Badger Elementary - Appleton Area School District

Badger Elementary 2013-14 Continuous School Improvement Findings

Badger Accomplishments: DPI Wisconsin PBIS School of Distinction

DPI Bronze Wisconsin School Health Award

Economics Wisconsin Stock Market Simulation State Champions Professional Learning Communities met and used Data Wall

Students participated in numerous club activities: Walking Club, Yearbook, Art, Musical-Tom Sawyer, Safety Patrol, Leadership, Service Club, Lunchtime Leaders

Family Nights held on literacy, math, PBIS, Progress Reports

SAGE GOALS: Reading: 11/13 goals met, Math 11/14 goals met

ELA Lab Classrooms: Four classroom teachers learned teaching strategies from our district reading coaches which increased teaching collaboration throughout the building.

Late Start Dates: These were utilized to develop better collaboration between grade level teachers, and provide additional staff development in the areas of math, technology, literacy, RtI.

School Improvement Goals Badger Reading Goal 2013-14: Using the guiding principles of the PBIS approach implemented with fidelity, the use of RTI, and a collaborative culture, student reading achievement will increase at Badger Elementary by May 2014:

Kindergarten

master SAGE Goals

Grade 1-3

master SAGE Goals

reach proficiency, advanced proficiency or targeted growth on spring MAP test

Grade 4 reach May instructional benchmark goal (Level S) or advance 3 benchmark levels

reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Spring MAP test or reach targeted growth on Spring MAP test

Grade 5

reach May instructional benchmark goal (Level V) or advance 3 benchmark levels

reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Spring MAP test or reach targeted growth on Spring MAP test

Grade 6

reach May instructional benchmark goal (Level Y) or advance 3 benchmark levels reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Spring MAP test or reach targeted growth on

Spring MAP test

RESULTS:

Percentage of students at Grade Level expected RIT or meeting RIT MAP Target Growth within 3

points in reading:

Grade 1 –72% ; Grade 2 –68% ; Grade 3--75% ; Grade 4 – 63% ; Grade 5 – 66% ; Grade 6 - 76%

Percentage of students at grade level benchmark or advancing 3 benchmark levels:

Grade 1 –79% ; Grade 2 –97% ; Grade 3 –97% ; Grade 4 –97% ; Grade 5 –90% ; Grade 6 - 67%

Kindergarten SAGE ELA Goals (4/5 Goals Met) Students will identify (name) uppercase and lowercase letters. (require 90% meeting) 98%-yes

Students will identify Book Awareness concepts. (require 90% meeting) 96%--yes

Students will develop an understanding of phonetic principles (letter-sound relationship). (require 90% meeting)

96%-yes

Students will identify (name) words on the Fountas and Pinnell kindergarten High Frequency Word list. (require 90% meeting)

94%-yes

Students will reach a level “C” or higher benchmark (require 90% meeting) 77%-no

.

Grade 1 SAGE ELA Goals (3/4 Goals Met – 1 missed goal was at 89% and goal was 90%)

Students will identify (name) words on the Fountas and Pinnell grade 1 High Frequency Word list. (require 90% meeting)

95%-yes

Students will correctly spell the words on the Fountas and Pinnell grade 1 High Frequency Word list. (require 90% meeting)

89% -no

Students will improve their writing skills. (require 90% meeting) 100%-yes

Students will increase their reading level as determined through guided reading practices and assessments. (require 90% meeting)

82%-yes

Grade 2 SAGE ELA Goals (2/2 Goals Met) Students will increase their reading level as determined through guided reading practices and assessments. 100%-yes

Students will demonstrate their writing proficiency through the district writing assessment and/or their

placement on the AASD Writing Continuum

94%-yes

Grade 3 SAGE ELA Goals (2/2 Goals Met)

Students will increase their reading levels as determined through guided reading practices and assessments. 97%-yes

Students will demonstrate their writing proficiency through their placement on the AASD Writing Continuum 92%-yes

0 20 40 60 80 100

1234567

Percent of Students

Gra

de

Le

vel

RIT MAP GROWTH

Badger Math Goal: With Badger staff improving instruction of math strategies and practices, improve instruction of computation and

problem solving skills and by using the guiding principles of the PBIS approach implemented with fidelity, the use

of RTI, and a collaborative culture, student math achievement will increase at Badger Elementary. Students will

achieve the following goals by May 2014:

90% of students in Grades K-3 students will master SAGE goals (see attached)

80% of students in grades 1-6 will score at least 70 % on district math assessments/or meet MAP target

growth within 3 points

RESULTS:

No District Math Assessment Data

Percentage of students meeting RIT MAP Target Growth within 3 points in math:

Grade 1 – 66% Grade 2 – 62% ; Grade 3 –68% ; Grade 4 – 62% ; Grade 5 – 76% ; Grade 6 - 82%

Kindergarten SAGE Math Goals (3/4 Goals Met)

Students will identify common 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional geometric shapes. 85%-no

Students will rote count to 100. 88%-yes

Students will write numbers from 0-20. 100%-yes

Students will be able to identify the number partner that makes “10” when added to a number

from 1 to 9.

96%-yes

Grade 1 SAGE Math Goals (4/4 Goals Met) Students will rote count and write numbers to 120. 89% yes

Students will solve basic addition facts to 20. 91%-yes

Students will solve basic subtraction facts to 20. 89%--yes

Students will understand that the two digits of a two-digit number represent amounts of tens and

ones.

93%-yes

Grade 2 SAGE Math Goals (1/4 Goals Met)

Students will demonstrate basic addition math facts to 20. 91%-yes

Students will demonstrate basic subtraction facts to 20. 79%-no

Students will solve two and three digit addition problems with sums to 1000. 88%-no

Students will solve two and three digit subtraction problems. 82%-no

Grade 3 SAGE Math Goals (2/2 Goals Met) Students will demonstrate an understanding of multiplication concepts. (require 90%) 95%-yes

Students will demonstrate an understanding of division concepts. (require 90%) 92%-yes

0 20 40 60 80 100

123456

Percent of Students

Gra

de

Le

vel

RIT MAP Growth Math

Data and Findings:

11/14 SAGE Goals Met – 3 missed goals were writing-related at grades K-3.

The commitment to implementing our PBIS approach with fidelity demonstrated improvements by reducing ODRs and increasing student learning time and administrative leadership.

Summary of Findings:

3rd year of implementation of block scheduling, practice/intervention/enrichment time, and PLC/Progress Monitoring time has positively affected the collaborative culture and RtI practices at Badger.

Regular PLC/Progress Monitoring meetings have increased the effective use of data and understanding of curricular connections to the Common Core Standards by teachers.

Special Education, ELL, and low-income students still not closing the achievement gap.

Badger is recognized as a PBIS School of Merit and a Bronze Wisconsin School of Health

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-15 based upon this year’s experiences?

Innovative thinking and deeper collaboration will be required to close the learning gaps for our student subgroup populations. For example, an LD/EBD cross-categorical approach will be used next year to connect Special Education teachers and their students more closely to the grade level curriculum.

Continued professional development in best instructional practices and classroom interventions in the new ELA curriculum will be critical in improving student performance.

Create more effective Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) to analyze data from formative assessments and create specific learning objectives and teaching strategies that ultimately lead to increased student achievement.

20132014 Site Continuous School Improvement Findings School: Janet Berry Elementary School Improvement Goal(s): Math All teaching and support staff at Janet Berry will improve students achievement in Maths so that 80% of all students in grades 16 will meet their individual projected growth (+/ 3) from fall to spring on the MAP Math assessment. Data and Findings:

Berry Elementary: 80% of students show one year’s growth

Students Hit Target Spring MAP Score

First Grade 50%

Second Grade 58%

Third Grade 64%

Fourth Grade 47%

Fifth Grade 66%

Sixth Grade 80%

School 59.5%

b. Describe your takeaways from the data; i.e. what does the data illustrate. Summary of Findings: Based upon your 201314 data, what are 35 key learnings/celebrations?

The fourth grade geometry unit is currently covered in May yet 4th grade takes the Spring MAP test in late April. We are looking at moving this unit of instruction for a better measurement as geometry is 25% of the Spring MAP test in fourth grade.

Students perform better as they progress through school so this could be indicative of learning how to take tests over time as well as learning to apply the math practices

We need to have more assessments in our portfolio to measure or growth beyond just the Spring MAP

What are 13 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 201415 based upon this year’s experiences?

Our goal of 80% for the entire school grades 16, was a lofty goal. Only one of the student groups tested reached the goal. We need to think about making our goal more achievable.

We need to make Math more of a focus for our PLCs and targeted use of data to inform our practices during WIN time.

Continue to analyze our use of resources, especially human resources, so we can have as many “hands on deck” during our WIN time.

20132014 Site Continuous School Improvement Findings School: Janet Berry Elementary School School Improvement Goal(s): Literacy All Berry Elementary Staff will improve universal instruction in literacy so that 90% of all students will show at least one year’s growth during the 20132014 school year. This will be measured by Fall to Spring MAP growth scores in Reading (2 point variance) using Targeted RIT Growth and/or district benchmarking grade level goals. Note: Our targeted sub populations are Low SES, Autism Spectrum, and SLD students. Data and Findings:

Berry Elementary: 90% of students show one year’s growth

Indicator 1: Spring Benchmark Target

Indicator 2: Students Hit Target Spring MAP Score

Grade Level: Benchmark Fall Spring Spring

Kindergarten: Level C 55% 84% N/A

First Grade: Level I 77% 92% 56%

Second Grade: Level M 66% 89.5% 60%

Third Grade: Level P 71% 85% 59%

Fourth Grade: Level T 67.5% 80% 53%

Fifth Grade: Level W 78% 77% 66%

Sixth Grade: Level Y 66% 73% 47%

School 68.5% 82.4% 55%

Summary of Findings: Based upon your 201314 data, what are 35 key learnings/celebrations?

A large number of students who were at the basic or minimal benchmarks in fall made gains throughout the year advancing to at least the proficient level as measured by benchmarking targets.

By midyear, the following number of students made it to proficient, advanced proficient

1st grade, 45 out of 52 2nd grade, 43 out of 57 3rd grade, 45 out of 60 4th grade, 69 out of 82 5th grade, 62 out of 76 6th grade, 46 out of 65

Strong Tier 2 and 3 supports were implemented this year including the use

of a data wall to track student progress. Students targeted for intervention made strong gains. Gains were also noted in classrooms where the literacy coach worked annually with the classroom teacher to focus on literacy instruction.

The following lists highlights work completed based on our CSIP framework in literacy RtI

Identify and provide Tier 2 and 3 interventions, data wall meetings, summer literacy institute Collaborative Culture of Improvement

PLC meetings and set agendas, target lists of students with greatest need with focus on identified subgroups, development of data wall with CSIP goal posted on or near wall create student cards to include data, OEU 14 skill trace, book study “Interventions that Work” Family and Community Partnerships

School and Classroom Newsletters to provide information to parents about literacy, Reading Superstars TRats What are 13 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 201415 based upon this year’s experiences?

