1 / 31

Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School ---------------------

kasia
Download Presentation

Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School ---------------------

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. Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School --------------------- 6th Quarter Report 2007-2008 Together We Can

    2. Data Analysis & Key Learnings

    3. Does a correlation exist between NJASK 4 Reading Clusters and SRI of Advanced Proficient Students? NJASK 4 5 out of 62 students performed in the Advanced Proficient Range = 8.1% of the fourth grade population SRI-November 07 Test Grade 4 14 out of 66 students performed in the Advanced Proficient Range = 21% of the fourth grade population- a 6% increase from September 07 testing

    4. Data Summary Highlights of the 2007 Grade 4 Language Arts Literacy Assessment and SRI Key Learning Results (Continued) Cluster areas examined in this section –Working with Text and Analyzing Text. The total number of students achieved - 5.4/7.0 points in Working with Text 7.8/16.0 in Analyzing Text Of the 5 students who achieved in the advanced proficient range- Analyzing Text scores indicted that students had a weakness in this area. Working Text indicated that they had a strength. The data incorporated in the state reports displays reading and writing to achieve a particular range. SRI results indicate that 56 students achieved Advanced Proficient = 25% Up 33% from Quarter 5 109 students achieved Proficient =48% Up 5% from Quarter 5 40 students achieved Basic=18% Down 17 % from Quarter 5 20 students achieved Below Basic=9% Down 35% from Quarter 5

    5. Why aren’t students performing higher on the NJASK 4 in the Advanced Proficient Range? Need to account for open ended responses SRI assesses reading comprehension only NJASK assesses reading in response to text Students need to monitor their thinking- Stop-Think-Respond

    6. Key Learnings I (What actions have been taken during the Sixth Quarter Driven By Fifth Quarter Results) Systematic Writing Program filled gaps in our instruction (See slide #18). Students at SJG are poised for success. This is proven by the increased benchmark scores from quarter two to quarter six (see slide #24) . SJG staff has internal expertise that is being maximized. Teachers are teaching teachers: peer and share. If you examine NJASK performance over a two year period, students at SJG are demonstrating a consistent progress to advanced proficiency. (See slides # 12-14) Benchmark Reporting by teacher was reexamined for internal purposes. Reporting by grade level reflects a more accurate comparison from Quarter 2 Reporting to Quarter 6. Analyzing benchmark advanced proficiency numbers, WE ARE MOVING towards the SJG goal of 123.2 (aggregate score). ALL IN ONE FRIDAYS assist with students transferring what they have learned in writer’s workshop to NJASK. SJG Teachers have a pay it forward mentality. Clear understanding of our mission and vision: Not being afraid of taking risks because they are: TEACHING WITH THE END IN MIND and focusing on the ESSENTIALS.

    7. Key Learning II Based on Quarter 5- Quarter 6 analysis, Grade 4 students are continuing to improve in both reading and math. (See slide # ) Q2 to Q6 and Q5 to Q6 are clearly demonstrating a decrease in the number of students falling in the below basic category. (See slide #) Based on Quarter 5 analysis, students in grade three are participating in a leveled math pilot program. Why? The need to differentiate at this level requires instruction to be narrowed towards students individual learnings. Content Guided Reading in grades 3 & 4 as a result of Quarter 5 analysis data and NJASK 2007 results. SRI scores indicate the need for more emphasis on guided reading when placed in conversation with analyzing text and working with text weaknesses. Pacing Calendar developed by MLSP, Reading Specialist and grade level teachers to assist with content and applications geared towards NJASK in grades 3 & 4. Why? Working with the end in mind—teaching for understanding and with a clear focus on the essentials.

