new york state education department · web view3.n.19 develop fluency with single-digit...

KKENMOREENMORE-T-TONAWANDAONAWANDA UFSD UFSD

IINSTRUCTIONALNSTRUCTIONALIIMPROVEMENTMPROVEMENT P PLANLAN

2011-2012

School: Charles A. Lindbergh Elementary School

Principal: Michael S. Muscarella

PLAN OUTLINE

SCHOOL INFORMATION/STAKEHOLDER SIGNATURES

SCHOOL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERSHIP SIGNATURE PAGE

PART I: DISTRICT VISION/SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT

PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL

PART III: DATA COLLECTION SECTION A - SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SECTION B – STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA SECTION C – OTHER PERTINENT DATA RELATED TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT : CONCLUSION STATEMENTS, ROOT CAUSES, IMPLICATIONS, PRIORITIES

PART V: PROCESS TO INFORM STAFF AND PARENTS

PART VI: SCHOOL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLANS

SCHOOL INFORMATION

1

SCHOOL: Charles Lindbergh Elementary DISTRICT: Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda USFD

SCHOOL ADDRESS: 184 Irving Terrance, Buffalo NY 14223

TELEPHONE: 716-874-8410 FAX: 716-874-8570

SCHOOL CONTACT PERSON: Michael S. Muscarella

POSITION/TITLE PRINT/TYPE NAME SIGNATURE*

PRINCIPAL: Michael S. Muscarella

KTA BUILDING REPRESENTATIVE: Mrs. Debbie Peters

PARENTS’ ORGANIZATIONREPRESENTATIVE:

Mrs. Leanne Metz- SPT RepMrs. Chris Caverello- SPT Rep

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE:(Encouraged for middle schools,recommended for high schools)

N/A

CURRICULUM LEARNING SPECIALIST:

Gail Smith; CLS MathMarybeth EmonsJoy; CLS ELAShari Stahl; CLS SE

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT: Janet Gillmeister

* Indicates that the person has reviewed this document. Comments may be attached to this plan

2

MEMBERSHIP TABLE:

Name Position / Constituency Represented Signature**Julie Lefler Kindergarten / ELA Team

Deb Tybor Kindergarten / ELA Team

Laura Waggoner First Grade / ELA Team

Mary Kennedy First Grade / ELA Team

Donna Harris Second Grade / ELA Team

Shawna Hnatyszyn Second Grade / ELA Team

Judy Anthony Third Grade / ELA Team

Chris Zimmer Third Grade / ELA Team

Christa Young SE / ELA Team

Sue Rosche Fourth Grade / ELA Team Facilitator

Heather Kozacki Fourth Grade / ELA Team

Jessica Gentner Fifth Grade / ELA Team

Amy Stoerr Fifth Grade / ELA Team

Kathy Witter Library Media Specialist / ELA Team

Caroline Madden Special Education Teacher / ELA Team

Ellen Gossel Reading Specialist / ELA Team

Michele Cammarata Reading Specialist / ELA Team

Lavinia Kirdani Art / ELA Team

Jamie Holdan Vocal Music / ELA Team

EJ Koeppel Instrumental Music / ELA Team

Lisa Mitchell Kindergarten / Math Team

3

Sarah Zingler Kindergarten / Math Team

Amelia Morton Kindergarten / Math Team

Amy Grosofsky First Grade / Math Team

Nancy Gantz First Grade / Math Team

Karen Burns Second Grade / Math Team

Tom LaRussa Second Grade / Math Team

Sandy Terrance Third Grade / Math Team Facilitator

Lisa Bellina Special Education / Math Team

Mary Gemmer Third Grade / Math Team

Deanne Lester Fourth Grade / Math Team

Ro Utzig Fourth Grade / Math Team

Deb Peters Fifth Grade / Math Team

Wendy Cummins Fifth Grade / Math Team

Kelly Strong Physical Education / Math Team

Todd Marquardt Physical Education / Math Team

Dr. Valerie Knoll Psychologist

Ann Maccagnano Gifted & Talented / ELA Team

Mrs. Chris Caverello Parent Representative

Mrs. Leanne Metz Parent Representative

** Indicates participation in the development of the Instructional Improvement Plan.

4

PART I: DISTRICT VISION AND SCHOOL MISSION

District VisionWe educate, prepare, and inspire all students to achieve their highest potential.