Creation of common assessments to measure growth/understanding of CCSS, as well as, grade level specific measures to identify areas of need. Increase parental involvement based on parent surveyOrientation meeting to address helping their children at home with their education.

2013-2014 Site Continuous School Improvement Findings

School: Columbus Elementary School Improvement Goal(s): 85% of all Full Academic Year Columbus students grades 1 through 6 will demonstrate proficiency or above in at least 1 of the following assessment measures: Meet individual target RIT score or grade level

proficiency using MAP assessment and/or district Benchmarking by June, 2014. 85% of all Full Academic Year Columbus kindergarten students will benchmark at a level C or higher

and/or be able to associate 24/26 letter sounds. The performance of at-risk readers will be to meet the MAP Individual Target RIT goal and 1 of the

following:

Benchmark Level G in grade 1; Level L in grade 2; Level O in grade 3; Level R in grade 4; Level U in grade 5; Level X in grade 6 or an Increase 1 year’s growth in MAP RIT score

Data and Findings:

Assessment Wall Data 2013-2014 Minimal Partial Proficient Adv. Prof.

Kindergarten

Oct-13 21% 46% 21% 13%

Jan-14 15% 38% 35% 12%

Apr-14 4% 33% 29% 33%

May-14 13% 21% 33% 33%

Grade 1

Oct-13 17% 39% 22% 22%

Jan-14 5% 53% 16% 26%

Apr-14 23% 11% 37% 26%

May-14 11% 17% 33% 33%

Grade 2

Oct-13 23% 45% 23% 9%

Jan-14 14% 36% 27% 23%

Apr-14 18% 27% 23% 32%

May-14 9% 22% 43% 26%

Grade 3

Oct-13 22% 30% 35% 13%

Jan-14 9% 18% 55% 18%

Apr-14 14% 14% 50% 23%

May-14 9% 14% 55% 27%

Grade 4 Oct-13 38% 27% 35% 0%

Jan-14 32% 32% 24% 12%

Apr-14 16% 32% 36% 16%

May-14 20% 16% 44% 20%

Grade 5

Oct-13 43% 13% 23% 20%

Jan-14 41% 10% 28% 21%

Apr-14 22% 22% 33% 22%

May-14 37% 11% 33% 19%

Grade 6

Oct-13 35% 29% 29% 6%

Jan-14 31% 25% 31% 13%

Apr-14 18% 29% 35% 18%

14-May 29% 12% 41% 18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Minimal Partial Proficient Adv. Prof.

Kindergarten Reading Proficiency

Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


1st Grade Reading Proficiency

Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


2nd Grade Reading Proficiency

Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


3rd Grade Reading Proficiency

Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


4th Grade Reading Proficiency

Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

a. Focusing mainly on the categories of “Proficient and Above” we can see (from the graphs above) that:

a. All Students: i. 62% of students reached this goal in Kindergarten ii. 63% of students reached this goal in Grade 1

iii. 55% of students reached this goal in Grade 2 iv. 73% of students reached this goal in Grade 3 v. 52% of students reached this goal in Grade 4

vi. 55% of students reached this goal in Grade 5 vii. 53% of students reached this goal in Grade 6

b. CSIP All Students that were at Columbus for a Full Academic Year

i. 95% kindergarten met goal ii. 83% 1-6 met goal

iii. 84% 1-3 met goal iv. 82% 4-6 met goal

v. 38% boys 1-6 met goal vi. 62% girls 1-6 met goal

c. At-Risk Goal – 40 At Risk Students – 26% of students Grades 1-6

i. 38% Made Benchmark ii. 38% Made Map Individual Target

iii. .05% made both Benchmark and MAP Target

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%



Oct-13

Jan-14

Apr-14

b. Although as a school Columbus Elementary School did not meet its CSIP goal (85% proficiency and above) in literacy: Important Note: Columbus Elementary School averaged 175 students and had a total of 155 move-ins and move-outs for the 2013-14 school year.

i. There was improvement made at all grade levels from fall to spring regarding percentage of students considered “proficient and above”. The only exception was at 2nd grade where the number of “proficient” students stayed the same from the fall to the spring.

ii. Kindergarten exceeded goal (95%) iii. With the exception of 1st grade, there was a significant improvement in the

percentage of students that moved above the “minimal” category from Fall to Spring. Almost every grade level cut this number in half from fall to spring.

iv. Only 38% of boys in grades 1-6 met goal.

Summary of Findings: Based upon your 2013-14 data, what are 3-5 key learnings/celebrations?

Our school has made leaps during the 2013-14 school year toward establishing more effective structures to address the needs of all students:

o We have established consistent SST (Student Support Team) protocols and are implementation-ready for 2014-15

o We have identified key community resources and have partnered with them to

provide additional support to our students. We have also created a viable and executable plan to build our parent involvement for the 2014-15 school year. In

fact, we estimate that we will double our parent participation in all school events

(academic and social) by the 2015-16 school year. For example, we have worked

with the Neighborhood Voice (Neighborhood Partners) as well as our PTA to “marry” academic events with PTA-sponsored events to build more capacity at all

school functions. We believe, and research supports, that more involvement from

families will have a positive and direct impact on student performance. o Our staff is ready to launch into our second year of “Late Start Collaboration” in

addition to taking our PLC process to a new level. Throughout the 2013-14 school

year we recorded observations and reflected frequently upon the use and value of

our Professional Learning Community practices and accomplishments. We are positioned to implement several key changes (improvements) to this critically

important practice and we expect student outcomes to reflect these changes.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-15 based upon this

year’s experiences?

o Our 2014-15 CSIP Goals will reflect high academic standards for ALL students

(those that are present for a full academic year and those that are present for a partial year). We will address the needs of boys (grades 1-6) specifically due to the percentage of boys NOT meeting goal.

o Our CSIP plan will reflect the objectives of Response to Instruction, Collaborative Culture of Improvement, and Family and Community Partnerships as common

threads throughout every academic goal. This will be different than in years past because they will no longer be separate goals/entities/efforts or separate

committees and/or responsibilities. o Progress monitoring will occur at a higher frequency than in years past. Our

minimum rate for progress monitoring per academic goal area will be monthly

(rather than tri-annually).


School: Edison Elementary School

Edison School Improvement Goal(s):

Literacy Goals

All Edison Staff will be responsible for improving students’ performance on the following assessments

by June of 2014:

In Grades 1-3, increase from 57% to 85% the number of students meeting their end of the year RIT score on their MAP reading test

In Grades 4-6, increase from 43% to 85% the number of students meeting their end of the year RIT score on their MAP reading test

In Grades 1-2, all students will go up four levels or reach their instructional reading level using the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Kit

In Grades 3-6, all students will go up three levels or reach their instructional reading level using the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Kit

All Kindergarten students will reach Reading Level D by the end of the year. (one year earlier than AASD Goal)

In Grades K-3, 100% of the students will achieve their respective SAGE reading goals.

In Grades 1-6, 30% of students identified ELL, SWD, and EcD, will achieve their target RIT score.

In Grades 3-6, increase from 36% to 50% the number of students that achieve proficient or advanced proficient on the WKCE.

All students identified with General Intellectual Ability will exceed their reading target RIT score

All Kindergarten and First Grade students will show growth on the PALS Assessment.

Math Goals

All Edison Staff/Community will be responsible for: improving all students’ performance, with special attention to those students identified at the June 2013 data dig, by June of 2014

Grade K-3 – 95% of students will achieve Math SAGE Goals

Grades 1-6 – increase from 60% to 75% of students will achieve or exceed their target RIT Score

on either their MAP Math test in winter or spring.

Grades K-6 – 80% of students will achieve 80% or higher on district assessments

Grades 3 – 6 – 50% of students identified ELL and SWD, will achieve proficient on their WKCE

score.

PBIS

All Edison Staff/Community will be responsible for: improving all students’ performance, with special attention to those students identified at the June 2013 data dig, by June of 2014.

Grades K-6 will decrease the average number of major referrals per day per month from between 2 & 5 to 1 or less.

Decrease the amount of referrals during transition times from a total of 120 to 130 referrals at 12:15, 2:00 and 3:15 to 80 or less.

Grades K-6 will decrease disrespect from 42% to 30% of percent of the total major referrals.

Increase parent and family involvement from 53% in place to 75% in place as recorded on the SAS.

Education for Healthy Kids (EHK) Goal

All Edison Staff/Community will be responsible for: improving general student wellness & utilizing physical activity to improve student academic growth & student behavior, with special attention focused on active family involvement.

The Edison EHK Team will raise funds to start phase I of a student / family wellness room

Initiate phase I of Edison Student / Family Wellness Plan as funding permits

o Fitness Intern to lead students and families in increasing their personal fitness levels and

increase in their knowledge base of nutritional eating.

o Increase student activity time

o Support student academic growth by offering brain breaks prior to academic testing.

a. Display tables, graphs, or spreadsheets to visually illustrate end of year student outcomes based upon

the data set(s) identified in the above BOARD goal statement(s). Make sure to disaggregate the data to

highlight the growth of the students who were a focus in each of your CSIP goals.

Data and Findings:

Reading Data Tables

In Grades 1-6, 85% of the students will achieve or exceed their target RIT score on their

MAP reading test

Grade # Tested # Achieved Goal # not achieved % Achieved +/- from previous

Yr.

1 40 20 20 50.0% NA- were K students

2 37 22 15 59.4% + 7.2

3 38 25 13 65.7% +11.5

4 42 28 14 66.7% 0.0

5 30 14 16 46.6% +12.2

6 28 16 12 57.1% +18.2

In Grades 3-6, 87% of the student will be proficient or advanced proficient on the WKCE

reading performance level

Grade # Tested # Achieved Goal # not achieved % Achieved

3 38 14 16 36.8%

4 42 15 27 35.7%

5 30 7 23 23.3%

6 28 9 19 32.1%

In Grades K-3, 100% of the students will achieve their respective SAGE reading goals. In

addition, Kindergarten students will reach a benchmark level C by June of 2014

Grade # Tested # Achieved Goal # not

achieved

%

Achieved

SAGE

Goal

Achieved

K 49 Upper & Lower Case Letters

Book Awareness

Letter Sound Relationship

Identify High Frequency Words

Reading Level C

1

0

2

2

1

98%

100%

96%

96%

98%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1 40 Identify High Frequency Words

Spell High Frequency Word

Improve Writing Skills

Read Level I

1

3

0

1

98%

93%

100%

98%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2 36 Read Level M

3 or 4 on Dist. Writing Assessment

4

4

89%

89%

Yes

Yes

3 38 Level P 2 95% Yes

Notes:

Edison CSIP Goals exceed the district SAGE Goals in student expectation

Math Data Tables

Grade K-3 – 95% of students will achieve Math SAGE Goals

Grade # Tested # Achieved Goal # not achieved %

Achieved

SAGE

Goal

Achieved

K 49 Geometric Shapes

Count to 100

Write Numbers 0-20

Number Partners to 10

2

1

0

1

96%

98%

100%

98%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1 40 Count/ write #’s to 120

Addition facts to 20

Subtraction facts to 20

2 digits = 10’s & 1”s

2

2

5

2

95%

95%

88%

95%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2 36 Addition facts to 20

Subtraction facts to 20

2 Digit Addition

2 Digit Subtraction

0

1

2

2

100%

97%

94%

94%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 38 Multiplication concepts

Division concepts

2

2

95%

95%

Yes

Yes

Grades 1-6 – Increase from 60% to 75% of students will achieve or exceed their target RIT

score on their MAP Math test in winter or spring (spring scores reported below).

