school improvement plan 2015 2016

SSSccchhhoooooolllIIImmmppprrrooovvveeemmmeeennntttPPPlllaaannn

222000111555–––222000111666

PPPaaauuulllaaa JJJ... DDDeeelll PPPrrreeettteee

PPPrrriiinnnccciiipppaaalll

LLLaaawwwrrreeennnccceee MMM... WWWooolllpppeee

AAAssssssiiissstttaaannnttt PPPrrriiinnnccciiipppaaalll

Potter Road Elementary School is the School of Lifelong Learners.

Lifelong learning is defined as “all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or intellectual-related perspective”.

FraminghamPublicSchools PotterRoadElementarySchool

SchoolImprovementPlan2015‐16

“The School of Lifelong Learners”

Page i

PREAMBLE

This plan reflects a collaborative effort of the Potter Road Elementary School community,

specifically the Data Team, Coaches, the School Council and the Staff who all met on several

occasions in October 2015 to analyze data, develop goals, discuss strategies and develop action

plans related to school improvement. This is a living document and a plan that will guide us as

we continue to improve our teaching and learning at the Potter Road Elementary School.

The Potter Road School Improvement Plan is being submitted to the Framingham

School Committee in accordance with the requirements of M.G. L., C.71, S.50C of the

Education Reform Act of 1993.




Page 2

SIGNATUREPAGE

We, the members of the School Council, have met and discussed the School Improvement Plan and the

Performance Improvement Mapping Plan in Appendix A.

Paula J. Del Prete, Principal __________________________________________________ Signature

Lawrence Wolpe, Assistant Principal __________________________________________________

Karin Agte, MSW ___________________________________________________

Susan Moriarty, M.Ed ___________________________________________________

Hilary Kreisberg, Math Coach ___________________________________________________

Julie L’Abbe, Literacy Coach ___________________________________________________

Jeff Weinstein, Teacher ____________________________________________________

Lisa Lopez, ELD Coach _____________________________________________________

Jim Kelly, Community Member/Parent _____________________________________________________

Adina Kurzman, Parent _________________________________________________

Kristi Johnson, Parent ______________________________________________________




Page iii

Table of Contents

1. SCHOOL OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

2. VISION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

3. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ......................................................................................................... 6

4. MCAS DATA ......................................................................................................................... 8

5. PPI AND CPI DATA ............................................................................................................. 13

6. NWEA MAP DATA ............................................................................................................. 16

7. LEARNING INDICATORS ..................................................................................................... 20

8. MONITORING TOOL AND THE FIVE GOALS ....................................................................... 24

APPENDIX A: TEN ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT MAPPING ............................. 34




Page 4

1.1 Description of School, Vision and Mission Statement

Potter Road Elementary School is located in the Northwest quadrant of Framingham on 12 acres of land.

Potter Road houses 505 students in Grades K‐5. Over the past five years we have seen an increase in our

numbers from 468– 505. This has put a lot of stress on the infrastructure of the building as we are using many

areas in the building that are not designed as instructional spaces.

We offer Standard English and Sheltered English Instruction (SEI) classes in grades K‐2. In grade 2, we also

offer a bilingual classroom for Portuguese speakers. This will be the last year that we offer Bilingual

Portuguese as the program will be phased out. In grades 3‐5 we offer SEI/GEN ED classes. We offer ELD push

in/pull out supports in grades K‐5. We also have a Bilingual Resource Room, Standard English Resource Room

and inclusion services for special education students in K‐2. We offer a Standard Resource Room and some

inclusion opportunities for grades 3‐5 as well as a full complement of special education services, i.e.: speech,

OT, PT and APE for all students in Grades K‐5.

Potter Road is comprised of 25 classrooms in the following configuration: four classes at the kindergarten level

(three standards and one SEI). Four classes at the first grade level, (three standards and one SEI). Five classes

at the second grade level (three standards, one SEI and one bilingual Portuguese class). Four GEN ED/SEI

integrated classes at Grade 3‐5.

There are 25 classroom teachers, 1 full time Kindergarten aide in the SEI K, 3 part time K aides in the standard

K classes and (2) 1:1 aides for students who require these services. We also have one Assistant Special

Education Teacher. Our support staff includes a Bilingual Portuguese Psychologist, a Bilingual Portuguese

Social Worker, a Guidance Counselor and a full time Nurse.

