school needs to find ways to deepen the level of assessment down tothe individual student level and expand the communication betweenclassroom teacher and extended-day teacher so that students arestrengthened individually in the specific academic skills and knowledge thatthey need. Coordinators are talking about this and, at least as a beginning,are hoping to assess the program more rigorously and make necessaryadjustments.

• Given the resources available, not all students who are in need of additionalassistance, including bilingual and special education students, are able toreceive it in extended-day programs.

5.2 To what extent does the school maintain a positive relationship

with parents and communicate frequently about their children, includingthe need for supplemental services and providers that are available?

There is evidence of an intentional effort on the part of the school to maintain apositive relationship with parents and to communicate with them frequently.

Strengths:

•

Social services in the school address the health and safety of all studentsequitably and with great care.

• District provides written translation services for every school.

• There is simultaneous translation through headphones offered during




5.3 Who works in partnership with the school? What do the partners

contribute?

There are several groups who work in partnership with the school, including theRutgers Graduate School of Social Work, Prevention Links and Venture/Venture.

Strengths:

• The partnerships with the Rutgers Graduate School of Social Work,Prevention Links, and Venture/Venture have provided very positive

experiences and outcomes for students at Jefferson School.• The school in the recent past has had very supportive parent programs

provided by the county. This is dependent on funding and not necessarilyavailable as regularly as needed.

Challenge:

• There is need to identify and partner with additional groups to continue toprovide parent and technological support.

5.4 How does the district support the school’s instructional staff and

leadership?

Challenges:

• There have been significant vacancies and replacements among district

staff, in addition to those at the school level, which contribute to theinconsistency of strategic, systemic district support to the school.

• There is little evidence of a rigorous analysis of disaggregated data andapplication of that analysis to student advancement




The administration of the school understands the relationship between effective

professional development for its faculty and student advancement.

Strength:

• The administration at the school level and some at the district level areaware of what needs to be done in the area of professional development forinstructional strategies to address the needs of all students.

Challenge:

• There is no strategic plan with appropriate specificity to link rigorouslyassessed student academic needs, teacher competencies, and professionaldevelopment.

6.2 What evidence is there that student learning is tied to teacher

learning? Do teachers feel they receive adequate professional

development?

There is no strategic plan with appropriate specificity to link rigorously assessedstudent academic needs, teacher competencies, and professional development.

Strengths:

• See 6.1

Challenges:

• See 6.1

STANDARD 7: LEADERSHIP




• In October, that vice principal was transferred and replaced.

• In December, this new vice principal became principal.

• A new, inexperienced, untrained literacy coach with limited teachingexperience was assigned in September, 2007.

• A new math coach was assigned in November, 2007.

• A new family liaison was assigned in December, 2007.

• The school shares its technology coordinator, nurse, and parent liaison withthe Emerson School. It also shares the child study team with three otherschools.

• A fifth grade teacher, who was also the testing coordinator, was promoted tovice principal in another school in October. The position of test coordinator wasnot filled.

• The SLC and PTO were established in late fall, 2007.In light of the above it is inappropriate to assess the present principal’seffectiveness using Standard 7 in its intended mode.

7.1 Are the school administrators educational leaders who understand

the linkages among educational leadership, a productive school, and

positive outcomes for children?

The principal is knowledgeable about the linkages among educational leadership,a productive school, and positive outcomes for children, but lacks a plan to

ensure that those linkages are explicit, well-developed, and communicated.

Strength:




Strength:

• Interviews with the principal, central office staff, and school-based staff indicate that the administrator has the potential to be an educational leaderwho understands the complexity of the role and what needs to be done toadvance this school.

Challenges:

• There is no evidence that any sound planning drove the appointment of this

principal.• There is no provision for coaching of this principal in this very unique and

complex situation.

7.3 Have key school leaders established a culture of trust and

institutionalized a commitment to continuous improvement and

accountability for performance?

The school lacks a comprehensive strategic plan to support the principal’scommitment to continuous improvement and accountability.