Grade # Tested # Achieved Goal # not achieved Notes

1 37 28 9 76%

2 36 18 18 50%

3 38 29 9 76%

4 40 18 22 45%

5 32 21 11 67%

6 29 19 10 66%

Grades K-6 – 80% of students will achieve 80% or higher on district assessments (data not yet

compiled)

Grades 3 – 6 – 50% of students identified ELL and SWD, will achieve proficient on their WKCE

score.

Grade # Tested

ELL, SWD

# Achieved Goal

ELL, SWD

# not achieved

ELL, SWD

% Achieved

ELL, SWD

1 NA NA NA NA

2 NA NA NA NA

3 2 ELL, 7 SWD 0 ELL, 5 SWD 2 ELL, 2 SWD O% ELL, 71% SWD

4 3 ELL, 6 SWD 0 ELL, 1 SWD 3 ELL, 5 SWD O% ELL, 17% SWD

5 2 ELL, 6 SWD 0 ELL, 3 SWD 2 ELL, 3 SWD 0% ELL, 50% SWD

6 2 ELL, 5 SWD 0 ELL, 0 SWD 2 ELL, 5 SWD 0% ELL, 0% SWD

Totals 9 ELL, 24 SWD 0 WLL, 9 SWD 9 ELL, 15 SWD 0% ELL, 38% SWD

PBIS Data Tables

b. Describe your take-aways from the data; i.e. what does the data illustrate.

Reading/Literacy & Math

The data continues to indicate the need to increase our student’s academic achievement through

“Universal” classroom instruction, particularly for our English Language Learner (ELL) & Students

with Disabilities (SwD) children. In practice, the 2013-14 school year marks our second full year of

implementing the new ELA model. We feel we have increased fidelity with its implementation and

classroom observations reveal universal instruction is more consistent from classroom to classroom.

Late Start days and fully implementing PLC’s has helped in this effort. We meet monthly to review our

data wall.

Our scores dipped on the WKCE in reading while they improved in math. We expect the reading scores

to rebound as our ELA model becomes even more established. Our primary teacher’s report “amazing”

reading and writing accomplishments compared to past expectations. As we move to the Smarter

Balance Assessment next year we will understand that the data will not have longitudinal value and

challenge us to determine trends by use of other assessments.

PBIS

We learned many things from the School-wide Information System (SWIS) data we looked

at. We noticed that although we did not meet our data point for the reduction of referrals,

we had four months with an average of less than two referrals per day. This is a change

from having no months with an average less than two the previous year. We looked at the

months with fewest referrals and noticed that there was a decrease when we had a monthly

incentive. Our goal of 120-130 referrals during peak times was not met, but we had only 90

referrals during these times. This year in SWIS, disrespect was separated from defiance.

Defiance became our top problem behavior, disrespect accounted for about 15% of all major

referrals. Something we celebrated was the fact that 80% of our students had 0 or 1 referral.

Of the students receiving 6 or more referrals, many were receiving services such as check-in

and check-out or special education.

We also looked at Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) and Self-Assessment Survey (SAS) results. We did

well on the BOQ, scoring at 96%. We have been focusing on implementing with fidelity. On the SAS

71% of staff reported that parent/family and community involvement was in place.


Based upon your 2012-13 data, what are 3-5 key learnings/celebrations? Consider progress in addressing the objectives of RtI, Collaborative Culture of Improvement, and

Family and Community Partnerships and its effect on student achievement.

Literacy

We saw a drop in our literacy scores on our WKCE that was administered in November, 2013. Our

teachers, particularly at the primary level, report dramatic growth in their students reading and writing

skills by the end the school year when compare to past years. We attribute the drop in WKCE scores this

year with the transition to the new ELA Model and anticipate the performance reported by teachers will

result in better scores on the Smarter Balance assessment that will be administered in April of 2015.

Math

Our students showed significant growth in their math performance. We are hopeful the trend will

continue as we are now seeing nearly all of our students have been exposed to Math Expressions for the

majority of their school years.

PBIS

Our PBIS SWISS Data shows a cause for celebration. By analyzing our SWISS data we

learned that the majority of our student body is doing what they are supposed to be. They

are model students! We saw positive trends with our at-risk students that received check-

in/check-out through our first year as Tier II. We focused on developing incentives that

students would be motivated to receive. Our 6th

grade leadership team helped with

implementation. Another focus was on improving family involvement. We hosted a movie

night along with our PTA that highlighted some key points.

EHK

What a great year for our Education for Healthy Kids initiatives. We took a huge step forward by

implementing phase I of our Edison Wellness Program by winning $25,000 from US Cellular and

opening a Wellness Room for students, families and staff.

SAGE Note

As mentioned in the past, the impact of being a SAGE School can not be underestimated. SAGE has

numerous benefits that help our students learn socially, emotionally & academically.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2012-13 based upon this

year’s experiences?

Literacy & Math

We will continue to focus on our literacy skill development and further implementation of the new ELA

model. We hope to take our PLC and Late Start Collaboration time to a new level of data use and focus

on students not meeting proficiency levels.

PBIS

In the PBIS area Edison plans includes the following.

Continuing Tier II implementation to develop SAIG groups and behavior plans for

those students that need more than we have provided universally.

Delivering cool tool lessons imbedded into our curriculum which focus on defiance

and classroom behavior, developing plans for those that disrupt the learning of others

Teaming with parents and strengthening relationships that help them be more

involved is another focus we want to have this year.

EHK

Our Student and Family Wellness initiative was very well received by our community. We intend to

continue expansion of the program by moving it to a larger space that is more accessible in the evenings

for our families. We will continue to work with our partners in higher education as we provide

opportunities for University students to intern at the Edison Wellness Room.

Continuous School Improvement Process (CSIP)

School: Edna Ferber Elementary Year: 2013 – 2014

School Improvement Goal #1:

Reading:

All Ferber Elementary School staff will improve universal instruction in reading so that 75% of

all students will meet the year-end Instructional Level Expectations for Reading as measured

by the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment (fluency, comprehension, and decoding) by

May 2014 (Baseline 2012-2013 school year: 67% average).

Data and Findings:

Reading (2013) Reading (2014) % Change

KDGN 52/84 62% 53/61 87%

1st Grade 62/82 77% 68/83 82% +20

2nd

Grade 55/76 72% 68/89 76% -1

3rd

Grade 71/87 82% 63/78 81% +9

4th

Grade 61/81 75% 62/81 77% -5

5th

Grade 43/83 52% 62/92 71% -4

6th

Grade 56/104 54% 55/88 63% +12

Overall Total: 67% 75% +8

In our review of the data from the past school year we found that our school had an overall

increase in the percentage of students reading at grade level (67% to 75%), that is an 8% increase

from the previous year of students reading at grade level. Digging deeper, we found that we had

more students reading at grade level than the previous year (400 to 431). Additionally, we found

that in all but one grade level the number of students reading at grade level increased as

compared to their previous grade. The arrows show percentage of students from last year to this

year and the corresponding change. We know that we have students that move in and out at each

grade level and that is a factor in our consideration when comparing two school years.

School Improvement Goal #2: Writing:

All Ferber Elementary School staff will improve universal instruction (Purpose and Stamina) in

writing so that 50% of students in grades 2 & 5 will be at grade level or higher as measured

by the district writing assessment. (Baseline 2012-2013 school year: Gr. 2: 28% Gr. 5: 45%)

Data and Findings:

Writing 2013 Writing 2014

Grade 2 23/78 29% Grade 2 32/87 37%

Grade 5 38/84 45% Grade 5 37/94 40%

In our review of the writing data we found that our 2nd

grade students performed better, 37% to

29% in meeting their district goals in writing. Our 5th

grade students performed slightly lower,

40% to 45% in meeting their district writing goals. Our data cannot show growth from year to

year due to the assessment only being given in these two grade levels.


When our CSIP team looked at the data from our goals, we were very pleased with the progress

our school is making in Reading. Our school has added Reading Recovery and team teaching

with our ELL and SLD departments to our repertoire of strategies that we can use to help

students become better readers. We continue to look for more ways to reach the students who

are struggling in reading. Staff has used their PLC time to meet and discuss student’s reading

and writing needs. They have developed interventions that they have implemented during their

WIN time to help improve student reading skills. Additionally, we have used our late start time

and lunch hours to provide staff development for teachers to improve their skills in teaching

Reading and Writing. Below are a few of the ideas that we will be implementing in the fall as we

continue to grow in our skills…

1. Our reading specialists/coaches will focus their time on working with our Kindergarten

and 1st grade staff on improving their reading skills.

2. Our staff will be developing an electronic data wall that they will be able to use at their

weekly PLC meetings to look at student data to help plan instruction for students

struggling in Reading.

3. Finally, we have added in a Math goal this year focusing on improving our students skills

in Math as measured by the NWEA Map testing.

2013-2014 STEPHEN FOSTER ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL CONTINUOUS SCHOOL

IMPROVEMENT REPORT

FOSTER SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GOALS

Literacy:

All staff at Stephen Foster Elementary Charter School will work to improve student understanding of academic

vocabulary so that by June 1, 2014; 90% of students who attend Stephen Foster Elementary Charter School for the entire

academic year will meet 2 of the following criteria/benchmarks:

1. Score Proficient/Advanced on WKCE Reading

2. Meet Spring Reading MAP Target Score

3. Meet Spring benchmark goal or move up 4 benchmark reading levels

4. Meet IEP Goals

5. Show 1 year of growth (.4 points or more) as measured by ACCESS Testing

AND

The percentage of students identified as English Language Learners, scoring proficient or advanced on the WKCE

Reading Section, will increase from 0% to 10%.

Math:

All staff at Stephen Foster Elementary Charter School will work to improve student understanding of academic

vocabulary so that by June 1, 2014; 85% of students who attend Stephen Foster Elementary Charter School for the entire

academic year will meet 2 of the following criteria/benchmarks:

1. Score Proficient/Advanced on WKCE Math

2. Meet Spring Math MAP Target Score

3. Score 80% or higher on 80% of End of Unit Math Assessments

4. Meet all SAGE Math Goals (K-3)

5. Meet IEP Goals

AND

The percentage of students identified as English Language Learners, scoring proficient or advanced on the WKCE Math

Section, will increase from 0% to 10%.

DATA AND FINDINGS

At the end of the 2012-13 school year, the Foster Elementary Charter School CSIP team decided that they wanted to raise

the bar in terms of the growth students were making academically. In the past the Foster CSIP goal required students to

meet their Spring MAP target score within 2 RIT points or meat their reading benchmark or score proficient/advanced on

WKCE. For 2013-14 the Foster team determined that they wanted students to show their performance by meeting 2 of the

criteria listed above. The plan was to get a baseline of how students performed under the new goal this year and adjust for

further years. Foster fell far short of reaching their goal this year, but the work that was done and the data collected,

provides a solid baseline from which to grow, utilizing the same data points in future years.