We also presently have a part time (19 hours) Bilingual Literacy Interventionist for K‐2, a part time (19 hours)

Literacy Interventionist for K‐2 Sheltered English and Standard classes. We have: 4.5 ESL teachers, a .5 Math

Coach, a part time (19 hours) Technology Specialist, a .2 Special Education Team Evaluation Coordinator, 1.2

Speech and Language Therapists, 4 full time Special Education Teachers, a .5 ELL Coach, a full time Literacy

Coach and a full time Librarian Assistant.

These staff members along with secretaries, custodians and cafeteria personnel all work collaboratively to

ensure that students enjoy a comprehensive educational experience.

Teachers and Support Staff work to provide students with integration opportunities during Library, Art, Music,

Physical Education, Open Circle, Science, and Social Studies.




Page 5

VISION

The vision of Potter Road Elementary School’s community is to create a safe environment for teaching and

learning, which fosters the development of responsible, caring students who are lifelong learners. Students

will achieve academic excellence and be prepared to meet the challenges of a culturally diverse society. We

will accomplish this through continual collaboration among staff, families, and students.

In the next ten years, Framingham’s ELL population will continue to grow. More teacher training on the

needs of ELL students, along with materials, technology and major building renovations will be in order to

meet the needs of our increasing population.

MISSION

Potter Road Elementary School’s staff, families, and community empower learners to achieve excellence in the

following:

• Academic performance and critical thinking

• Individual growth and accountability

• Independent and cooperative work

• Academic rigor and risk taking within a safe and nurturing environment

• Innovative thinking and proficiency in technology

3. SCHOOLOVERVIEW

1. VISION




Page 6

2. DEMOGRAPHICDATA2.1 Enrollment Data

Enrollment ‐ Race/Ethnicity/Gender

ATTENDANCE




Page 7

Selected Populations

Economically disadvantaged at PRS this year (2015‐16) 201/502 ‐40%

Teacher Data




Page 8

3. MCASDATA

2014

Reading / ELA Annual Comparisons




Page 9




Page 10

Math Annual Comparisons




Page 11

Science & Technology/Engineering Annual Comparisons




Page 12




Page 13

4. PPIANDCPIDATA




Page 14




Page 15

PARCC Results-ELA/MATH-2015 Grades 3-5




Page 16

5. NWEAMAPDATA

Student Growth




Page 17

MAP –NWEA ‐Distribution by Percentile




Page 18




Page 19




Page 20

6. LEARNINGINDICATORS

Reading / ELA/Math/Science/Access

PERFORMANCE AREAS: OVERALL STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES

Grade 3 – ELA ‐ Strengths ‐

1. Open Response – all scores were above zero –

2. Point of View, purpose

3. Using Context Clues to figure out meaning

Grade 3 ‐ ELA –Weaknesses

1. Reading Anchor Standard – Short response, Folktale – moral/lesson, Key Ideas and details,

conventions of English

2. Language Anchor Standard – Grammar‐ parts of speech

3. Vocabulary Acquistion and Use

4. Informational Texts

Grade 4 – ELA Strengths ‐

1. Reading Anchor Standard – Key Ideas and Details

2. Analyze how and why individual events and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

3. Open response

Grade 4 ‐ ELA Weaknesses –

1. Language Anchor – Vocabulary Acquisition and use

2. Anchor – Key Reading Ideas and Details

3. Determining the meaning of unknown and multiple meanings of word phrases, vocabulary




Page 21

Inferencing

4. Demonstrating command of convention using punctuation and capitalization

Grade 5 – ELA Strengths

1. Reading Anchor Standard – Key Ideas and Details, Craft, Structure and Inferring

2. Vocabulary

3. Reading Anchor Standard – Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

Grade 5 ‐ ELA Weaknesses

1. Reading Anchor Standard – Key Ideas and details, craft and structure, Complexity of text and

Author’s craft and style made it difficult for students to extract information.

2. Reading Anchor Standard – Open Response, Students having difficulty taking key ideas and details from the reading and using it to support an answer

3. Reading Anchor Standard – Key Ideas and Details, Synthesizing of information presented in a text and being able to understand meaning of a passage (deeper thinking about what they are reading.)