Lindbergh Elementary VisionWe are committed to help each student develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for a successful future. This will enable each student to achieve his/her highest potential with regard to academic, social, and cultural growth. Success will be ensured through student, staff, family, and community involvement.

PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL:

Lindbergh Elementary is a K-5 building with 517 students. Lindbergh is the third largest elementary school in the Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD. At Lindbergh Elementary School, we recognize that quality requires continuous improvement. Our school is an exciting place: thoughtful, reflective and engaged. It is a place where meaning is made for all students. It is a place that resembles a laboratory, research site, workshop, studio, gallery, theater, and newsroom. The spirit is one of shared inquiry where all members are life-long learners.

Students thrive in our learner-centered school environment. They develop self-confidence and feel supported in taking risks and thinking independently. They are engaged in initiating and assessing their ideas and products, and develop respect for their own work and the work of others. Good citizenship is consistently practiced. Our staff functions as coaches, mentors and guides, helping to develop and cultivate the full range of human intelligences and capabilities for all learners. Our success will be ensured through a shared commitment of students, staff, family, and community.

Lindbergh students and staff are supported by a very active PTA and high level of parental involvement. On any given day, parents are volunteering in classrooms, the cafeteria, or running a committee in the evening to set up a school event. Some of the events include, book fairs, yearly author visits, food drives, skating parties, Gingerbread Shop, holiday breakfasts, after school clubs, family socials, Grandparents Day and family fun walks to name a few.

Student achievement trends obtained from New York State Assessments in Grades 3-5 in English Language Arts show that student achievement has been consistent with the exception of the recent year given the increase in cut scores across the state. Prior to the cut scores changing, the performance index has ranged from 184-190 with the most significant increase during the 2008-09 school year.

Student achievement trends obtained from New York State Assessments in Grades 3-5 in Math show that student achievement has increased and remained consistent over the past 4 years with the exception of the recent year given the increase in cut scores across the state. Prior to the cut scores changing, the performance index has ranged from 186-198 with the most significant increase during the 2008-2009 school year.

Below is a brief overview of instructional programs at Lindbergh Elementary:5

Literacy Vision Statement 2011-2012

At Lindbergh Elementary School our goal is to produce self-determining readers and writers who will meet or exceed the ELA standards set forth by New York State and the District. We aim to raise readers and writers who are critical thinkers, who read closely and think deeply about what they are reading.

We believe in a balanced literacy approach to Language Arts instruction which provides students with daily opportunities to engage in reading, writing, speaking and listening activities. We begin at an early age to develop a toolkit of good reading habits where the children learn strategies that can be applied to any book at any level across the curriculum. We create an environment where the children can have conversations about their reading and thinking. Skilled readers use a set of “learning strategies” that help them make meaning from the text. Lindbergh school provides students with the tools and strategies in reading and writing across the curriculum.

Children participate daily in a Reading Workshop which includes listening to books read aloud, shared reading, guided reading, genre studies, book clubs and independent reading of “just right” books. Engaging in a reading workshop allows students to practice and apply a variety of comprehension strategies including: using background knowledge, making predictions, questioning, visualizing, inferring, determining importance and making connections to text. This workshop is based on the belief that children, in order to produce effective writing in a genre, require many opportunities to read quality text in that genre and become highly familiar with it (consume). We teach children to be critical thinkers, evaluating the quality of the genre (critique). Lastly, after this momentum has been created, we aim to have children write in the genre studied and to communicate thoughts, feelings, and reactions to their reading (produce).

Learning to read and write is a multi-year challenge, accomplished best in an environment where teachers work together across the grades, armed with a systematic plan. This comprehensive balanced literacy program gives children a sense of coherence across the day, months and years at Lindbergh School.