41 54 58

100 88

63

CSIP MATH

Percentage ofStudents MeetingTarget

27

58 73

100

57 53

0

20

40

60

80

100

CSIP LITERACY

Percentage ofStudents MeetingTarget

Although Foster didn’t meet the CSIP goal, there were many bright spots. In literacy, 73% of students met their reading

benchmark or grew 4 reading levels. In literacy 58% of Foster students met their MAP target score and in math, 54% of

students met their MAP target score. These are significantly higher percentages of students meeting their target score as

compared to the prior two years as demonstrated by the chart below.

3 Year MAP Summary

The chart entitled, “3 Year MAP Summary” shows the percentage of students meeting their targeted growth. The bars

under the category “Reading Three Quadrants” and “Math Three Quadrants” shows the percentage of students who have

hit their targeted growth score, are projected to score proficient or advanced, or have met their targeted growth score and

are expected to hit proficient and advanced. The good news for Foster is two-fold. There has been a significant increase

in the percentage of students who have hit their targeted growth, but the huge celebration within MAP testing data is that

the increase in the percentage of students who hit their targeted growth came almost entirely from students who had

previously been in the “Red Quadrant.” The “Red Quadrant” consists of students who previously were not hitting their

targeted growth score and were not projected to be proficient or advanced. It appears that Foster was able to meet the

needs of a higher percentage of the students this year.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The big take-away from the data is that while Foster did not meet the CSIP goals in reading or math, there is significant

progress to celebrate. During the summer of 2013 each Foster staff member completed SIOP training. SIOP training was

intended to improve universal instruction for all students, but particularly was focused on boosting instruction for ELL

students. The work Foster did to implement the concepts learned through SIOP training (posting language and content

objectives, formatively assessing each lesson, increasing the use of the turn and talk strategy, and spending more time

building background knowledge) couldn’t have been measured by WKCE because that test happens in November and the

changes to instruction had not had adequate opportunity to take hold. Yet MAP testing and benchmark testing is

completed in the late spring, and in each of those categories Foster saw significant improvements. The staff at Foster

believes it is on the cusp of putting a dent in the achievement gap between English Language Learners and non-English

Language Learners. As such, Foster will continue towards the goal of reducing that achievement gap by continuing to

address the academic vocabulary needs of all students. As Foster develops the CSIP goals for the 2014-15 school year,

the following will be considered:

1. The goal for next year will be an aggressive yet attainable goal utilizing the same data points to measure progress

towards the goal.

2. Foster will continue to work on addressing the needs of English Language Learners, particularly addressing their

academic vocabulary needs.

3. The strategies of posting language and content objectives, formatively assessing each lesson, increasing the

amount of time spent building background knowledge and increasing the amount of time students are able to

speak to one another will continue to be the cornerstones of the Foster CSIP in 2014-15.

48.6

59.1

41 43.3

64.3

35.7

48.5

60.9

39.1 44.6

66.4

33.7

58

70.3

29.7

54

70.8

29.2

Reading Reading ThreeQuadrants

Reading RedQuadrant

Math Math ThreeQuadrants

Math Red Quadrant

Foster MAP Scores 2012-2014

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Franklin Elementary School -Responsible, Respectful, and Safe

2212 N. Jarchow St., Appleton, WI 54911 ◊ Phone: (920) 832 – 6246 ◊ Fax: (920) 832 – 4464

Carrie Willer, PhD, Principal

2013-2014 School Improvement Goals in Literacy and Math Literacy- As a community of learners (staff, students, and parents) will collaborate and monitor student achievement in literacy so that 90 % of all students will show at least one year’s growth during the 2013-2014 school year. This will be measured by Fall to Spring MAP scores in reading using: individual student target RIT growth scores(or 5 point variance for students that have exceeded the grade level target score in fall) OR grade level target MAP score OR district benchmarking grade level goals. 90% of Kindergarten students will reach level C reading benchmark by spring. Students with Special Education needs, ELL students and TAG Students will be targeted for interventions or enrichment. Math- As a community of learners, staff, students, and parents will collaborate and monitor student achievement to align to the Common Core State Standards and Math practices to ensure that the level of math learning will be accelerated for each student so that 85% of kindergarten students will show proficiency on the end of year assessment and 85% of all gr. 1-6th graders will meet their individual RIT or grade level target score. Site Focus: with an emphasis on monitoring student achievement and collaboration, all staff will utilize peer coaching (late starts) and implement parent involvement (i.e Parent Chat, Families 4 Franklin Goal, ELL Family Nights, Family Satisfaction Survey) to support student learning through the crucial questions from DuFour:

1. What do we want students to learn? 2. How will we know when each student has learned it? 3. How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning? 4. What will we do if the student already knows it?

Data and Findings Our changing student profile:

Franklin’s total K-6 student body includes 382 students. We added another special education program, Integrated Kindergarten (IK) and we saw an increase in our free/reduced population.

Free and reduced Learners: 44% of student population English Language Learners: 1 student per 5 receives ELL instruction Special Education Learners: 1 student per 3 has an IEP (EBD, SPL, IK, SLD, - ECH not included)

Kindergarten (60 students) 78% met the reading goal 85 % met the math goal

The 13% that did not included 7 IK students, 4 ELL and 2 reg. education students with Tier 2 support

N/A- goal writte

First Grade (59 students) 90% met the reading goal 88% met the math goal

Second Grade (58 students) 97% met the reading goal 85% met the math goal

Third Grade (56 students) 82% met the reading goal 79% met the math goal

77% of students (43 total) made level P benchmark

Fourth Grade (65 students) 82% met the reading goal 80% met the math goal

Fifth Grade (50 students) 92% met the reading goal 90% met the math goal




Sixth Grade (38 students) 73% met the reading goal 74% met the math goal

Though not all the grade levels met the reading or math goal, Franklin students made significant gains in literacy and math, based on MAP test scores. Our ELL and special education students continued to show gains, albeit some performance lag behind peers.

Summary of Findings

As we reviewed the above data, we see higher student achievement scores in reading and math than in the past three years at Franklin. We continued our reading goal of 90% and continue to add more grade levels in meeting that goal and increased our CSIP math cut score to 85%, from last year’s 80%. Grade level teams continued to meet and used late start to progress monitor and continue ELA lesson planning. Our parent collaboration efforts increased this year with a fall Parent Chat event that was well received, a Families 4 Franklin (each family was asked to volunteer or participate in 4 ways this year for their child and receive a star on our bulletin board), having parents sign a Safety Pledge (to slow down and follow traffic laws in our pick up line) and our principal distributed a schoolwide parent satisfaction survey. 100 surveys were completed, with a response rate of 27% (1 in 4 families participated). Parents indicated 98% satisfaction or highly satisfied with their experience at Franklin school and listed staff and principal satisfaction, school-home communication, and feelings of being welcomed and listened to as their highest praise. Areas identified for continued improvement include: school website needs clarity/updating; more technology in the hands of children; challenge students more (comment from K-2 parents); and more communication with staff (comment from 3-6 parents). We celebrated in hearing such positive feedback from our parents and parents commented that they appreciated being asked. Our community collaboration included: partnership with our neighbor Grace Christian Fellowship, who donated new plants for a teacher memorial on our school grounds, a granite monument for a student that was killed several years, and a $100 gift certificate for a graduating 6th grader; our ongoing partnership with the Fox Valley Humane Association’s Reading to Canines; partnering with the Lions Club to have all students participate in the vision screening, partnering with the Tri County Dental clinic to not only screen teeth but come almost biweekly to perform extractions, fillings, and other dental care for needy children. Our PTO was particularly strong this year, working with us to create a Staff Wishing Wall where parents could purchase supplies for classrooms, as well as organizing parents to donate new classroom rugs and staff incentives to help with low morale. Our staff efforts included better progress monitoring that aligned more clearly with tier two invention documentation and ongoing formative data collection. We will continue this work as we set our data rules. For PBIS, we instituted a monthly student recognition called “Fox Salutes” that was well received by parents including a special feature article in the January Post Crescent, a tier two plan called Check in and Check out, along with a new Gotcha menu. We were again recognized as a school of merit for our efforts! What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-15 based upon this year’s experiences? Using the survey results and our student data, we will:

1. Parent collaboration- a. We will add a “Parent Question” section- Ask Dr. Willer- to the newsletter with box in the office to

answer parent questions in the newsletter. This is similar to the student question box that our principal uses each day in morning announcements.




b. Continue our Families 4 Franklin, and add a Family goal called AIM (academics- homework support and completion; involvement- talking to students about their day, volunteering at Franklin; and medical- keeping students well fed, well rested, good oral hygiene and current on immunizations).

2. Student achievement- a. We will write our CSIP goal in the form of both a Student Learning Outcome (SLO), keeping the 90% in reading and moving to 90% in math, and write a Professional Practice Goal (PPG) that focuses on collaboration and comprehension in ELA and the math practice of student talk. Instead of using just one data point (MAP test scores) we will use multiple assessment points and students will need to show proficiency in at least three of five data points (MAP Rit or grade level bands, reading benchmarks, PALS scores for K-2 students, quarterly progress reports based on the elementary progress reports, and formative data (multiple running records, word sort tests, etc). b. We will create PLC meeting agendas that include some team business but focus on student tier two reports and kid talk with resource staff, and change our monthly BCT meetings to weekly student service team meetings over the noon hour to help teachers with the RTI process and setting up intervention plans. c. Our late starts and monthly staff meetings will focus on professional practice- for math we will examine our student talk and math practice, Construct viable arguments, and we will examine our universal ELA instruction for fidelity. We will have time at least twice a month to work as a team and our agendas will be driven by those two goals. d. We will establish a formalized peer coaching program where staff would work with staff and be given release time to observe peers. Money from our building budget would be used to fund this. In addition, two ‘peer mentors’ will be used- one at the primary level and another at the intermediate level- to peer coach ELA along with our reading specialist. e. Our PBIS and Healthy Kids efforts will continue to support student achievement. We had a classroom attendance incentive that we will continue, along with our Snack Attack drills to promote healthy eating. We will partner with our PTO to bring Steve Carrier in for a PBIS Anti Bullying presentation in the fall (we used Dome Theater this past year from a NASA grant to incorporate science education), and our principal worked with our PTO to have a family goal of raising $15,000 to enhance our playground equipment for all children, including our Early Childhood and Integrated Kindergarteners. To support mental health of children, we will initiate a Tier Two mentoring program along with SAIG (Social Academic Intervention Groups). 3. Support our staff As we move into the era of Educator Effectiveness, new technology, increased school safety, Common Core, increasingly challenging student populations the research continues to point to staff as having the number one impact on student achievement. School culture and climate, including staff morale, is important to pay attention to and celebrate in an effort to bring cohesiveness and collegiality. We will continue the monthly staff meeting gift card give aways, the staff ‘Snack Attack’ (principal brings a beverage cart service to each staff member), the “Caught in the Act” when staff are seen doing great work, the Candy Jar Pick Me Ups, and the Fox Pride Award at the beginning of the year to a staff member that showed PRIDE (Personal Responsibility in Developing Excellence). Please join me in celebrating a great year at Franklin Elementary School- Home of the Foxes! We look forward to a wonderful 2014-2015 school year.