Math Strengths and Weaknesses

Grade 3 ‐ Math – Strengths

1. Operations and Algebraic Thinking – multiplication and division, Patterns in Arithmetic.

2. Geometry –reasoning with shapes and attributes

3. Number and Operations–Base10–Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi‐digit arithmetic.

4. Measurement and Data – measurement and estimation of intervals of time, liquid volumes and masses of objects

Grade 3 ‐Math‐Weaknesses




Page 22

1. Number and Operations – Fractions – developing and understanding of fractions as numbers

2. Measurement and Data – Represent and Interpret Data

3. Geometric measurement – understanding concepts of area and relate area to multiplication and to addition.

Grade 4 Math‐Strengths

1. Operations and Algebraic Thinking – multiplication and division, patterns in arithmetic, understands multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division, solve problems using the four operations and identify and explain patterns in arithmetic

2. Geometry – Reasoning with Shapes and Attributes

3. Number and Operations – Base 10 – Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi‐digit arithmetic

4. Measurement and Data – measurement and estimation of intervals of time, liquid volumes and masses of objects

Grade 4‐Math‐Weaknesses

1. Measurement and Data – Geometric measurement with protractor

2. Geometry, measurement and data – Vocabulary, perpendicular, obtuse

3. Multistep problems

Grade 5‐Math Strengths

1. Number and Operations – Positive and Negative integers, multi‐digit, whole number multiplication and operations in base 10.

2. Measurement and Data – Interpreting Data – converting like units with a unit system or greater than three

Grade 5‐ Math Weaknesses

1. Measurement – Volume

2. Place value – Rounding

3. Number and Operations – Dividing fractions

4. Algebraic Thinking – Order of Operations




Page 23

2015 ‐Grade 5‐Science Technology and Engineering‐ Strengths

1. Life Science – Structures and Function, Adaptations of Living Things, Characteristics of Living Things

2. Earth Space Science – Weather, Soil, Rocks and their Properties

3. Technology and Engineering – Material and Tools

4. Physical Science – electrical energy, forms of energy, light energy, properties of objects and materials, states of matter.

Science Technology Engineering‐Weaknesses

1. Life Science ‐ Adaptations of living things , Structure and Function and Energy and Living Things

2. Technology and Engineering – Materials and Tools

3. Physical Science – Magnetic energy, Sound energy

4. Earth, Space Science – Rock properties, The Water Cycle

ACCESS Grades K‐5 (2015)

Strengths

1. By 4th grade, most ELLs without IEPs are in average or high growth 2. Listening and Speaking sections are relatively higher than reading and writing 3. About one third of the moderate growth is 30 or above 4. Most low growth students are in 1st and 2nd grade which is when they are still acquiring standardized testing skills. 5. Many of the other low growth students are also SWDs 6. Almost half of bilingual 1st graders had average to high growth (transferring their learning in Portuguese to English well)

Weaknesses

1. Writing and Reading 2. Students who are LEP and SWD are not making great progress (perhaps this test is not the best measure, but in general academic performance they struggle as well)




Page 24

7. MONITORINGTOOLANDTHEFIVEGOALS

Goals

Supporting Activities and Strategies Implementation

Stage Justification Results / Outcomes

Goal 1: By the end of the school year, the median of each grade level SGP and/or Proficiency Level will increase by 5% on the ELA PARCC Assessments.




Page 25

Goals



Balanced Literacy:

Implement Readers’ and Writers’ Workshop Units of Study school‐wide.

Continue to develop our routines and expectations for written response to reading, including effective practices, grade level expectations and identifying exemplary student work.

Provide opportunities for non‐lab teachers to make observational visits to the labs to observe, debrief, and ask questions.

Plan, reflect and troubleshoot ELA topics during grade level collaboration meetings.

Oral Language Development:

Make learning visible through expressive language.

Allow opportunities for students to formulate ideas orally and process information.

Teach students to paraphrase and build upon key concepts.

Share ideas orally before writing

Continue to implement and use Academic Conversation skills across all content areas.

Use of inclusive, co‐teaching methods to support all students

GBJLC literacy volunteers (20) are partnered with struggling students.

Stage 4: Maintained

Stage 4: ‐Maintained

Student data from MCAS,

MAP, DRA, writing assessments, spelling assessments and other sources.

An increase in the number of students in Advanced and Proficient levels on the MCAS

An increase in our RIT scores on the MAP test.

An overall increase in academic achievement for all students




Page 26

Goals



Access to Print and Electronic Resources:

Continue to purchase books to support Readers’ and Writers’ Workshop.