Strengths:

• See 7.1

Challenges:• See 7.1

7 4 How is distributed leadership demonstrated and what evidence do




The mathematics subteam visited ten classrooms during the visit, including

classrooms from the K-5 grade levels. There were a number of indicators in whichmost classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward the teacher and student, and (2) orderly and well-maintained classrooms. There were fewer cases of (1) team teaching, (2)differentiated instruction, (3) students engaged in grappling with complexproblems involving higher-order thinking skills and critical thinking, (4) studentsengaging in self-reflection, (5) teachers communicating why the lesson is beingtaught, (6) students demonstrating a level of excitement over learning, and (7)teachers demonstrating a level of excitement over teaching. Overall, there was awide range of instruction observed during the school visit.

The special education subteam visited two resource rooms during the visit.Special needs students are integrated in all facets at Jefferson School, withminimal participation in after-school activities. They are mainstreamed for relatedarts subjects and science. All special education classes visited were neatly

decorated but had little student work displayed. Students were well-behaved andon-task, working independently, as the teacher checked and helped them.Instruction observed was mostly teacher-directed and whole-group. The regularclassroom teachers are in need of knowing how to best work with special needsstudents, as the SPED students are in their classes with no support. The bar mustbe raised for the special needs students if they are to reach their potential. Thespecial needs staff are eager, and they are seeking direction, guidance, andsupport. Two IEPs were outdated, and teachers (other than SPED staff) have not

reviewed the current 2007-2008 IEPs of students in their classes. Unless themaster schedule is revised, there will be a need for another resource roomteacher to ensure that the students’ IEPs are in compliance. There were a numberof indicators in which the two resource rooms observed exhibited good practices




their potential. The ELL staff is eager, and they are seeking direction, guidance,and support. The student population warrants another ESL teacher to insure that

the growing Latino student population’s needs are being met. There were anumber of indicators in which the classes observed exhibited good practices,including (1) students exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward theteacher, and (2) orderly and well-maintained classrooms. There were fewer casesof (1) students engaging in self-reflection, and (2) communicating why the lessonis being taught. A greater emphasis on the ELL program and support services isneeded in the primary grades if the school is to meet their AYP. This cannot waituntil 3rd, 4th, or 5th grades.

The school’s external culture team member conducted interviews with schoolsupport staff, the school social worker, Rutgers social work interns, district socialwork director, the after-school program and Saturday Academy coordinators, theschool secretaries, the school nurse, the PTO president and vice-president, andthe parent liaison; participated in the administrative walkthroughs; and listenedto the reports by fellow team members.

The school is perceived by almost all groups as a physically safe place. In mostinstances, school walkthroughs showed that students are not challenged to beindependent learners and thinkers.While both the parent liaison and the PTO president and vice-president identify allthe appropriate areas and activities for full parent involvement, these activitiesand goals are for the future, since all of these persons are very recentlyestablished at the school. The school’s after-school programs are at an initial

level of using student data to drive the program. There is an understanding onthe part of the coordinators that there is need to use data at deeper levels and tostrengthen the alignment of instruction in the after-school programs with that inregular day instruction for individual students Not all students are able to take




SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTATION REVIEW

The team activities included a review of the documents collected for the schoolportfolio and data profile, including:

• 2005 CAPA report

• Most current benchmark summary form

• 2006-2007 District Title I Unified Plan and Consolidated Application

• 2007 School Title I Improvement Plan

• School Highly Qualified Teacher Report• Data folder provided at December 18, 2006 workshop

• PIPs and related evaluations

• Teachers’ daily schedule

• Curriculum guides

• Grade-level meeting materials

• Lesson plan books

• Sample PIPs• Faculty meeting agendas

• Sample teacher evaluations

T h ’ ti it bi d




SCHOOL AND DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS

When reading this report one must consider that the present status of the Jefferson School in is unique. The school has experienced extraordinary upheavalas a result of the apparently spontaneous and unplanned changes in leadershipand other key positions within the school in the last 6 months (8/07-1/08).

• At the end of August, the principal of Emerson was also assigned to Jefferson.

•

The Jefferson School had a new vice principal.• In October, that vice principal was transferred and replaced.

• In December this new vice principal became principal.

• A new Literacy coach was assigned in September, 2007.

• A new Math coach was assigned in November, 2007.

• A new Family Liaison was assigned in December, 2007.

• The school shares its technology coordinator, nurse and parent liaison with the

Emerson School. It also shares the Child Study Team with 3 other schools.• A fifth grade teacher, who was also the testing coordinator, was promoted to

vice principal in another school in October. The role of test coordinator wasnot filled.