Due June 27,2014 Submit electronically to Chris Webster

2013-2014 Site Continuous School Improvement Findings School: Highlands School Improvement Goal(s): All staff at Highlands Elementary School will improve students’ skills in reading so

that at least 80% of all students will achieve two of the following: Kindergarten:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level C)

Achieve 80% combined score on PALS assessment areas of Group beginning sound,

Lowercase recognition (capital recognition) and letter sounds. (71 out of 88 points)

Score 80% or more on PALS Spelling (16 out of 20 points)

1st Grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level I)

Advance 6 benchmark levels

Score 80% on Fountas and Pinnell 100 word list at end of year

2nd Grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level M)


Reach targeted growth on Spring 2014 MAP test

3rd Grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level P)



4th grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level S)



5th grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level v)

Advance 4 benchmark levels for selected students


6th grade:

Reach May 2014 benchmark goal (level y )

Advance 4 benchmark levels for selected students


*Benchmark is determined by student’s instructional level.

Or 80% of students receiving special education services in the area of literacy will meet their

annual IEP reading and/or writing goals.

*Benchmark is determined by student’s instructional level.

Data and Findings: .

The above graph shows students in grades K, 1 and 5 met two of the targeted goals. When we looked at our subgroups we saw that there was growth, but not the growth needed to close the achievement gap. We see that our ELL population was more successful in the primary grades vs. the intermediate grades.


We reflected that this year we required students to meet 2 of the proficiency expectations instead of one from the previous year. This was challenging for staff as they saw significant growth in students, but the students were not at proficiency yet.

We need to continue to analyze data and determine the appropriate intervention for students and have increased the staffs’ capacity of writing targeted goals this past year, but can continue to grow.

We have continued to face the challenge of thinking differently and being creative on universal and tiered services for students.

The staff has focused on collaboration and that was evident through the creation and success of RtI lunches.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2013-14 based upon this year’s experiences? For the 2014-15 school year we are going develop a consistent common language for ELA terminology, focus on decoding strategies in grades K-3 and comprehension in grades 3-6. We will also be adapting our schedule to allow for grade level sharing of students for intervention/enrichment. The final goal is to continue staff development that supports our CSIP plan. We have topics of effective collaboration, differentiation, and assessment.

Due June 27, 2014

2013-2014 Site Continuous School Improvement Findings School: Highlands School Improvement Goal(s):

Math Goal: All staff at Highlands Elementary School will improve students' Math Practice Skills so that at least 80% of all students will achieve a level 3 or 4 on their report card in the area of MP5-

Attends to Precision

Data and Findings:

The above graph shows that Kindergarten met the goal set this year. The graph shows the percentage of students who received a 3 or 4 on their report card in the area of Math Practice 5 – Attends to Precision.

When we created the plan for this year we needed to change the way we measured students’ proficiency as we moved into the Standards Based Grading.


We have reflected on the SIR (School-wide Implementation Review) data and have determined that we need to develop our infrastructure of our Universal and Tiered levels of math support.

We have created a math common language that will be present in each classroom to increase consistency and clarity for our students for the 2014-15 school year.

The parents who attended the Parent Involvement Day enjoyed the day and found the math resources valuable.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2013-14 based upon this year’s experiences? For the 2014-15 school year we are going to focus on building the staff’s capacity in pre/post assessments, triangulation of data and implementing student plans with fidelity. We will also be adjusting our schedule for flexible grouping during our WIN time to ensure intervention and enrichment. We will be progress monitoring student growth monthly and creating plans to meet the students needs.

June 24, 2014 2013-2014 Horizons Elementary School Continuous School Improvement Findings

School Improvement Goal: Through our Professional Learning Community, all staff will grow and develop their skills in delivering high quality instruction through the implementation of best instructional practices that are responsive to student needs which will positively influence student achievement and engagement in the area of literacy resulting in an increased number of students demonstrating proficiency as measured by the indicators listed below. Growth Goal: We will increase by 7% annually the number of students in grades 3-6 who score proficient or advanced proficient in the areas of reading on the WKCE. Proficiency Goal: 80 % of students in grades K-6 will meet grade level and end of year reading benchmark target and or MAP target RIT score or demonstrate one year academic growth.

Data and Findings: Display tables, graphs, or spreadsheets to visually illustrate end of year student outcomes based upon the data set(s) identified in the above goal statement(s). Make sure to disaggregate the data to highlight the growth of the students who were a focus in each of your CSIP goals.

The information in the graphs below is based on May 2014 Data Wall Placement. The assessments used to determine placement include: May Benchmark, Spring MAP and WKCE.

b. Describe your take-aways from the data; i.e. what does the data illustrate.

We increased our students who scored proficient or advanced proficient on the WKCE by 6% in the area of reading. Our results for proficiency were very close to 2012-13. We continue to see the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency decline as they progress through the years. We have identified our students who did not meet proficiency expectations, while there is no single factor that we are able to pinpoint, it is evident that there is a gap between our Students with Disabilities (SwD) and non-SwD as well as our English Language Learners and non-English Language Learners. There is a gap between our economically and non-economically students. We will continue to monitor progress of targeted students and provide interventions to support their continued growth and development.


1. Although we fell short of our goal our students demonstrated evidence of growth and learning through the 13-14 school year.

2. Take a Book, Leave a Book was a successful initiative for encouraging students to take books home to read and/or share with family members.

3. Kindergarten and First Grade data has supported our use of small group instruction for each student on a daily basis. Reading Recovery and Ell support to build in vocabulary building at an early age also benefited students in these grades.

4. We continue to struggle with our sub populations, particularly English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities (CD).

5. Authentic assessments or performance tasks were a positive this year as staff collaborated to plan for successful implementations of the standards with each grade level.

6. Our Spanish speaking families were more involved in school activities during the 2013-14 school year than in prior years.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-15 based upon this year’s experiences?

We will continue to build a culture of collaboration as we strengthen our capacity to provide instruction

and interventions to support all learners.

In the fall, we had a high number of students who spent little time reading over the summer. Our

literacy and ELL staff implemented a Summer Reading Bridge to include Library Check-out Days

and Book Sharing sessions in one of our high poverty neighborhood as well as a Take a Book, Leave

a Book program.

We will give students 4-6 weeks of reading and instruction before completing fall benchmarks.

We will closely monitor student attendance and work with families to ensure that students are

available to learn.

Provide professional learning for all staff, including Professional Conferences, Book Studies and

Standards Skills Traces with an emphasis on working with students in poverty.

Develop systems for more effective use of PIE time to meet student needs.

We will build meaningful Family and Community Partnerships that will support our students in a positive

way. We need to share this journey with families and build their capacity to be actively engaged in their

children’s education and value their contributions.

Increase our Home-School Communication and contacts.

Invite parents to participate on CSIP Teams.

Provide opportunities for parents to support school initiatives in a variety of capacities.

Summer Bridge Reading and

Take a Book, Leave a Book

Houdini 2013-2014 Continuous School Improvement Findings

Literacy Houdini Improvement Goals: As a community of learners (all staff, students and parents) at

Houdini, we will utilize individual goal setting and best practices in literacy instruction to improve individual reading growth. ELA Growth goal: In May 2014, growth will be measured for all students attending for the full 2013-2014 academic year ending June 7, 2014 in the following manner: 85% of students will make one year’s progress on the Benchmark Growth Chart or will meet their MAP Target Growth in either Winter or Spring.

ELA Proficiency goal: By May 2014, proficiency will be measured for all students attending for the full 2013-2014 academic year in the following manner: 85% of students will make grade level proficiency on spring Fountas and Pinnell benchmark or achieve grade level proficiency as measured by the MAP spring RIT score.

Grade Level # Growth

Reading

% Growth

Reading

# Proficiency

Reading

% Proficiency

Reading

Kindergarten 78/81 96% 73/81 90%

1 97/102 95% 91/102 89%

2 67/77 87% 66/77 86%

3 69/74 93% 66/74 89%

4 72/75 96% 71/75 95%

5 76/82 93% 65/82 79%

6 79/94 84% 71/92 77%

Growth Goal Findings: As shown above, Kindergarten through 5th grade students exceeded the 85% Reading goal

for growth. The sixth graders came very close to our goal with 84% of the students meeting their growth goal. This lead to many conversations about “finishing the year strong” and endurance with our 6

th grade students during the last quarter of

the year. We will be looking at creative ways to more actively engage our sixth grade student Proficiency Data Findings: Marked progress is noted moving students toward greater literacy proficiencies.

Assessment wall data uses multiple sources of information and includes benchmark assessment, MAP findings, writing proficiency, quality of Reading Response Journal entries, and other data. Assessment wall data this year did tend to be higher than the MAP testing in the spring indicated.

12% 20%

0% 21% 21%

9% 19% 13% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 4%

15% 9% 19%

29% 29% 16%

31%

42%

13%

13% 2%

8%

12% 5% 4% 9% 13%

4% 13%

5% 3%

15% 23% 11%

32% 31%

17%

56% 20%

39% 16%

18% 15%

12% 17% 29% 26% 20%

26% 28%

28% 21%

19%

36% 26%

13% 15%

29%

3% 16%

48% 50% 61%

70% 57% 64%

55% 58% 59% 61% 49%

59% 73%

51% 30%

44% 26% 26%

38%

2013-2014 Assessment Wall percentages


Summary of Findings: The collaborative culture of our building has a very solid foundation. Houdini’s PLC’s have run

very efficiently this year while they continued to perfect their lesson plans aligned to the OEU’s. However, next year at the request of staff, we are going to provide a more structured agenda for these meetings. The teachers have requested to utilize this time to discuss where students are excelling and struggling and device plans to meet their needs on both ends of the spectrum. They are also asking literacy coaches to provide staff development to assist in guiding their instruction during this time once a month. One discrepancy we identified when assessing our data was the vast difference in students benchmark scores compared to the spring MAP data. Many of the students met their growth goal on the benchmark testing, yet failed to meet their proficiency goal on MAP. In an attempt to remedy this concern, we are beginning the year with a review benchmark testing and utilizing these scores to guide instruction for individual students. We will be having three “refreshers” on this throughout the year. Mary Schmidt from the Reading Recovery Consortium will be assisting Houdini on this goal through the year with periodic benchmark and running record reviews.

By combining our efforts between PBIS, math and literacy into one evening instead of three separate occasions gave parents a better overview of work at Houdini. We found that our Veteran Recognition night drew a very different audience of parents and grandparents than the PBIS/math/literacy night. By diversifying our evening events we were able to engage more of our families.