Continue the Teacher Browsing Table so teachers can select books for their classroom library from on‐going book donations from parents

Provide students with increased access to online text.

Raz‐Kids memberships provided K‐4, for differentiated online reading

material accessed from school and home

Provide students with more opportunities to write using a keyboard.

Explore student‐keyboarding options in order to meet the new ELA Standards and be prepared to transition to PARCC computerized assessments.

Share with parents the importance of developing keyboarding skills early and provide parents with easy links to games through the use of the PRS website

Professional Development (Training and/or coaching):

More Effective Use of Raz‐Kids – Suggestion of training for teachers

Parents:

Family Learning Night – October 2015

Reading Engagement




Page 27

Goals



Promote school‐wide literacy engagement. Faculty from a variety of grade levels and the PRS Literacy Coach will lead this effort.

Provide opportunities for students to participate in reading incentive programs to promote reading engagement.

Six Flags Reading (Winter)

Summer Learning (Summer)

School Newspaper, Gr. 3‐5

Review data and monitor progress of students receiving intervention, through

Monthly meetings between Principal and Literacy Interventionists, to monitor progress of at risk students

Closely monitor K‐1 ‐2 literacy assessments and action plans for individual students




Page 28

Goals



Additional Literacy Interventionists to serve students in grades 3‐5.

Additional ESL Teachers to serve students in grades 3‐5.

Continue to share effective practices among faculty.

Stage 1: Planning through the budget process

Stage 1: Planning through the budget process

Stage 4: Maintained

MCAS, PARCC, Map, ACCESS S, DRA,BAS,

Spelling inventories and Writing assessments

An increase in the number of students who score in the Advanced and Proficient ranges on the ELA PARCC/ MCAS.

An increase in our Growth Scores for all students.

An increase in our RIT scores on the MAP test.

Goal 2: By the end of the school year, the median of each grade level SGPs and/or Proficiency Levels will increase by 5% on the Math PARCC Assessments.

Increased resources (Eureka, Engage NY, Kathy Richardson, Number Talks, etc)

Purchased $6,000 worth of math materials to increase use of manipulatives and hands‐on learning

Teachers will use multiple modalities to instruct students to best differentiate to learners’ needs

Teachers will modify Engage NY and Eureka materials to reach all student levels

Teachers will embed technology use in their instruction and encourage outside of school technology use across grade levels (Ten Marks, IXL, Zearn)

Stage 2: Started

Stage 4: Maintained

Stage 3: In Progress


Stage 4: Maintained

MCAS and MAP scores

Pre and Post tests for each Engage NY Units

Better results with more students moving from warning, needs improvement into proficient and advanced levels

Students feeling more confident in themselves as learners




Page 29

Goals



Teachers will embed more student‐centered learning (centers, guided practice)

Teachers will increase use of guided‐math practices through facilitation from math coach

Collaboration and support from ELL teachers has increased and will continue to aid general education settings (math vocabulary and understanding)

Staff will increase parent communication around new standards and curriculum to foster understanding (math newsletters per unit, computational fluency expectations, etc)

Increased computational fluency skill development, practice, and accountability (Gr 1 Sprints, Gr 2 Sprints, Gr 3 grade level goal, Gr 4 weekly multiplication facts, Gr 5 weekly multiplication check‐ins)

Family Learning Night on October 15th will encourage the family‐school connection ‐ (math games)

Math PD in October on Planning Effective Mathematics Instruction

Teachers will integrate math into other disciplines Grade 5 is now departmentalized by content so teachers are

specialized in fewer subjects Monthly collaboration with teachers focused on mathematics

pedagogy to build conceptual foundation of the math and to see the progressions of mathematics.

SAGE teacher providing math support and math app aid via videos emailed




Page 30

Goals



Goal 3: By the end of the school year, the sub‐groups of ELL, LI, and SWD students median SGP and/or Proficiency levels will increase by 5% on the ELA and Math PARCC assessment and the 2016 ACCESS.