1. Provide all teachers with the necessary texts, supplemental materials, andtools needed for effectively meeting all of the goals of the curriculum for every

student.

2. Provide teachers with hands-on professional development in the areas of content and pedagogy.

3. Provide teachers with hands-on modeling of the various pedagogicaltechniques needed, e.g., differentiated instruction, the use of learning centers,small-group learning.

4. Modify the curriculum to include appropriate interventions aligned with highacademic standards and best practices for LEP and special education students.

SPECIAL EDUCATION1. There is a critical and urgent need to provide regular education and special

education teachers with necessary materials and strategies to work withspecial needs students.

2. Case managers should ensure that IEPs include necessary supplementaleducational services and that all facets of the IEP are being delivered andupdated in a timely manner.

3. The schedule should be revised to provide for a true inclusion program.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS1 There is a great need to provide regular education teachers with necessary




2. Focus professional development for teachers and staff in understanding theneeds of the ELL and special education population.

STUDENT, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT 1. Create the parent plan discussed in interviews and implement it. Ensure that

the needs of the ELL and special education communities are addressed in theplan.

2. Implement ways of providing parent liaison services and secretarial servicesthat will reach the ELL and special education communities now.

LEADERSHIP1. It is recommended that the district immediately assign a well-chosen coach to

spend at least three days a week for a four month period of time and thenonce a week for the remainder of the school year to help this principal develop

a way of thinking about the practice of school leadership. The coach, incollaboration with the principal, will develop a strategic plan for the principal’sgrowth, incorporating best practices for the school leader in the areas of teaching and learning, organizational practices, parent/communityrelationships, and leadership, all for the purpose of student advancement. Thedistrict is encouraged to contact the Deputy Commissioner of Education WillaSpicer for financial and experiential support.

2. The school’s administration should review the literature on TransformationalLeadership in a lesson study format. (Thomas J. Sergiovanni’s RethinkingLeadership is one source.) This should help the administration define thebeliefs and values in Instruction Climate and Expectations for Student




1. The school leadership team should formally review professional developmentbest practices as described by The National Staff Development Council (NSDC)

and then make adjustments to the conduct of grade-level meetings, staff meetings, and other on-site staff development opportunities. The principal,recognizing the importance of sound planning to respond to the needs of students, should seek out funding to support a professional develoopmentconsultant service provided by NSDC or a related organization to create adetailed professional development plan for Jefferson School.

DISTRICT 1. The district should mandate and support the creation of a school-based

strategic planning committee, including key individuals from within the schoolas well as district-level professionals and NJDOE support staff (including a DOEconsultant who has defined experience in administration of a turn-aroundschool and strategic planning). This team should be given a specific amount of time (two weeks) to create a rigorously detailed Strategic Action Plan to be

followed for the remainder of the school year and to be the foundation for aschool-based strategic plan for school year ’08-’09. This plan should follow anidentified model (NSDC), be focused on the improvement of teaching andlearning (Instruction), and address the challenges identified in this CAPAreport. The urgency of this recommendation is without question if the studentsin this school are to be provided a thorough and efficient education inaccordance with NCLB mandates, and if the commitment and talent of theadministrator and many staff both within the school and the district are to be

maximized.

2. The principal should be the recognized leader of this ad-hoc committee.Representation of the SLC is essential It is recommended that the first three




their open interaction with us during our visit. We encourage the schoolcommunity to review this report asking themselves reflective questions about the

findings of fact and recommendations for action.




BACKGROUND INFORMATION FORM

School Jefferson E.S.

Principal/Lead Person – Years in Building Yvonne Breauxsaus—approx. 4months

Grade Levels K-5Number of Teachers in Building 36.5

Number of Teachers meeting NCLB HQT 36.5Number of Teachers with EmergencyCertification and Subject Area NoneAre classrooms departmentalized? If yes,what grade levels? Include specialeducation.