Houdini Math CSIP Outcomes Houdini’s math goal is built to follow students on their grade level journey through Houdini. For instance, the

growth goal percentage for 4th

grade was 48% of students meeting their growth goal according to Measures of

Academic Progress (MAP) test. That 48% was five percent more than what those same students achieved the

year before. So looking at fourth grade, the group as a whole did meet their growth goal because 51% of the

students met their individual growth goal. The growth goal is important because MAP statistically sets a

growth goal for each student. The growth goal for those students not meeting proficient represents a target that,

if met for three years, will result in the student becoming proficient in that third year. The growth goal for those

under achieving students will be more than the typical growth for a student achieving proficiency. Our

intermediate students met the math growth goal targets. Our primary students did not.

Math Growth

Math Proficiency

Growth Goal

% Meeting Growth

Goal Grade

Grade Proficiency

Target* %

Proficient

Kdg.

Kdg.

100%

72% 52% 1

1 179 76% 77% 38% 2

2 192 46%

57% 43% 3

3 204 71% 48% 51% 4

4 213 56%

51% 55% 5

5 221 63% 51% 54% 6

6 226 65%

Schoolwide 52%

Schoolwide

69%

* Kdg. based on End of Year Test

*Grades 1-6 based on MAP RIT Proficiency

While we are concerned with growth, we also want our students to meet proficiency levels set by MAP as well.

The chart below does indicate that more students are proficient than met their targeted growth goals. Our

assessments also indicate that 20% of our students meeting proficiency are not meeting their individual targeted

growth. We know from this relatively high percentage that our universal instruction does need to be elevated so

that students learn as much as they possibly can. Our data suggests that 12% of our students who did not meet

grade level proficiency did meet their individual targeted growth goal which is very positive. If they continue to

meet their growth goal they will be proficient given a bit more time.

Some of our other math activities included an evening for parents about our math series. The multiple ways that

students are taught to solve math problems are very different than the way parents were taught. By having our

teachers explain some of the new procedures, explain the concept of math talk, and discuss the math practices,

not just math content, is very beneficial for parents. It is surprising to hear how many parents are cautious about

helping their child because they do not think they should be sharing how they learned to do the work. Parents

are reassured that it is indeed all right to show their child the way they were taught to think through or work out

a problem—it is yet another way to solve a problem.

For staff we instituted a twice a month “drop in” time during the noon hour to consult with a couple of our

teachers who are our math gurus, so to speak. It is an informal time, which staff likes, where they can

brainstorm ways to reach certain students or ways to motivate or ideas for interventions that could be used for

extra help for students. Two of our staff will be trained this summer in a “math recovery” program that is strong

in diagnostic procedures to determine just where the conceptual breakdown occurs. Knowing at what point the

student does not understand will help to target instruction so that the student can move forward.

Continuing challenges include finding time for targeted interventions, ensuring that our universal instruction is

broadened so that more of our already proficient students meet their individual target growth goals, and to

become more expert in pinpointing where the breakdown is for a struggling student in order to target

interventions.

Considerations for 2014 -2015 CSIP plan:

1. Our grade level teams have identified grade level literacy goal and as a building our focus is to go deeper and get better at what we are already doing. In addition, when looking at the differences between benchmark and MAP results, our focus needs to be teaching students to be flexible with what they learn and know. That translates to being able to transfer skills from one situation, task, or type of reading to another. Mary Schmidt will be assisting Houdini by teaching how to test students on benchmarks and running records with fidelity and utilizing this information to guide instruction.

2. Houdini will continue monthly collaborative CSIP meetings during the 2014-2015 school year. During these meetings we will:

a. Continue to share monthly PBIS precision statements (combining CICO and SWIS Big Five Data) with staff.

b. Included a Houdini “Spotlight” in each staff meeting highlighting routines and procedures to save instructional minutes throughout the day.

3. Continue our twice a month Math assistance support.

1

2

3

4

5

6

52%

38%

43%

51%

55%

54%

76%

46%

71%

56%

63%

65%

Math Outcomes

% Meeting Proficiency 100% % Meeting Growth Goal

Huntley Elementary School

End of Year CSIP Report – 2013/2014

Based upon the 2013-2014 data, key learnings/celebrations are… We had 10 non-WKCE goals on our CSIP this school year. Of those:

o We met 5 of them and showed growth over last year’s scores on 3 of them. o We were 1% away on one of them that we didn’t have previous data for. We will continue

this goal for next year now that we have baseline data. o We went down on one of them targeting our Students with Disabilities (SwD) in the area of

math. We will continue this goal for next year with specific plans to increase in this area.

WKCE scores went down state-wide and Huntley reflected the same trend. We look forward to Smarter Balanced results at the end of next school year to help us in planning goals for the 2015-2016 school year.

We effectively put into place our CSIP action plan and will consider similar actions, with additional items, for next school year.

88% of Huntley students received one or fewer ODR’s (Office Discipline Referrals) this school year. According to the district PBIS Coordinator, this data indicates we are implementing PBIS with fidelity and that the vast majority of students are responding positively to Tier 1 PBIS initiatives.

Based upon the 2013-2014 experiences, next year we plan to consider… We would like to become more responsive to our students various cultural needs including ethnicity,

home make up, religion, etc. We have begun brainstorming ways to incorporate CSIP next year.

We are currently meeting our Kindergarten benchmark levels but are concerned with the new expectation of students reaching a Level D by the end of the school year. Our CSIP will need to target this goal with creative ways to support a successful outcome.

We continue to demonstrate growth for our ELL students, but we don’t appear to be closing the achievement gap. This will be a special focus for next school year.

Literacy Goals

At least 85% of Kindergarten students will be reading at level C or higher by May 2014.

At least 72% of students in grades 1-6 will meet one of the following goals:

o Will be reading at end of year benchmark by May 2014. o Will meet or exceed end of year proficiency score as measured by MAP.

Increase the percentage of students in grades 3-6 who are Proficient or Advanced on WKCE from

41% in Fall 2012 to 45% in Fall 2013. (2012 State average was 36%)

84%

86%

Huntley 2012-2013

Huntley 2013-2014

Kindergarten Reading Level C or Higher

72% Huntley

End of Year Benchmark and/or Proficient on Reading MAP

34%

37%

39%

State

District

Huntley

Proficient or Advanced - WKCE Reading

At least 80% of students in grades 1-6 will meet one of the following goals: o Will make one year’s growth or more on their reading benchmark. o Will meet or exceed their targeted growth in reading as measured by MAP.

Literacy Sub-Goals Increase the percentage of low socio-economic students in grades 3-6 who are Proficient or

Advanced on WKCE from 25% in Fall of 2012 to 27% in Fall 2013 (2012 State average was 21%)

At least 65% of students with low socioeconomic status in grades K-6 will be reading at or above end

of year benchmark by May 2014.

At least 36% of students with disabilities in grades 1-6 will meet their targeted growth on MAP.

Increase the percentage of students with disabilities who are Proficient or Advanced on WKCE from

21% in Fall 2012 to 23% in Fall 2013. (2012 State average was 15%)

Increase the percentage of ELL students who are Proficient or Advanced on WKCE from 8% in Fall

2012 to 10% in Fall 2013. (2012 State average was 8%)

Math Goals

At least 70% of students in Grades 1-6 will meet or exceed end of year proficiency score on MAP.

79% Huntley

Benchmark and/or MAP - 1 year's growth

19% 21%

20%

State

Huntley

Proficient or Advanced - Low SES - WKCE Reading

63%

64%

Huntley 2012-2013

Huntley 2013-2014

Reading at End of Year Benchmark or Above - Low SES

34%

54%

Huntley 2012-2013

Huntley 2013-2014

Reached their Targeted Growth - SwD - MAP Reading

10%

11%

10%

State

District

Huntley

Proficent or Advanced - SwD - WKCE Reading

7%

3%

24%

State

District

Huntley

Proficient or Advanced - ELL - WKCE Reading

65%

69%

Huntley 2012-13

Huntley 2013-14

Met or Exceeded End of Year Proficiency - MAP Math

Increase the number of students in grades 3-6 scoring Proficient or Advanced on WKCE from 60% in Fall 2012 to 62% in Fall 2013. (2012 State average was 48%)

68% of students in grades 1-6 will meet their targeted math growth on the MAP.

Math Sub-Goals

At least 65% of students with low socio-economic status in grades 1-6 will meet their targeted math growth on the MAP.

The number of students with low socio-economic status scoring Proficient or Advanced on the

WKCE will increase from 40% in Fall 2012 to 42% in Fall 2013 (2012 State average was 31%)

At least 75% of students with disabilities in Grades 1-6 will meet their targeted growth on the MAP.

The number of students with disabilities scoring Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE will increase

from 40% in Fall 2012 to 42% in Fall 2013. (2012 State average was 22%)

50%

52%

57%

State

District

Huntley

Proficent or Advanced - WKCE Math

65%

70%

Huntley 2012-13

Huntley 2013-14

Met Targeted Growth - MAP Math

62%

63%

Huntley 2012-13

Huntley 2013-14

Targeted Growth MAP Math - Low SES

31%

33%

32%

State

District

Huntley

Proficent or Advanced - WKCE Math Low SES

64%

73%

61%

Huntley 2011-12

Huntley 2012-13

Huntley 2013-14

Targeted Growth MAP Math - SwD

21%

19%

22%

State

District

Huntley

Proficent or Advanced - SwD WKCE Math

Jefferson Elementary Continuous School Improvement Findings

2013-2014 CSIP Goals and data breakdown

Goal: We will increase proficiency as measured on the WKCE test by 5% annually in grades 3-6. 2012-13 we

ranked 34.6% in reading proficiency and 52.2% in math.

o Reading: 30.8% of students in proficient or advanced proficient.

o Math: 53.2% of students in proficient or advanced proficient.

Goal: 90% of students (FAY) in grades 1-6 will meet their achievement targeted growth in math and reading on

their MAP assessment.

o Reading: 55% of students in 1-6 met their targeted growth.

o Math: 66% of students in 1-6 met their targeted growth.

Goal: 80% of students grades 1-6 will obtain the spring median MAP RIT score or higher in math and reading.

o Reading: 62% of students in grades 1-6 met the spring median MAP RIT or higher.

o Math: 65% of students in 1-6 met the spring median MAP RIT or higher.

Goal: 90% of our students K-6 (FAY) will reach their instructional reading level (K-2,1st – I, 2nd – M, 3rd – P, 4th – S,

5th – V, 6th – Y

o Reading: 79% of students in grades K-6 were reading at their instructional level or higher.