ELD and Special Ed Teachers are assigned to a grade level team Services are provided in the regular classroom in whole group,

small group and individualized support ELD, Special Ed and Gen Ed Teachers all meet weekly as a team

for Collaboration Individual student ACCESS assessment Data was analyzed by

ELD teachers action plans were developed to target instruction for struggling students

McKinney‐Vento tutoring services are supporting homeless students who struggle

25/25 classroom teachers will have completed the RETELL class by the end of the 2015‐16 SY

Half time ELD coach at school Integration across K‐2 for specials, Science and Social Studies as

well as other content areas Added new ELD teacher for 2015‐2016 SEI students in Grade 1 and 2 who are struggling in literacy are

receiving Leveled Literacy Instruction provided in small groups with the interventionist

Literacy Volunteers come weekly to work with 2‐3 students one on one to support students

Native Language Tutors‐ French, Romanian, Lugandan, Gujarati Integrating technology across the curriculum Incorporating language into mastery objectives Math manipulatives provided across all grades

Stage 4: Maintained

Stage 4: Maintained


Stage 2: 1/1/13

State 4: Maintained



Our MCAS analysis reveals a large gap in our scores between the multiple‐choice questions and open response questions.

The number of students who score advanced and proficient on MCAS ELA and Math Open Response questions will increase.

The Growth Scores for all students will increase.




Page 31

Goals



Goals 4: By the end of the school year, the median of the 5th grade Proficiency Levels will increase by 5% on the Science,

Technology and Engineering MCAS assessment.

Review of prior years’ curriculum by viewing Discovery Education videos

Reading of informational text in the Science Continued support of the school library through the addition of

informational texts Engineering Club for students in grades 4 and 5 Numerous science‐based enrichment programs provided by the

creative arts council (Energy Gyz ‐10/15, MOS 11/15) New collaborative schedule allows for greater time on learning

in science Informational reading units support scientific inquiry Lego League and Robotics for grades 1‐5 Field trips to Museum of Science to provide opportunities for

students to see Science in the real world Community Garden for all students to plant, observe and

collect data on plant growth cycles. Pilot at 5th grade, where teachers are departmentalized by

content 5th grade teacher serving as a State‐ wide STEAM Ambassador,

he has provided teachers with a preview of the new standards.

In Progress Our STE scores have declined slightly in the last year.

CPI 80.8 >80.2 from 2014‐15.

Warnings did decrease from 12% to 2%, we want this trend to continue.

Increased scores on STE MCAS




Page 32

Goals



Goal 5: By June 2017, Potter Road will implement a school wide multi‐tiered positive behavior intervention and support system

(PBIS) to meet the social/emotional and behavioral needs of all students and decrease the number of office referrals as

measured by SWIS data.

Data collection of office referrals and behaviors existing throughout the building (pre and post implementation)

Creation of lesson plans to model and teach school wide rules/expectation of PBIS

Staff trained in SWIS software to collect and analyze behavioral data

Partial Staff rollout in January 2016

Begin in 2014 Ongoing

Stage 2: Started

Stage 2:Started

We need to provide our students ongoing instruction in positive behaviors to ensure a

Better trained teachers, and this will improve teaching and learning.

Less disruption to instruction




Page 33

Goals



Creation of staff training Prezi/PowerPoint

Providing teachers with research based articles regarding PBIS

Providing teachers with consistent and specific positive reinforcement vocabulary to use with students

Explicit teaching of Potter Road’s PBIS Matrix of Expected Behaviors throughout the building

Provide teachers with feedback on the implementation on PBIS

PBIS committee training and ongoing PBIS committee meetings

Ongoing reflection on the PBIS process

The creation of specific visuals, a glossary, and a library of resources for staff

Create a plan to inform and engage the Potter Road community

Continue the current consultation and referral process

Stage 1: Planning

Stage 1: Planning

Stage 2:Started

Stage 3:In Progress

culture of caring, and support.

More time on learning

A decrease in office referrals



Appendix C: Additional Supporting Documents Page C‐ 34

APPENDIXA:TENELEMENTSOFPERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENTMAPPING

1. How do you select and assign staff to positions in your school without regard to seniority? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

The principal makes all final hiring decisions but works with the directors of departments. We assemble a team of teachers and support staff to do first round interviews. We then bring applicants back for a demonstration lesson. The committee then rates the applicants and makes recommendations to the principal. We pay special attention to certification/licensure, collaborative skills, language skills and ability to relate to children when selecting and assigning staff to positions in our school.