K-3 noGrades 4-5 yes

SPED no Teacher Mobility Rate 0.0%

Teacher Attendance Rate 92.66 Total Number of Classrooms 34Percent Special Education Students 6.33%Percent Special Education Students inInclusive Classrooms

Math 52.4%LAL 3.8%Science 100%Specials 100%

Percent Special Education Students inOut-of-School Placement 0.903%

Number of Special Education Students inInclusive Classrooms 21





School Leadership Council (SLC) or Title IPlanning Committee (PC) Meets Monthly Every 2nd Tuesday

SLC or Title I Committee has completerepresentation including parent NoPercent Parent Involvement Information not provided

Major School Improvement Strategy(ies) Information not providedHas the School Received a Persistently

Dangerous “Warning?” NoMost Current Number of StudentsReading at Grade Level Information not provided

Provide a List of Benchmark AssessmentsAdministered and the Timeline for Each

DRA October, JanuaryAcuity November/December; January/FebruaryTAP September/October;

January/February; MayAYP Subgroups Status: LEP

Math - Safe HarborLAL - noAfrican-AmericanMath - made AYPLAL - made AYP

HispanicMath - made AYPE.D.Math - made AYP





Number of Students Attending BasicSkills Courses

Not applicable -Basic Skills classesnot offered

CAPA DISTRICT AND SCHOOL“CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORSSTANDARD 1: CURRICULUM

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fullyimplemented at the school.

1 1.1 The district curriculum is aligned with the NJ CCCS (that provide acoherent vision for what students should know and be able to do) andspecifies the content to be mastered.

2 1.2 The district curriculum is implemented at the school.3 1.3 There is a process to monitor the implementation of the curriculum.

4 1.4 The school ensures that all students have access to the district’s commonacademic core




CAPA DISTRICT AND SCHOOL“CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORS

11 3.4 Technology is incorporated into the school organizational andinstructional practices.

STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTUREThe school functions as an effective learning community and supports aclimate conducive to performance excellence.

12 4.1 The school community supports a safe, equitable, and healthy learningenvironment.

13 4.2 The members of the school community, including school leadership,

instructional staff, students, parents/guardians, and partners, possessand cultivate the collective will to persevere, believing it is their businessto produce increased achievement and advancement of all students.

14 4.3 A personalized environment is purposefully established for students inorder for them to (a) learn about their strengths (intellectual, ethical,social, and physical); (b) discover and demonstrate their owncompetence; and (c) plan for their future.

STANDARD 5: STUDENT, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT

The school community develops alliances with families, higher education,and community organizations to enhance and support the well-being of children.

15 5.1 There is a program of educational support services for student support.

16 5.2 There is a program of family/adult caregiver support services.

17 5.3 There is a program of community partnership and support.

18 5.4 There is a program of district support for the school.

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION

The school provides for staff research-based, results-driven professionaldevelopment opportunities that are consistent with the district’sprofessional development plan, and implements performance evaluation




CAPA DISTRICT AND SCHOOL“CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORS

22 7.2 There is a demonstrated and unrelenting focus on evidence-basedteaching and learning.

23 7.3 There is a culture of trust, continuous improvement, and accountabilityfor performance.

24 7.4 School leadership and the NCLB school improvement committee planeffectively by communicating a clear purpose, direction, and strategiesfocused on teaching and learning through the development,implementation, and evaluation of the following: vision, goals, and the

NCLB school improvement plan.




TEAM POSITION NAME AFFILIATION

EXTERNAL TEAM

Team Leader Chris Rennie Educational Consultant

Principal Margaret Mary Dalton Educational Consultant

Language Arts LiteracySpecialist Pat Burwell

Educational Consultant

Mathematics Specialist Anne Marie Winters Educational Consultant

Special Education SpecialistVito D’Alconzo Educational Consultant

English Language LearningSpecialist

Vito D’AlconzoPat Burwell

Educational Consultant

School Culture Specialist Elizabeth Domigan Educational Consultant

INTERNAL TEAM

District Liaison Dawn CicconeFederal and MandatedPrograms; CAPA Liaison

Principal Yvonne Breauxsaus School principal

i t d D b




ACTION STEP 1

CAPA ACTION STEPS

TO IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

STANDARD(S) 7 INDICATOR(S) 7.1 CONTENT AREA: All

SUBTEAM: Leadership

Briefly Describe the Action Step—What needs to be done?:

• An emergency strategic action plan needs to be developed as soon as possible to direct the work of the school forthe rest of the year and provide the foundation for the three-year strategic plan to be developed during the springand summer of 2008. A team of highly competent personnel from the school, district, and state needs to be

mobilized and committed to a full two weeks of work to develop this plan. The profile of the state personnel shouldinclude experience in urban schooling, a record of success leading a successful urban school turnaround, and arecord of success in organizational change.