Everyday Math 3

This results-oriented program is the program of choice for nearly 3 million students in the United States as well as all Ken-Ton elementary students. Everyday Mathematics was developed by the University Of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) in conjunction with feedback from education specialists, administrators, and classroom teachers in order to enable children in elementary grades to learn more mathematical content and become life-long mathematical thinkers.

Everyday Mathematics is research-based. The University of Chicago School Mathematicsprogram responded to a National Science Foundation grant to develop a rigorous mathematics programthat would teach students more mathematics, beginning at Kindergarten. Prior to undertaking curriculumdevelopment, the Everyday Mathematics authors looked at how other nations teach math as well as theresearch regarding effective classroom practices. The result is that Everyday Mathematics has a solidresearch foundation.

Everyday Mathematics has higher expectations for both teachers and students. Everyday Mathematics not only teaches basic skills, but also expands beyond traditional drills. The program encourages children to understand why math is important and how they reach their answers, so they internalize what they are learning. As a result, students find it easier to remember basic skills, to apply what they know in order to solve problems, and to think mathematically. Children learn and practice all of the basic math facts, and they

6

do it in multiple ways, including paper-and pencil exercises, hands-on use of math manipulatives, and skills-based mathematics games.

Everyday Mathematics’ unique instructional design ensures that students learn basic skills and mathematics strategies and can apply them in a variety of situations. Research has shown that children learn best when new topics are presented at a brisk pace, with multiple exposures over time, and with frequent opportunities for review and practice. The sequence of instruction in Everyday Mathematics has been carefully mapped out to optimize these conditions for learning and retaining knowledge. Every new concept or skill is introduced informally, and then is revisited in a variety of contexts over several grade levels. Each subsequent exposure builds upon previous experience, helping children develop proficiency over time. Everyday Mathematics works to develop both students’ knowledge of mathematics and their ability and willingness to apply what they know.

In Summary, Everyday Mathematics is a solid, rich curriculum that provides students with the tools andskills they will need to live and work in a technologically complex world. In an increasing competitive globaleconomy, today’s students need mathematical skills that go beyond basic arithmetic, skills that include theability to problem solve, to handle complex data, and to process information using higher-order thinking skills. A new way of mathematics education is necessary to allow students to succeed in the 21st century.

Academic Intervention Services in Reading

Academic Intervention Services in Reading concentrates on those students who have difficulty in learning to read by:

Carefully diagnosing the problem Providing individualization of instruction both within the classroom or in a separate location Using researched based techniques Teaching parents about effective reading strategies (parent conferences, newsletters, appointments) Modeling scientifically researched/evidence based methods of instruction in the classroom for the

teacher and then scaffolding the instruction for the child

Academic Intervention Services in Math

Academic Intervention Services in Mathematics concentrates on those students who have difficulty understanding mathematical concepts taught in the regular classroom program by:

Providing small group instruction both within the classroom or in a separate location Using specialized/ alternative techniques and materials not generally available in the regular

classroom program Assisting parents with suggestions for home practice of effective mathematical strategies Modeling a variety of methods of instruction for classroom teachers

Special Education Services

7

As of March 2011, there are 30 students identified at Lindbergh Elementary receiving Special Education academic services. Students are classified with various disabilities which include, but are not limited to Learning Disabled, Other Health Impaired, Speech and Language Impairment, Autism, and Multiple Disabilities. There are currently 2.5 teachers servicing student’s K-5. Services vary each year and are dependent upon student IEP’s. As a school we deliver academic instruction in the least restrictive environment to meet individual needs. Special Education services include Resource Room in and out of the classroom, consultant teacher direct and indirect services, and low and high level co-teaching. In addition to academic services, students may also receive related services such as Speech, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Hearing and Vision services.