2. How do you control the financial resources needed to implement your school improvement plan? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

The financial resources are a combination of funding between the PRS budget and the PTO. Through writing the SIP with the entire staffs’ input along with parents and community members from our School Council, we are able to identify areas that need improvement and fund appropriate materials, technology, PD or initiatives that support these areas of need. Presently we are integrating technology more across all curriculum areas. All classroom teachers have a laptop, projector and document camera that they use to bring more information directly into the classroom for students to use. We also have a set of IPADs in our K classes. The use of the IPAD is another dimension that we are exploring to bring rich literature and texts to our students. We are using the Engage NY/Eureka program, which we adopted last year and this year respectively. We spent another $6,000.00 on math manipulatives. We have spent $10,000.00 on fiction and non‐fiction books across all grade levels to support the new Reader’s Workshop. The district has also provided an amount of $6,000.00 for this purpose as well. Our .5 Math Coach supports teachers in using this program and works with the teachers to align our instruction with the Common Core. A full time Math Coach would be beneficial in supporting all of our teachers and the math program. By being split between two schools and more than 50 teachers it is very difficult for the Math Coach to provide consistency when she is only in a building 2 out of 5 days per week. We now have a .5 ELL Coach in place who provides daily support to our teachers as they implement SEI strategies. Most of our staff has the SEI endorsement but will need ongoing coaching to meet the needs of ELLs. Full time interventionists for literacy and math for grades K‐2 and 3‐5 are necessary to provide the needed interventions for all of our students. The teachers have worked to provide differentiated groupings in order to address some of the academic needs. However, additional interventionists for both math and literacy are needed in order to provide tiered support and cut down on our referrals to special education.

3. What are you using to align instruction in the state frameworks in core curricula subjects? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

Framingham’s K‐5 writing curriculum is in alignment to the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the Common Core. Each grade level has 6 writing units for Writer’s Workshop based on Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study and Mastering the Mechanics. The implementation of these newly sequenced units began last year.




Framingham’s K‐5 reading curriculum is in direct correlation with the Lucy Calkins’ Common Core Reading Workshop. In collaboration with Teaching and Learning Alliance (TLA), a private consulting group, four lab classrooms are in our school; these are in Grades1, 2, 3 and 5. Lab classrooms are fully implementing Reader’s Workshop, with the support of the building‐based Literacy Coach and TLA consultant. All classroom teachers, ELD and Special Education teachers have incorporated Reader’s Workshop and these Calkins’ Units of Study. We also have established two SEI LAB classes this year at the 5th and K levels. This is in partnership with Framingham State University. Potter’s SEI Teachers will provide opportunities for FPS staff and FSU students who are studying to be teachers’ time to observe SEI strategies being used in the content areas.

The Math Coach, ELD Coach and Literacy Coach meet every other week with Grade levels for Collaboration. During collaboration meetings, review of upcoming lessons, trouble‐ shooting occurs and teachers can plan together for upcoming units. This year the ELA focus at the beginning of the year is the adoption of the new Benchmark Assessment System for Reading as well as time spent on Eureka Math and incorporating language objectives into the Learning objectives for each lesson taught.

In order to achieve significant achievement gains, we will follow the action plans set forth in the goals section of the SIP. At this point in the year, we have researched the needs of our students, and are in the process of determining our best approach for matching these needs to our curriculum and will continue to teach students the skills and strategies that are most appropriate and necessary. The Coaches provide job embedded professional development to teachers on a weekly basis through coaching cycles.

Currently, Potter Road is utilizing Engage NY and Eureka resources to align math instruction to the Massachusetts’ Frameworks that are Common Core embedded. In order to attain significant achievement gains, the curriculum needs to be modified to fit the Time on Learning schedule, as mandated by FPS. As of now, there many pieces that need to be fit into the instructional day in order to achieve proper instruction of all standards.

