1 / 39

Oskaloosa Community Schools

Oskaloosa Community Schools. Addressing Student Needs. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD. Middle School and High School – SINA 4 and SINA 6 Buildings. Elementary on Watch List first year (subgroups)

bandele
Download Presentation

Oskaloosa Community Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oskaloosa Community Schools Addressing Student Needs

  2. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD • Middle School and High School – SINA 4 and SINA 6 Buildings. Elementary on Watch List first year (subgroups) • Professional Development was 1 early release per month with full day PD opportunities during the year. Each building had their own focus. • Little collaboration taking place – some did, others did not • Iowa Core had not been implemented consistently • Inconsistency from classroom to classroom – what, how and how assessed • Gaps existed in skills for Math and Reading • District self reports improper use of test booklets– DE does not investigate

  3. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD 2 Main goals: (1) Build Leadership Capacity and (2) Increase capacity of teachers to have sustained and continuous improvement • Iowa Core implementation – Grade Level Benchmarks and Components created – 5 year cycle created • PLC Approach to Professional Development in place – early release days incorporated into schedule – collaboration and focused professional development • PLC Facilitators (District and Building level teams) • District Leadership Team established (DLT) as part of Iowa Core implementation requirements • Standards-Based Grading • Learning Supports identified to assist students not meeting district level expectations (1’s and 2”s) Predictive of Proficiency?

  4. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD In the meantime, the state initiatives are changing • Iowa Core implementation – The Iowa Core and the Common Core merge – MUCH more rigorous expectations for our students (Shifts in ELA and Math) • Additional gaps in student skills are exposed • Instruction does NOT match level of Iowa Core! • Iowa Assessments instead of ITBS/ITED - NSS instead of %tile rank (2011-2012) • RtI becomes a state focus to address gaps across the state • PLC Approach to Professional Development • State identifies collaboration expectations for districts – Oskaloosa looked to for PLC direction by other districts

  5. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD In the meantime, the state initiatives are changing • MS and HS continue on SINA Path • Project-Based Learning pursued • Assist with gaps in instruction and rigor • Elementary becomes SINA (IEP and F/R) • SINA Team completes a gap analysis to find reason for status • Programs versus Quality Instruction was identified by Support Team (AEA and State) as an issue in Oskaloosa • We are directed to focus on increasing the quality of instruction rather than turning to a program • Small Group Instruction chosen as consistent, quality, research-based approach (Reader’s Workshop)

  6. The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD SINA Plan determined by teacher team (SINA 2 Requirements) • Small Group Instruction – Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop assists ALL students and helps identify struggling students more effectively. • Instructional Coach hired to assist with this process • Demonstration classrooms created • Angela Maiers expertise sought • Quality instruction and consistency between classrooms is our goal SINA 3 Requirements: In addition to Year 2 - Restructuring • Schedule at Elementary shifted to include reading and writing blocks • Block of time for interventions (Tier 2 and Tier 3) • Intervention Coach K-3 is hired to help problem-solve and be proactive • SWAT Teams formed to analyze data and identify areas of concern in core instruction

  7. Trends in Oskaloosa F/R +116

  8. Trend in Oskaloosa F/R +59

  9. Trend in Oskaloosa F/R +83

  10. Trend in Oskaloosa F/R +258

  11. Oskaloosa Achievement - NCLB • 2013-2014 100% of students must be proficient in Math and Reading • Iowa Assessments used 2011-2012 – different metric used • NSS not percentile rank (41st %tile no longer used) • Must be careful of making comparisons between ITBS/ITED and Iowa Assessments since metric changed – and test became much more rigorous – problem solving and more complex texts and added in more informational texts and writing (revealing gaps in our levels of instruction) • Use Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) as our 2nd required assessment. Shows growth in students and is aligned to Iowa Core.

  12. Oskaloosa Performance • What we know the data suggests: • The 1st two years of Iowa Assessments both 3rd and 4th grade did not perform at a high level • We have inconsistent performance for IEP students historically • F/R rate has increased by over 200 students • Some grades do well one year and not as well the next year. The data suggests a system consistency issue • 3rd and 4th grade – while not a trend, it is an indication of an issue • Disconnect between GLB’s and Instruction • Aimsweb, consistent assessments, Iowa Core shifts • Some years we performed higher than the state or AEA, others we did not • System inconsistency

  13. How are we Addressing Needs? • Continue with Iowa Core alignment – identifying focus areas in Math/LA and shifts • Consistency with Instruction and focusing on Quality Instructional practices • SINA Work and PBL’s • DLT work – “Tool for Improvement” • Coach hired at MS • Common/Consistent building assessments given K-5 (EX - Text Leveling)

  14. How are we Addressing Needs? • PLC’s look at multiple data points to identify SMART Goals and target instruction • GLB information, MAP, Iowa Assessments • Universal Screener and Progress Monitoring – Proactive approach • Interventions are focused and specific K-8 • Reading Corp volunteers K-3 • Intervention Coach K-3 • SWAT Teams at each building to analyze data • Identify core areas of concern • “Critical Friend”

  15. How are we Addressing Needs? • Identifying Best Practice Phonics Instruction • What resources do we need to implement? • Consistent language in Math and Reading • Writing process being identified • After School Program – partnership with YMCA – 21st Century Grant • Summer Jump Start at MS for 6th Graders • Tutors and interventions at HS level

  16. PLC’s • All teachers are part of a Professional Learning Community • SMART Goals and Action Plans developed • Data walls are created and analyzed – inform instruction • Teachers learn together and grow together • Teachers watch each other to learn • Build teacher leadership – they facilitate and help make decisions • Each building has a Building Level Facilitator group to help make PLC’s stronger and more effective. • Only as strong as the PLC Facilitator • Training and on-going support provided

  17. RtI • Response to Intervention • Focus is on strong CORE instruction • Provide assistance to identified students who are struggling • Universal Screener and Progress Monitoring - Aimsweb • Reading CBM (K-8), Phonics skills (K-1) • Math Probes (K-12 SPED, 6-9) • Standard Treatment Protocols Identified (K-8) • Program or intervention targeted at student deficit – choose systematically based on needs. • Identifies students who are below grade level target (national norms) • Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, White – Tier 3, Tier 2, Tier 1 and above • Intensive, Supplemental, Average, Above Average, Well Above Average

  18. Questions?

More Related