Special Education teachers attend grade level meetings and are participants on grade specific data Teams. In addition, special education teachers meet as a department with the principal once a month and work closely with classroom teacher assistants and support staff. All teachers have participated in Literacy Cohort and utilize researched based strategies during instruction. They also utilize Fast Math (fact fluency intervention), Leveled Literacy Intervention, and Orton Gillingham (reading intervention).

Lindbergh Elementary Instrumental Music ProgramThe instrumental music program is open to all 4th and 5th graders interested in learning how to play

a musical instrument. The instruments offered are; violin, viola, cello, double bass, flute, clarinet, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, trumpet, trombone, french horn, euphonium and percussion.

All students are placed in small lesson groups and are given one 30 minute lesson per week. When ready, students are auditioned for the orchestra. The orchestra performs in the winter and spring concerts and students are welcome to perform in school assemblies, the budget vote and audition for the All County Orchestra or Band.

Lindbergh Elementary General Music ProgramThe Kenmore Tonawanda School District has recently updated its Standards-based curriculum in

music. The general music curriculum at Lindbergh Elementary School is reflective of those changes. Our program includes music classes twice a week for all grade levels. In third grade, students participate in our Recorder program. During fourth and fifth grades, students participate in Chorus. Participation in all of these classes is compulsory.

The general music program at Lindbergh is rooted in Music Learning Theory (MLT). MLT is a research-based theory of how children learn when they learn music. Our curriculum spirals from kindergarten, beginning study in acculturation, singing and movement, through fifth grade, with study in performance, improvisation and composition. Students learn basic music skills, including: singing in tune, keeping a steady beat and reading and writing music notation throughout their study.

Lindbergh Elementary Art Program

8

In art class, students are encouraged to use their minds and hearts to develop art and thinking skills that enhance and push their abilities beyond the regular classroom experience. At all grade levels student make connections to cultures, history, art careers and the self. Art is a “meaning making” experience that enriches the child’s esteem and world. Art thinking focuses on the creative process, problem solving, and idea fluency. An art project can involve anywhere from two to eight weeks of work time. Students create “masterpieces” that may also include reflective writing and self-assessment. Art class is a joyful place and all students are seen as creative and capable. Art is taught as a learned skill and not just a talent for the few.

Lindbergh CLASS Program: Creative Learning Applied to Special Strengths

C.L.A.S.S. Program Mission: · To provide opportunities for high-ability students to interact with intellectual peers · To guide students in recognizing, developing and utilizing their unique talents · To promote practice in divergent problem solving in a challenging school setting

The CLASS program is based on Dr. Donald Treffinger's Levels of Service Model. This model includes four levels of service delivered both inside and outside the regular classroom. The CLASS teacher also collaborates with classroom teachers to share strategies and researched based techniques.

Level I: Services Offered to All Students (Building-Wide)Provides opportunities for students’ strengths, talents, interests and potentials to emerge: instruction in such skills as creative and critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and other school-wide enrichment opportunities.

Level II: Services Offered to Many StudentsStudents voluntarily participate in group activities that involve fewer students than the entire class, such as: interest groups, creative writing groups, newspaper, history, math, computer clubs, and instrumental or vocal music groups.

Level III: Services Offered to Some StudentsStudents participate in small group activities which occur outside the regular classroom to offer students advanced content instruction or opportunities to further investigate personal interests or talents.

LEVEL IV: Services Offered to Few Students.This is an individualized student plan which involves differentiation of curriculum. This may include curriculum enrichment, acceleration, extended individual studies, and opportunities to work with a mentor or any combination thereof.

Lindbergh Physical Education Program

9

The Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda community recognizes the importance of the interscholastic athletic experience in the total development of the student. We view the interscholastic program as co-curricular in nature and we feel that through these activities our students develop commendable traits. Our program provides a unique experience where students can develop and refine attributes such as, but not limited to:

Sportsmanship

Social Skills

Good Character

Teamwork

Goal Setting

Self- Discipline

Commitment

Responsibility

Fitness

Dedication

Respect

Self- Confidence

Lindbergh Library Media Program

The library media center at Lindbergh School is a vital part of the learning process. Our LMC has an open format which means students and teachers at all grade levels can come as often as they wish for large group lessons, research, stories, small group work and individual projects.