4. What interim assessments are you using in ELA and Math for students not yet proficient? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains? Potter Road School uses all of the Tier 1 ELA assessments expected by Framingham Public Schools Curriculum Department. These include the Benchmark Assessment System, for reading, Letter Identification, Letter Sounds, and Connecting Letters to Words Assessments adapted from Clay’s Observation Survey. We also use the phonemic awareness component of the Ekwall‐Shanker Reading Inventory, Hearing Sounds in Words (HRSIW) dictation task from Clay’s Observation Survey, the Primary Spelling Inventory, Elementary Spelling Inventory, and the Intermediate Spelling Inventory from Words Their Way in English. In our grade 2 bilingual class, for Tier 1 literacy assessments we use a Portuguese translation or version of the Developmental Reading Assessment – 1 (DRA‐1), the Letter Identification, Letter Sounds, and Connecting Letters to Words Assessments adapted from Clay’s Observation Survey. We also use the phonemic awareness component of the Ekwall‐Shanker Reading Inventory, and Hearing Sounds in Words (HRSIW) dictation task from Clay’s Observation Survey In conjunction with our writing units, we are starting to use Lucy Calkins’ Common Core aligned writing rubrics for narrative writing, persuasive writing, and informational writing, K‐5. In addition, there are some unique unit based rubrics, that have been designed for our Storytelling and Labeling Units in Kindergarten. Through recent school‐wide efforts to address our Open Response scores on MCAS, we developed and implemented a school rubric appropriate for Grades 2‐5 constructed written responses. In addition to this tool providing us with clear consistent expectations for students, the rubric also provides a feedback component for students. In addition to a score (0‐4), students receive specific feedback via a checklist about how they can improve their score. We believe that timely feedback, clear expectations, and more frequent practice with this type of question, along with explicit instruction, will help students make gains in this area.

There are also some Tier 2 assessments that are administered by the K‐2 Literacy Interventionist for individual student progress monitoring. These are used only if the student is receiving intervention services as part of the RTI Initiative and this initiative is mostly focused on Grade 1 and 2, at this time.

Teachers refer students to the Guidance Counselor, and complete a Student Learning Profile (SLP), if they have specific concerns about a particular student’s academic, social/emotional, or behavioral growth or performance. The Guidance Counselor convenes a team of relevant faculty and specialists to address the areas of concern observed by the teacher.




In order to obtain significant achievement gains, we need to expand our intervention services to include a greater number of students in Grades K‐2 and extend our intervention to include all grade levels. Presently we have no interventionists working at the Grades 3‐5 level. We need:

additional interventionists for literacy in K‐2 and 3‐5

Building based professional development time for faculty

further development and support of the district wide coaching model

more collaboration time for faculty for curricular planning and review of student work

For math, teachers are using teacher‐made assessments and math coach made assessments to check in for progress monitoring. Teachers also use Engage NY unit assessments as a pre‐test and post‐test for each unit. Ultimately, it is essential for the district to build common assessments that teachers can use to compare instruction and data across a grade‐level. We also need translated materials ahead of time so teachers can access the material before they present it to students. The faculty requires professional development and training in the Engage NY implementation of lessons. Additionally, collaboration time is time to review the pre and post test data to inform instruction. ELD teachers utilize the WIDA rubrics for reading, writing, listening, and speaking to assess progress and inform instruction. These rubrics align to the ACCESS standardized assessment, given each January and February to ELL students.

5. How does our staff track and analyze assessments to inform curriciulum, instruction, and individual interventions? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

We enter results of all Tier 1 assessments into a school‐wide, grade level spreadsheet by the given deadline. Teachers review assessments for their own class and at times, review these as a grade level. Assessment protocols are in an assessment folder for each child and the folder passes on from teacher to teacher each year. We need to offer teachers adequate time and support to implement new curriculum and phase in the new Massachusetts Standards. We also need to offer our teachers training on how to use the MAP data if the district plans to continue using this assessment. All students who have taken the MCAS, ACCESS and MAP have their scores readily available in X2. We will follow the action plans set forth in the goals section of the SIP, in order to attain significant achievement gains. For math instruction, some grade levels are keeping track of pre and posttest growth through an Excel spreadsheet in order to modify instruction based on student growth over the course of a particular unit. Some staff also use pre‐assessments to flexibly group their students according to their instructional level. In order to attain significant achievement gains, it is imperative that we receive a computerized program that can track all data at each grade level and provide reports to teachers for improving instruction. For example, Long Leaf Solutions program would help us achieve our goals. Otherwise, we need to be provided ample time to allow teachers to input the data and for review of the data.

6. How much time on a daily / weekly basis is your staff allocating for the delivery of instruction? How do we provide individual support in ELA and Math for students not yet proficient? What approaches are you implementing now

Presently our teachers provide two hours per day of direct literacy instruction, but more literacy instruction occurs across all academic areas. In math, our teachers provide 1 hour per day of math instruction.