Reading-MAP Targeted Growth % Met Targeted Growth Achievement % Met Achievement Total

Grade 1 22 52% 29 69% 42

Grade 2 32 63% 36 71% 51

Grade 3 28 64% 25 57% 44

Grade 4 33 54% 34 56% 61

Grade 5 24 59% 27 66% 41

Grade 6 17 39% 25 57% 44

Total 156 55% 176 62% 283

Math-MAP Targeted Growth % Met Targeted Growth Achievement % Met Achievement Total

Grade 1 40 95% 35 83% 42

Grade 2 31 61% 35 69% 51

Grade 3 26 59% 32 73% 44

Grade 4 33 54% 28 46% 61

Grade 5 26 63% 27 66% 41

Grade 6 32 73% 27 61% 44

Total 188 66% 184 65% 283

The above two MAP tables indicate the number or students who met their targeted growth by number and percentage as well as those who met their achievement growth and their percentage. The final column indicates the total number of students in that grade

Reading Benchmark Achievement % Achievement Total

Kindergarten 68 93% 73

Grade 1 35 83% 42

Grade 2 43 84% 51

Grade 3 33 75% 44

Grade 4 41 67% 61

Grade 5 34 83% 41

Grade 6 28 64% 44

Total 282 79% 356

Reading Minimal or Basic - MAP

American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White ELL Male Female SwD

EcD 100 100 100 93.8 72.3 100 85.8 61.5 90.5

Non Ecd 0 80 0 100 52.8 100 65.8 47.5 100

Math Minimal or Basic - MAP

American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White ELL Male Female SwD

EcD 100 50 100 37.5 59.6 50 59 56.4 76.2

Non Ecd 0 100 0 100 28.5 100 39.5 32.5 100

MAP Reading Total Advanced Proficient # MetTargeted Growth % Met Targeted Growth

1st 19 8 42

2nd 24 15 63

3rd 8 3 38

4th 20 6 30

5th 9 7 8

6th 9 0 0

Total 89 39 44

MAP Math Total Advanced Proficient # MetTargeted Growth % Met Targeted Growth

1st 13 13 100

2nd 14 7 50

3rd 9 3 33

4th 9 4 44

5th 15 9 60

6th 6 4 67

The above two tables looked at our students who started the year with adv. Proficient scores with their fall MAP test. We

were curious to see how well they achieved their achievement growth.

Summary, Findings and Celebrations

73% of our economically disadvantaged students reached their literacy bench mark goal and

81% of our non economically disadvantaged met their goal. Our goal was and remains 90%.

Though WKCE scores statewide are down we did make a minor math increase of 1%. Our reading

percentage goal followed the state trend and dropped 3.8% which was very disappointing.

83% of our students had 0-1 ODR. 71% had zero ODR’s. 11% of our students had 2-5 ODR’s and 6%

had 6 or more. 77% of our African American students had ODR’s (27 of 35 students) as compared

to 24% of our Latino, 25% Asian and 26% white. Referrals are mostly for defiance, disrespect and

disruption. With our SWIS data we were able to focus in on these struggling students and provide

SAIG support groups this year.

Our minority group that struggles the most are our African American students who also happen to

all be economically disadvantage. 100% of these students rank minimal or basic on their MAP

scores

When we did our data dig this spring we were also interested in the growth achievement of

students who started the year already advanced proficient. The scores were very poor for growth

so not only do we need to work with our most disadvantaged minority students but also some of

our more gifted.

Goal Considerations for 2014-15 MAP/Bench scores

We are going to continue to strive for 90% growth and proficiency for our school as a whole in

MAP and literacy benchmarks for both reading and math though we will move at a 5%

increment per year to get there. The district growth average is 57% for math and reading (50%

national). For math we were at 55% and for math 66%.

Because our reading scores are not moving up we are putting a focus on coaching our primary

grade teachers more intensely as well as ensuring that guided reading and assisted writing

practices are performed with fidelity with all grade level teachers.

Our reading coach/interventionist and Title one teacher are both going to be trained in Reading

Recovery over the next year. This will not only help our grade 1 students who primarily receive this

support but will also improve the literacy teaching skills of all of our teachers since instruction

received by our coach and Title one teacher will translate over to supports that they can provide

for all of our teachers as a whole.

Though our math scores are slowly going up we are going add a math assessment wall system to

our literacy wall so that we can put as much of an emphasis on math as we do on reading.

One of our 3rd grade teachers is going to be our Math lead teacher in the building. She is taking

the AVMR training in July and has also been accepted to the test group with the Harvard study.

Her newfound knowledge will be shared with our staff through a coaching model approach.

We have 6 teachers total who are attending the AVMR math training institute in July, two of

whom are our LD and EBD teachers.

Three of our teachers are attending a one day math workshop with me June 25th in Pewaukee

titled “The CCSS-M as a Catalyst for Change: Designing and Sustaining A Coherent Vision for

Mathematics Instruction and Assessment in your School and District.” This is the 4th day of 4 day

series workshop that I have attended this past school year. This workshop was designed for

administrators which is called the Wisconsin Administrators Math Initiative.

Because our high achieving students are not making significant academic growth we are going

to work with the gifted and talented teacher to consider options for how the TAG program can

assist our teachers in meeting the needs of these students.

“Bring your Parent to School Day” – a new way to bring parents in to the school to see how we do

things.

Goal Considerations for 2014-2015 for our behavior and attendance

Two years ago a grant was written to buy indoor recreational supplies so that we could have an

indoor recess option for our students who struggle in unstructured settings. Our ODR’s dropped

considerably. Last year FTE was dropped so we no longer could provide supervision and our

ODR’s went back up by 5%. Next year we are going to pay to have one parent help us with

recess supervision so that we can bring back this option for at least one day per week.

Our new Healthy Kids/PBI subcommittee is going to meet this summer to consider additional

means to provide options for recess either through structured game play outside or indoor

alternative clubs.

We will continue to use the services of TRAC to provide counseling for our parents who have

trouble getting their students to school on time. 8.6% of our students were habitually truant (32 of

371 students)

Presentation to teachers “To close the Achievement Gap – a social justice framework.”

Evening parent meetings by experts sponsored by PTA – i.e. 1-2-3 Magic, Love and Logic.

2013-14 Johnston Elementary Continuous School Improvement Plan Outcomes

Reading Goal:

We will improve reading comprehension skills so that at least 75% of all students will achieve one of the following:

Kindergarten: Goal Met – 95% of students at Benchmark Goal

reach May 2014 benchmark goal

25/25 sight words from Fountas and Pinnell Phonics

1st - 2nd grade: Goal Met – 83% of students at Benchmark Goal


reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Spring 2014 MAP Test

attain targeted MAP growth within 3 points

3rd – 6th grade: Goal Met – 76% of students at Benchmark Goal

reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Reading portion of the WKCE exam


reach proficiency or advanced proficiency on the Spring 2014 MAP Test

attain targeted MAP growth within 3 points

In addition, 60% of students in grades 1-6 will reach targeted growth on the Spring 2014 MAP test. Goal Not Met –

45%

Specific students targeted in this goal:

49% of ELL students will achieve proficiency with the above goal. Goal Not Met – 46%

48% of SwD students will achieve proficiency with the above goal. Goal Not Met (with Severe Autism

data) – 47%; Goal Met (without Severe Autism data) – 51%

50% of EcD students will achieve proficiency with the above goal. Goal Not Met – 46%

Math Goal:

We will improve math achievement skills so that all students achieve the following:

75% of all students will achieve proficient or higher on at least 50% of AASD unit math assessments. Goal

Met – 78%

at least 62% of all students will score proficient (or higher) or reach targeted growth within 3 points on the

Spring 2014 MAP Test. Goal Met – 81%

Specific students targeted in this goal:

35% of ELL students will achieve proficiency with one of the above goals. Goal Met – 69%

40% of SwD students will achieve proficiency with one of the above goals. Goal Met – 54%

50 % of EcD will achieve proficiency with one of the above goals. Goal Met 74%

PBIS/EHK Goal:

By reviewing data monthly, 90% of students, staff and families at Johnston will know and demonstrate our three

behavior expectations as measured by one or fewer office discipline referrals during the 2013-2014 school year; while

meeting overall academic achievement as measured by our CSIP reading and writing goals.

Goal Met - The data showed that we are at fidelity with 92% of our students receiving 0-1 office referrals this school

year as measured by SWIS data. It was determined that we are moving forward as represented by the SAS that 94%

of staff is knowledgeable and supportive of the PBIS framework; as well as the BOQ at 97%. We are a PBIS School

of Merit for the second straight year. Johnston is a GOLD Level Wisconsin Healthy School and we will continue to

improve our efforts in this area to maintain or improve upon that standing.


Based upon your 2013-14 data, what are 3-5 key learnings/celebrations?

A cross-categorical special education program is being used at Johnston to create more opportunities for

inclusion for our students with disabilities along with times for targeted pull-out instruction. This allows

our special education teachers to become more proficient at two grade levels of curriculum rather than six

grade levels in a traditional special education service model. It also allows for closer communication and

collaboration for the regular and special education teachers. Cross categorical programming at Johnston is

clearly closing the gap in learning and achievement among special education students as seen in the data

that shows our 5th and 6th grade special education students exceeding our MAP Reading targeted growth

goal at 67% - well above our school average of 45%. Furthermore, a clear trend is noticeable from our 1st and

2nd grade MAP targeted growth achievement of only 18% and our 3rd and 4th grade MAP targeted growth

achievement of 60%.

This is Johnston’s third year of block scheduling, and teachers understand the importance and utility of

providing long, uninterrupted learning periods for academic instruction as well as scheduled time to

collaborate. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) organized by grade level and/or departments are

becoming the preferred method of reflecting upon and improving instructional practice, and PLC meeting

time along with district monthly late start times have increased the opportunities to improve professional

practices of collaboration, collecting and analyzing data, and improving instruction.

All grade levels utilized Response to Instruction (RTI) times to better organize and implement interventions

for all students. Additionally, our PBIS Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams along with our Student Services RtI team

have increasingly implemented RtI practices throughout our school to improve student learning and reduce

special education referrals.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-15 based upon this year’s

experiences?

Despite the successes and student growth listed above, a sobering fact remains: Johnston students achieving

Proficiency on the Wisconsin statewide assessment for Reading and Math (WKCE) in grades 3 through 6 has

dropped or remained stagnant over the past five years as one can see in the data that concludes this report.

Therefore:

Johnston Elementary School will be simplifying our CSIP math and reading goals next year so that we can

a) use one consistent, objective assessment measure for end-of-year reporting and b) have clear, fair data

that will allow us to have honest, meaningful conversations about what we as a staff, including building

leadership, need to get better at in order to support improved student learning outcomes and professional

development efforts on improving our reading and math achievement.

Johnston will intensify our on-site literacy coaching in both universal instructional practices and in-class

intervention strategies. Our coaches will help create an environment of honest reflection, collaboration, and

trust to move our literacy instructional practices forward.

Utilizing new district technology and technological support as provided in the recent referendum, Johnston

will pilot a blended learning approach in Math instruction. This approach will include the district Math

Expressions curriculum in combination with DreamBox Learning Math. DreamBox Math is an online

adaptive learning program that is aligned with Common Core State Standards and is tailored to each

student’s unique learning needs. DreamBox Math will be used during parts of our RtI periods during the

school day, will be a cornerstone of our 21st Century Community Learning Center after school program, and

can be used at home for further practice and enrichment.

Our Student Services Team and PBIS team will continue to implement systemic and systematic culturally

responsive practices following RtI principles that allow all students to succeed academically and socially,

including practices that improve family/school communication and participation.