What is the Rationale for Selection of this particular Action Step—Root Causes:

• The new principal needs support and assistance in developing an action plan, as there is no such plan for theschool and she was appointed mid-year and needs to create the leadership team for the school and establish herown position in the school

What AYP data support selection of the Action Step?

• All of the AYP data

• The record of the significant organizational changes in school year 2007-2008:o The present status of the Jefferson School in Plainfield is unique. The school has experienced extraordinary

upheaval as a result of the apparently spontaneous and unplanned changes in leadership and other keypositions within the last 6 months.

o At the end of August, the principal of Emerson was also assigned to Jefferson and a new vice principal was

appointed.o In October, that vice principal was transferred and replaced.

o In December this new vice principal became principal.

o A new, inexperienced, untrained literacy coach with limited teaching experience was assigned in September,

2007.o

A new mathematics coach was assigned in November, 2007.




o A new family liaison was assigned in December, 2007.

o The school shares its technology coordinator, nurse, and parent liaison with the Emerson School. It also shares

the child study team with three other schools.o A fifth grade teacher, who was testing coordinator, was promoted to vice principal in another school in October.

What is the measurable goal (% or number) related to this Action Step?• There will be an action plan to direct the work of the school for the rest of the year.

What is the name of the research-based strategy(ies) or best practice(s) to be implemented that willachieve the desired goal?

• Transformational leadership

• Systems thinking

• Strategic planningList other strategies already implemented in the school and/or district that directly contribute toaccomplishment of this Action Step:

• N/AList other schools/classrooms (within or outside the district) where this strategy is successfullyimplemented and achieving the desired results. Is it possible to visit the school or classroom to see thestrategy in action?

• N/AWhat are the possible costs for implementing the strategy(ies)?

• Cost of consultants




DELIVERY: How are we going to get there?Detail the specific tasks to be completed in order to implement successfully each of the research-based or promising strategies you selected.Use additional rows as needed. As a result of the selection of the action steps, the Title 1 School Improvement Plan should be revised.

Specific Actions necessary toimplement the selected Research-

Based StrategySpecific actions to improve educational

practices

By when?

Start /End Date

By whom?

Persons Involved (‘+’ denotes lead

person)

With what?

Resources required and

funding source(s)

What evidence?How will we know the

strategies are working?How do we track our

progress?

1 Define the purpose of the team,including objectives, expectedoutcomes, and measures.

3/1/08 –4/1/08

Principal +Director of Curriculum &Instruction

Statement of purpose

2 Select members of the team 4/1/08 –4/15/08

Principal+Director of

Curriculum &Instruction

Consultant fees Team roster,resumes, and

description of roles

3 Develop work plan for team, usingdistrict-adopted “Strategic MappingProcess To Support Strategic DistrictImprovement”

4/15/08 –4/20/08

+PrincipalLead consultant

Schedule of meetings, workplan with specificobjectives,timelines,outcomes, andmeasures

4 Team receives training in theStrategic Mapping Process referredto above

As can bescheduled

Team Agenda for training,evaluation of training, reflectionsof team members

5 Team develops emergency actionplan for rest of year

4/20 – 5/15 +Principal Team

Document

6 Implementation of plan 5/15 – 6/20 +Principal Team

Agendas andminutes of meetings involvedin the

ff S




DELIVERY: How are we going to get there?Detail the specific tasks to be completed in order to implement successfully each of the research-based or promising strategies you selected.Use additional rows as needed. As a result of the selection of the action steps, the Title 1 School Improvement Plan should be revised.

Specific Actions necessary toimplement the selected Research-

Based StrategySpecific actions to improve educational

practices

By when?

Start /End Date

By whom?

Persons Involved (‘+’ denotes lead

person)

With what?

Resources required and

funding source(s)

What evidence?How will we know the

strategies are working?How do we track our

progress?

implementation;intermediatemeasures of success

7 Evaluation of plan 6/20 – 6/25 +Principal Team

Evaluationdocument;document

describing nextsteps

plainfield nj jefferson school final capa report 2008

Documents