    8. Achievement Goals Objective 1: In the 2007 -2008 School Year NJASK 3 Language Arts/Mathematics aggregate test scores for Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School will improve as shown below. All scores are part of the Pequannock Township Elementary Schools Five Year Plan for improvement. Baseline 2006-2007 Target Increase 2007-2008 Grade 3 44.5% 8.2 % Achieve Aggregate Score of 53.7% Objective 2: In the 2007-2008 School Year NJASK 4 Language Arts/Mathematics aggregate test scores for Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School will improve as shown below. All scores are part of the Pequannock Township Elementary Schools Five Year Plan for improvement. Baseline 2006-07 Target Increase 2007-08 Grade 4 61.3% 8.2 % Achieve Aggregate Score of 69.5% SJG Target total aggregate score for grades 3 & 4: 123.2 How do we achieve this goal? We predict the following; **Grade 3- 23 students advanced proficient in Math; 6 students advanced proficient in LAL **Grade 4- 39 students Advanced proficient in Math; 7 students advanced proficient In LAL

    9. Stephen J Gerace 2007 NJASK Results

    10. NJASK 4 Year to Year Comparison

    11. NJASK 3 Year to Year Comparison

    12. Grade 3 vs. Grade 4 Cohort Comparison

    13. Instructional Practices Inventory (IPI)

    14. Instructional Practices Inventory (IPI)

    15. Key Accomplishments I Building Teams implemented during Quarter Sixth to develop quality school portfolios. Faculty Meetings provide time for professional development and conversations relating to best practices for teaching. Continued emphasis on “active learning” protocols in school. Examples include: more experimentation during science class, cooperative learning models inviting students as the center of the teaching learning process. Organized school around professional learning communities. Bi-Monthly Meetings aligned with our nations best practices for teaching and succeeding. Using the Writing Workshop Model, teachers are continuing to prepare students for picture and poetry prompts. Expanded Writing by Incorporating Writers Workshop-approximately 1200 minutes a month of just the writer’s workshop. Reading Specialist and MLSP continue to assist with Data Analysis weekly. Collaboration with Director of Special Services on special education student progress –development of action plan. Execute Watch and Concerns list protocols: Each teacher met with building principal to analyze and review their STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PROFILE BINDERS which details each students progress on multiple assessments. The SAP sets target goal for advanced proficiency and creates action plans for concern level students. MLSP and Reading Specialist attend monthly HSA meetings to provided parent training and information sessions on writer’s workshop, reading and math skills. Start by identifying most important accomplishments of the ’05 fiscal year. Did we accomplish the things laid out in the the FY05 strategic plan? To make sure you’re communicating this effectively, ask yourself, client by client, what are the key ‘wins’…and have we delivered them? 3) Were there other important things that happened that should be mentioned? (Upgrade in quality of AFM, upgrade in quality of principals?) 4) Review your contracts….have we met the requirements? 5) Then, if there are accomplishments that it’s clear the reader needs to know, that took place prior to July ’04, insert them Start by identifying most important accomplishments of the ’05 fiscal year. Did we accomplish the things laid out in the the FY05 strategic plan? To make sure you’re communicating this effectively, ask yourself, client by client, what are the key ‘wins’…and have we delivered them? 3) Were there other important things that happened that should be mentioned? (Upgrade in quality of AFM, upgrade in quality of principals?) 4) Review your contracts….have we met the requirements? 5) Then, if there are accomplishments that it’s clear the reader needs to know, that took place prior to July ’04, insert them

    16. Key Accomplishments II NJASK Newsletter created by building principal and distributed in January and February Grade Level Teachers meet weekly to cooperatively plan for the next weeks lessons (Horizontal articulation) Vertical articulation occurred in some professional development workshops this year- MORE is a must MLSP and Reading Specialist provide vertical articulation grades K-5. Active Learning/Rigor and Relevance-IPI model clearly recognizes teachers at SJG are targeting their learning to meet individual students success as demonstrated by the IPI Graph- 28% of students are involved in student engaged instruction. This will help with achievement profiles by recognizing learning styles when placed in conversation with performance indicators. Study Island being used by all special education students in grades 3-5 (26 students). Pre-Test will be evaluated and become part of the Student Achievement Profile DRA Training and Implementation (K-1) SJG Principal, MLSP and Reading Specialist have taken the lead on Data Driven Instruction Initiation Teams. Guided reading groups in kindergarten led by Reading Specialist and Classroom Teachers Quarter 6 IPI Results Indicate an increase in student led instruction by 7% when compared to Quarter 5. This demonstrates more active learning transferring to engagement.