We made many positive strides at Lincoln this year. Our parent involvement continues to grow. We

have reached out to parents through phone calls, newsletters, the school website and created a Lincoln

Facebook page. We provided many successful and fun learning opportunities for our families including:

two reading nights, two math events, an ELL night and numerous family fun activities. These events

were well received and well attended. This being our second year as a Focus School we adopted the

targeted AMOs for the WKCE exam as main school goals. Below is a snap shot of the data based on

these goals. We also added some additional goals with more local assessments to contrast the WKCE

goals. As you can see our students are more successful in reaching benchmark and MAP goals than the

WKCE goals. With the Smarter Balanced Assessment taking over for the WKCE we are waiting for

guidance from DPI on how they will be measuring growth over the next two years. This information will

help drive our CSIP plans moving forward. We are proud of the many wonderful things that happened

at Lincoln this year. We are also focused on the growth that still needs to take place. The first chart

below lists some of the positive things that happened at Lincoln this year.

Lincoln’s Year in Review

Wisconsin PBIS School of Distinction Second Consecutive Year

We created in depth plans for three Indistar Indicators

We are in the process of creating a PBIS video library for 25 different building expectations

We established a Parent Leadership Team with monthly meetings (in addition to monthly PTA meetings)

Completed a book study on Comprehension Through Conversations…Each teacher developed a plan for

implementing rich conversations in their classrooms

We created a conversation continuum to track each child’s growth in speaking and listening

Successfully met all of the SAGE goals in grades K-3

Teamed up with the Appleton Fire Fighters Union to provide 90 plus coats to needy students

Professional Learning Communities met weekly

Students participated in numerous club activities including: Math Club, Chess Club, Running Club, Play 60 Club,

Reading Recess, Walking Club and Battle of the Books

Our ODRs were reduced significantly

WSAS Trends Data for Reading and Math

Reading 2013/14 WKCE

Grades Goal Results

3-6 Grades 3-6 from 19.1% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 42.7%

advanced or proficient on the WKCE

25.3 % No

3-6 Grades 3-6 Asian students from 6.9% advanced or proficient on the

WKCE to 40.1% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

7.9% No

3-6 Grades 3-6 White students from 25.8% advanced or proficient on the

WKCE to 45.8% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

35.5% No

3-6 Grades 3-6 Economically Disadvantaged students from 16.5% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 34.8% advanced or proficient on

the WKCE

20.2% No

3-6 Grades 3-6 English Language Learners from 0% advanced or

proficient on the WKCE to 29.7% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

10.5% No

Reading 13/14 MAP/Reading Levels

Grade Goal Results

K 85% of Kindergarten students will reach the benchmark goal 92% Yes

1 Increase from 79 % of the students to 85% of the students meeting their end of the year benchmark; or a year’s growth; or meeting their end of year target RIT goal within two points

90% Yes


92% No


96% Yes


96% Yes


91% Yes


97% Yes

Math 13/14

Group Goal Results

All K-2 95% of students will master the SAGE goals

96.5% Yes

3-6 from 33.2% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 56% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

33.4% No

3-6 Asian students from 20.7% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 56.8% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

18.4% No

3-6 White students from 42.7% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 59.5% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

43% No

3-6 Economically Disadvantaged students from 34.8% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 47.4% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

26% No

3-6 English Language Learners from 12.5% advanced or proficient on the WKCE to 44.7% advanced or proficient on the WKCE

21.1% No

Although we made nice progress toward our goals, this success did not transfer over to the WKCE

results. We did not successfully meet our Target AMO as defined by our Focus School Designation. We

know the WKCE is just one data point that makes up the entire child. During the upcoming CSIP retreats

we will develop our plan on reaching the AMO for the four category groups in which we were identified

(Asian, White, Economically Disadvantaged and English Language Learners).

By increasing intervention time and conducting regular progress monitoring 60% of our student cohort groups will

demonstrate one year’s growth through MAP and/or each grade level will increase by 3% in the area of Math.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

96%

83% 90%

83%

72% 71% 66%

82%

% Students Reaching Grade Level Benchmark in Reading

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1stGrade

2ndGrade

3rdGrade

4thGrade

5thGrade

6thGrade

GrandTotal

YES 45% 79% 73% 78% 67% 80% 70%

45%

79% 73% 78% 67%

80% 70%

% of Students Reaching MAP Goal


School: Richmond Elementary School

85% of all students at Richmond will be at or above the grade level reading benchmark by June 2014.

70% of students in grade 1st – 6

th grade will reach their MAP reading goal within 2 points AND/OR be in the

upper 25 percentile of the MAP testing. (61% Reached the goal in 2012-13)

We will increase the percentage of proficient students (on WKCE) who are economically disadvantaged by 20%.

For 2012-13, we want at least 20% of students (EcD) measuring proficient advanced on the WKCE. Last year

only 16% of our economically disadvantaged students scored proficient or advanced.

Data and Findings:

As we are in the first full year of utilizing

benchmarking for all the grade levels, we decided

to make 85% the pillar goal at Richmond. As

you can see from the data chart below, we had

some great successes and near misses when it

comes to reaching that goal. We are three

percentage points below the goal. As you can

see, a couple grade levels surpassed the goal set

by our school. With our vigilance on literacy, I

would hope to continue to see growth in the % of

intermediate students reaching their benchmark.

For our first sub-goal, we utilized our MAP data.

We want all students to reach their growth and/or be

in the 75th percentile on the MAP test. We kept the

70% goal for this year as we missed it by 9% last

year. I am proud to say that our school hit our goal

of 70%. You can see that multiple grade levels are

getting into the surpass the testing. Again as

looking at last year, our first graders do not hit the

expected growth. If you compare it to last year’s

first graders, we had a vast improvement on those

kids reaching the goal. Last year, only 26% of our

first graders reached the school goal. I always

question the first grade MAP growth expectations

because so many of our students don’t reach it. Here

is what I wrote at the end of last year: I will make

the “Joe Namath” guarantee that as 2nd

graders,

you will see the percentage of students reaching this

goal increase. When you look at that class as

second graders, 79% reached the goal this year.

That is a great improvement from last year and I

would expect the same with this year’s 1st graders

going into 2014-15.

Our second sub-goal was to analyze and

improve on the students who are

economically disadvantaged. On the WKCE

test, we wanted to improve their of

proficiency by 20%. We wanted to at least

hit 20%. Last year, we only had 16% score

proficient or advanced and it was the third

year in a row where our proficiency declined

for students economically disadvantaged.

As you can see, we have the highest

percentage of economically disadvantaged

students in four years getting a proficient

score on the WKCE. We have a lot great

deal of work ahead of us. Currently, 39% of

our students who are not economically

disadvantaged were proficient/advanced on

the state test. That represents an

achievement gap of 14%. Compare that to

last year’s 21% achievement gap and you

can see we really went in the right direction.

I hope we are able to see a gradual increase

on the new balanced assessment and look to

shrink the skills deficit between students

who are economically disadvantaged and

those who are not.


Based upon your 2013-14 data, what are 3-5 key learnings/celebrations? * We are only a few percentage points away from reaching the 85% goal for reading level benchmark. I think this is an excellent kick off goal for benchmarks. We have done a great deal of work to help students and I think it shows in this number. * We hit our goal for MAP testing. We did change how first graders completed the test and we found a great improvement in getting them to reach their goals. I would like to highlight one class to tell the story of our improvement. Only 55% of last year’s 5th graders reached their goal. This year, that same group of students had 80% of the students reach the goal. *Although it will be the last year of the WKCE, Richmond stopped a downward trend that started four years ago with students economically disadvantaged. We had an all-time low last year and saw great improvements in that proficiency number this year. What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2013-14 based upon this year’s experiences? *I interpret this year’s data as confirming that we are on the right track. Multiple data points tell us that we were able to see improvements in proficiency and growth over the 2013-14 year. We will continue to solidify the knowledge of our curriculum, continue to find interventions to help students grow and we will continue to utilize the PLC to work through this important work.

This graph shows the proficiency level for reading of

economically disadvantaged students on the WKCE test from

2009-2014. Richmond Elementary

2013-2014 Continuous School Improvement Findings

School: Wisconsin Connections Academy

School Improvement Goal(s): As a community of learners, WCA staff, learning coaches, and students

will improve student achievement in the areas of math and reading. Benchmark measures include:

65% of students in grades K-3 will meet or exceed AASD Board of Education instructional

reading level expectations

The percentage of students in grades 3-8, and 10, scoring advance or proficient in math and

reading on the WKCE will meet or exceed the AASD averages.

Data and Findings:

The following tables represent reading benchmarking results using Fountas and Pinnell benchmarking

system. Numbers indicate students who reached grade level proficiency for both new and returning

students.

Instructional Reading Levels

Grade K 1 2 3 Overall Average

% of students who reached goal

65% 65% 64% 51% 61%

% of returning students who reached goal

56% 54% 58% 56%

% of new students who reached goal

71% 78% 38% 62%

The following tables represent WKCE proficiency scores for returning students.

Math WKCE proficiency

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Overall Average

WCA 55% 48% 58% 43% 43% 46% 33% 47% AASD 45% 51% 52% 47% 49% 54% 51% 50%

Reading WKCE proficiency

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Overall Average

WCA 48% 49% 46% 42% 47% 43% 53% 47% AASD 36% 34% 36% 36% 42% 35% 46% 38%


WCA met one out of three goals for the 2013-2014 school year. WCA did not achieve the reading

benchmark goal. The goal was that 65% of students in grades K-3 will meet or exceed AASD Board of

Education instructional reading level expectations. Sixty-one percent of K-3 students exceeded the

instructional reading level expectations. The WKCE goal for math and reading was to exceed the

district’s percentage of students who scored advance or proficient. WCA did not meet the goal in the

area of math. Forty-seven percent of the students scored proficient or higher on the math portion,

while the district’s average was 50%. WCA did meet the goal in the area of reading. Forty-seven

percent of students in grades 3-8 and 10 scored proficient or higher on the WKCE, while the district’s

average was 38% of students.

Based upon your 2012-2013 data, what are 3-5 key learnings/celebrations?

Math: While overall WCA did not meet the goal, students in grades three and five did exceed the district

averages. When comparing WCA’s results over the last two years, this year’s overall average was higher.

Therefore, the instructional changes that have been made are having an impact.

Reading: On the WKCE, WCA met the goal. WCA students scored 9% higher than the district. When

looking at the individual grades, all grades met the goal. Last year’s fourth grade class was an outlier

(25% scored proficient or higher) and showed improvement this school year.

When looking at benchmarking, kindergartners and first graders achieved the goal. Second graders

missed it by one percentage point. The third grade level struggled to meet the goal.

What are 1-3 things to be considered as you develop CSIP plans for 2014-2015 based upon this year’s

experience?

Math: WCA will continue to add benchmark assessments at selected grades with the intention to

expand this assessment plan to all grade levels. WCA teachers will also continue to focus on targeting

skills individual students need to work on by creating lessons around these skills.

Reading: The plan is to look at the benchmarking reading data more closely to determine the focus for

WCA’s 2014-2015 CSIP plan. WCA will continue to have reading groups for students reading below

grade level. In addition, WCA will expand the students being benchmarked mid-year.

Documents

Badger Elementary - Appleton Area School District