Teachers provide support to students who are not yet proficient in ELA and Math in a variety of ways. Some teachers offer before or after school help, after a whole group lesson, some teachers pull a small group to the back of the room to reteach skills that are not grasped, extra‐doses of reading are prescribed for students whose reading skills are not yet proficient. Unfortunately, the need is great and we struggle with providing all students with the necessary amount of instruction to make appropriate gains throughout the year. More interventionists for ELA and Math would benefit the population at Potter.

7. Do you provide daily after‐school tutoring homework help for students who need supplemental instruction? Is still development the focus of this help? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

Some teachers at Potter Road offer before and after school help sessions to students who need extra support. The focus of this instruction is differentiated to meet the needs of each individual student’s level and need. A coordinated, consistent after school help program four days per week along with transportation and healthy snacks would help us to attain significant achievement gains. Many students lack the study skills, appropriate environment to do their homework and or discipline to get their homework done or organize their work in order to study for upcoming tests and long‐term projects. A homework support center would go a long way in helping our students meet their potential. Summer programming is available through Title III to our bilingual students. However, classes are taught at Woodrow Wilson School and not all students take advantage of this program.

8. How many subject area coaches do you have in your school for ELA/Reading and Math? Who provides consistent classroom observation and feedback on the quality/effectiveness of curriculum delivery, and their instructional practice and data use? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?

Potter Road has a .5 Math Coach, a 1.0 Literacy Coach and a .5 ELD Coach. The principal and assistant principal are the ones to provide consistent classroom observation and feedback on the quality and effectiveness of curriculum delivery, and their instructional practice and data use from a supervisory perspective. Potter’s math, literacy and ELL coaches provide support and coaching in curriculum delivery and instructional practice. They provide feedback and work with the teachers to strengthen their delivery. These positions are not evaluative in nature. In order to increase academic achievement , full time coaches in the areas of Math, Literacy, Science, Social Studies and a .5 ELL Coach would be beneficial in supporting the teaching staff.

9. How do you evaluate faculty, content knowledge, and overall performance? How is it tied tostudent learning and commitment to your building improvement strategies? What approaches are you implementing now?

The building Principal and Assistant Principal meet with all of the staff to go over their self‐evaluations and goal setting in the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment. We evaluate faculty, their content knowledge and overall performance by visiting and observing in classrooms daily, through discussion and feedback and from working side by side with teachers analyzing data, discussing students’ work, and preparing action plans. Teachers are accountable for their student learning goals, professional practice goals and action plans

10. What is your weekly and annual work schedule for teachers for professional development that discusses individual student progress, curriculum issues, instructional, and school‐wide improvement? How many hours per week do you dedicate to leadership‐directed, collaborative work during teachers’ common planning time? What approaches are you implementing now? What do you need to do to attain significant achievement gains?




A weekly 45 minute collaboration is now in effect and is beneficial to all the teachers. All teachers have

common planning time four times per week for 45 minutes. We do not have a weekly or annual work schedule

for teachers solely devoted to PD. The district has a PD calendar that oversees the PD for all teachers.

Presently, we have one hour per month to do this work during our staff meetings. Our weekly 45‐ minute

collaboration period is often used for PD.

We have consult meetings as a time for teachers to bring students to the table who are struggling socially, behaviorally and academically. There is simply not enough principal directed time to discuss all of the issues that affect student achievement. The other issue is that too much time is taken out of the school day to hold consults, SETS, 504 and Special Education meetings. During these times, teachers are out of the classroom and a substitute covers the classroom. More PD time outside of the school day is required in order to have the necessary time to do all of the work that is required to move the school forward and to attain significant academic improvement. We need to keep the teachers in the classrooms in front of students. Too much of the teaching day is taken up for meetings, PD, etc. The Coaches provide job‐embedded PD. Teachers often use before and after school and planning times to schedule coaching sessions. Weekly, teachers and supporting specialists meet for 45 minutes as a grade‐level during “collaboration” times to discuss ELA and math instruction, data, and assessments. During this time, teachers can request specific intervention material, extension material, content knowledge, and a preview of upcoming lesson materials needed. Since the beginning of this year, teachers have been pulled from the classroom to attend, .5 days of PD in the areas of Writing, Math and Social Studies. We have also had teachers miss full days for PBIS training. Still to come is the mandatory annual CPI training as well as Science PD. All of this PD has a direct impact on instruction since substitutes cover the classes while the teacher is at training. FPS needs to look at how we provide our teachers PD and bring back after school courses rather than pull teachers during the school day.