    19. Key Accomplishments Mathematics Advanced Proficient Performance Descriptor ( NJDOE )

    20. Student Achievement Qtr 5 vs. Qtr 6 SRI Results Grades 2 – 5 Summary

    21. Student Achievement: Fifth Quarter - SRI Results

    22. What does the data show? SRI SRI Sixth Quarter results demonstrate the following: All Grade levels have shown an increase in students performing at a proficient or better level 69% of Grade Two is proficient or better. 21% increase from Q5-Q6 56% of Grade Three is proficient or better. 1% increase from Q5-Q6 79% of Grade Four is proficient or better. 11% increase from Q5-Q6 88% of Grade Five is proficient or better. 5% increase from Q5-Q6 This demonstrates a clear increase (totaling 38%) across the board from Quarter 5- Quarter 6

    23. Student Achievement 2nd Qtr vs. 6th Qtr Benchmark Summary Results

    24. Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr Benchmark Results

    25. What does the 5th Qtr Benchmarking show? In Grade 3, 68% are proficient or better in Language Arts and 75% are proficient or better in math In Grade 4, 66% are proficient or better in Language Arts and 73% are proficient or better in math In Grade 5, 79% are proficient or better in Language Arts and 86% are proficient or better in math

    26. Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr Grade Distribution Summary Results

    27. Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr Grade Distribution Results

    28. What does the 6th Qtr Grade Distribution show? There now is more of an alignment between classroom grades and Student Performance Indicators such as Benchmarking, SRI, and NJASK scores.

    29. 2007-2008 Actions Lexile ranges will continue to be narrowed based on SRI results. MLSP and Reading Specialist are continuing to revisit our watch and concern lists daily. PLC meetings will continue to be utilized to review data, analyze student actions and plan accordingly Professional development offerings highly recommended for all staff specifically on the Writing Workshop model MLSP and Reading Specialist will meet each week with building principal to review data, action plans, and Quality School Portfolios (QSP). We will continue to build on the data by targeting questions on the benchmarking tests that indicate weaknesses. The results are used to collaborate with classroom teachers for lesson co-teaching and planning. Continued review of all the data, Benchmarking, SRI and grade distribution being placed in conversation with advanced proficient performance. Is there a trend or correlation? NJ ASK Scores will improve- We will continue to analyze this thoroughly for the question to be answered (see slide #11) Quality School Portfolios will be created during building team meetings Collaboration with all constituents-Watch and Concern list review

    30. Quality School Portfolios Student Grades Grade Distributions Progress Report Indicators SRI Benchmarking NJASK 3, 4, 5 Action Plans

    31. What Actions Have Been Taken During the Sixth Quarter driven by Fifth Quarter Results (Executive Summary) Watch and Concerns lists updated, revisited weekly Lesson plans prepared for staff by MLSP and Reading Specialist to assist with recognition of best practices for teaching Data driven instruction leads to better preparedness and recognition of students strengths and weaknesses PLC meetings continuing Individual teacher meetings with building principal to discuss all students and their progress-development towards Quality School Portfolios Building Team Meetings to discuss Benchmark results. Question addressed regarding use of benchmark for comparative purposes. Question posed: “Why do the three elementary schools scores differ so? --- TQM Teams continue to evaluate this question Quality School Portfolios were developed once again to analyze strengths and weaknesses. IMPLEMENTATION OF WRITERS WORKSHOP K-5 Creation of NJASK Pacing Calendar by MLSP, Reading Specialist and Classroom Teachers

More Related