MID-YEAR EVALUATION REPORT OVERVIEW. Maryland Title I Partner Schools July 1, 2000 -- January 31, 2001. Notable Quotes from Reports. Measurable Objectives.
MID-YEAR EVALUATION REPORT OVERVIEW Maryland Title I Partner Schools July 1, 2000 -- January 31, 2001
Measurable Objectives • Charles County Public Schools has a reading diagnostic assessment referred to as RX3 that is administered in the Fall and Winter Quarters. These assessments are used for Grades 2-5. Along with this assessment, is an Extended Writing Prompt which is used to measure performance in writing and language usage. See attached Mid Year Evaluation. • We continually check our progress through looking at our countywide benchmarks, IRI data, and our Scholastic Reading Inventory testing data. See attached data.
Measurable Objectives, cont. • The first year of our plan focuses on establishing relationships between the staffs of the partner schools, with particular emphasis on 3rd and 5th grade and the academic support teams of both schools. Third and fifth grade teachers have been recording the results of integrated performance assessments that have been administered bi-monthly. • We have accomplished 3 of the 5 goals we set forth in our action plan. See attached mid-year report.
Measurable Objectives cont. • WRITING: Process Writing Milestone: 69.7% of all students achieved satisfactory on the second marking term writing sample, missing the milestone by only .3 points. 77% of third grade students, 73% of fourth grade students, and 65% of fifth grade students achieved satisfactory. We are still working toward consistency in scoring.
New Data Sources • In reviewing the data from the Fall Writing Assessment, and previewing the Winter Writing Assessment, it was discovered that the purpose for writing is not consistent within a grade level assessment. • The new data sources that have become available to us are the 2000 MSPAP data and the results of the Fall 2000 CTBS testing in grades 2, 4, and 6. The 1999 MSPAP and the Spring 2000 CTBS data are still being used to help us determine areas of strength and weakness.
Should you modify any measurable objectives? • In spite of a significant drop in our 3rd grade MSPAP scores, the measurable objectives are still relevant. • All performance targets seem to be realistic at this time. See Action Plan/Implementation section. • No changes are necessary at this time. We are continuing to follow the School Improvement Plan schedule. • Yes. The 2001 math milestone for grade three has been exceeded and should be reset. All other milestones are set appropriately.
How many times has your school’s TIPS Team met? • Our team has met on nine different occasions to discuss the TIPS Program and Action Plan (See attached schedule of meeting dates). The focus of these meetings have been two-fold: a) planning geared toward carrying out the activities on the Action Plan; b) planning activities geared toward increasing and improving the relationship of the faculty and students between the two schools. • Our school’s TIP’s team has met monthly. We are in constant communication through e-mail, grade level planning, and faculty meetings.
How many times have you and your TIPS Partner team met? • The TIPS Partner Team (dyad) has met 7 times this first quarter. The focus of our meetings is dependent upon the staff development being planned; review the progress of the students' through work samples; and sharing new ideas and "AAHAAS!" • The dyad has met 8 times. The focus has been: planning geared toward the logistics of the Action Plan; revisions as necessary to the Action Plan; planning geared toward conducting inter-team and inter-school (faculty and student) relationship-building activities; discussing the mid-year evaluation report; sharing suggestions for other successful school improvement activities (which are not included in the Action Plan).
Have you been able to implement the strategies in your Action Plan? • We revised our action plan in mid fall to concentrate on effective instructional strategies for ILA. We disregarded cross school in-services on scoring. We continued to keep peer coaching and demonstration lessons in ILA and math, as well as grade level discussion on implementation. • We have accomplished 3 of the 5 activities in our action plan. We have had our math specialists collaborate, started a pen pal program between the 3rd graders at each school, and completed the teacher exchange activity between the two schools.
Reasons for unimplemented strategies • After re-evaluating our TIPS action plan, we decided to narrow our focus and drop the activities not needed. • The strategies/activities that were not implemented fell victim to problems endemic to the school system - lack of substitutes, delayed opening due to weather, and difficulties in coordinating calendars of two school systems.
Other difficulties in implementing strategies on the Action Plan • Our school did experience difficulty in scheduling due to working in two different counties and inclement weather. • There have been some issues with staffing, however, the issues were resolved, and there is more continuity now.
What is working? What needs to be changed? • The Mentor School’s Improvement Format has been very helpful for us to be more accountable in analyzing the school progress. • The most successful part of the partnership has been the communication between the program liaisons. We have developed a strong personal and professional relationship and a deep commitment to making the program work. This has occurred with strong administrative support from both schools.
What is working? What needs to be changed? cont. • Upon reviewing the progress of our dyad's Action Plan, it seems evident that we have been successful in using assessment data to determine program goals and to continue to assist in instructional planning. However, all members of our dyad are in agreement that perhaps we didn't identify as many activities in our initial Action Plan as are necessary to bring about the school improvement changes (measurable objectives) that are desired. • The consistent focus on the third grades seems to be working, because it allows us to align all of our activities with MSPAP goals for improvement.
Your Local Title I Coordinator • . . . has attended all our staff development sessions, and work sessions this first quarter. She is an integral part of the TIPS Team. • . . . our Title I Coordinator met with school administrators to review the proposed budget. Our Title I Specialist has participated actively as a member of our TIPS core team and attended network, dyad, and school team meetings. She has facilitated activities at staff meetings.
Information and/or technical assistance from the MSDE • We have used Lani Seikaly for staff training and leadership team training on using the MSDE Web site and 10-Step process. • Our staff has requested assistance from MSDE from the TIPS Program Manager in our undertaking of the task of applying to become a Blue Ribbon School during the spring, summer, and fall of 2000. Help continues to be available for questions and assistance at all times as we are involved in this school improvement-partnering process.
Need for technical assistance from MSDE staff or LSS staff • It would be helpful if MSDE could suggest any technology web sites, other that the mdk12.org site, that may offer research-based instructional strategies in the area of student achievement in reading.
Mid Year Evaluation of Implementation of Program Strategies Strategy 1- Implement strategies and activities to address the needs Strategy 2- Utilize MSDE 10 Step School Improvement Process Strategy 3- Increase communication among educators Strategy 4- Leadership competencies of teachers and administrators Strategy 5 - Utilize and provide support to the school mentoring process
End of Year Evaluation Reports Distributed June 1, 2001 Hard copies & E-Copies to Program Liaisons DUE DATE: July 31, 2001