Information literacy, the ability to find, validate, and use information, is the keystone to lifelong learning. Our school library media program provides an abundance of appropriate resources in many formats. Critical thinking skills and creativity are fostered when students are provided with opportunities to learn how to locate, analyze, evaluate, interpret, and communicate information and ideas.

Lindbergh Elementary Physical Education Activities

K-2: Loco motor Skills- jogging, jumping, hopping, galloping, skipping, leaping, etc. Balance Activities- stunts, beams, peacock feathersHand Eye- catching, throwing, juggling, disk toss, dribblingFoot Eye- kicking, dribblingStriking- balloons, beach balls, w/ paddlesCooperative games- parachute, omnikin ballJump ropes- Jump Rope for HeartRhythmic MovementUpper body strength- bars, scooters, tug-o-war, roller racersRock Climbing

3-5: Cooperative GamesWellness/Fitness- aerobics, yoga, circuit trainingFitness gram testingCross Country SkiingJugglingVolleyball SkillsSoccer SkillsFootball SkillsBasketball SkillsRhythms and DanceJump RopeTrack and Field SkillsSoftball/ Baseball SkillsGymnastics- beam, vault, tumblingRock Climbing

10

Canisius College Partnership

The Canisius College School of Education and Human Services (SEHS) and Lindbergh Elementary School (LES) have developed a comprehensive alliance in an effort to provide the best educational opportunities for its students. The joint mission statement follows:

Lindbergh Elementary School/Canisius College Professional Development SchoolMission Statement

Lindbergh /Canisius College Professional Development School (PDS) is dedicated to preparing socially responsible students, teacher candidates, and educators within a vibrant community of learners and leaders. Partners share responsibility and resources for academic excellence though inquiry-based practices and relevant professional development. We weave together the essential elements to prepare PDS participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to inspire a life-long passion for learning and teaching.

Overview of Instructional Programs The overall instructional program at Lindbergh Elementary is supported by district adopted standards based curricula.

Everyday Math – Third edition adopted Fall 2009 Elementary Math Assessments for Learning- created and adopted 2008 with a full implementation 2-

5 in 2010 District Literacy Initiative – began summer 2006 Scott Foresman Science – new program adopted 2007 District ELA NY standards based curriculum – adopted spring 2009 Fountas and Pinnell Phonics Program K-2 – Implemented Fall 2009 Social Students: Macmillan / McGraw Hill Timelinks- Implemented Fall 2011

Summary of the analysis of the fidelity and efficacy of the 2010-2011 IIP, including how these results influenced the formation of the 2011-2012 IIP.

The 2010-11 IIP was closely monitored throughout the school year. This year, each team was scheduled to review the document periodically throughout the school year to measure if we were really doing what we set

11

out to do over the course of the school year (see schedule below). A schedule was drafted over the summer and shared with all staff in September. Additional dates were added as a result of staff development days. You will notice that activities were monitored and future objectives were listed that impacted our plan for the 2011-12 school year.

IIP Monitoring Schedule:

Math / Literacy Teams:Who: ELA / Literacy Team Members

Thursday, November 4, 2010 Math Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30Wednesday, November 3, 2010 Literacy Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 Math Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30Thursday, January 6, 2011 Literacy Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30

Thursday, March 3, 2011 Math Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30Wednesday, March 2, 2011 Literacy Team Monitoring Meeting 3:30-4:30

TBA ELA TEAM IIP Revision Meeting TBA Math TEAM IIP Revision Meeting

Data Team / Looking at Student Work Meetings: Purpose: This time has been allotted to closely examine student work and use collective thoughts to interpret what students are doing well and what they need to improve in. The ultimate goal is for faculty to be able to make better informed decisions in adjusting instructional practices in order to meet the needs of students. This time will allow for more opportunities to work together and examine student work.

12

ELA & math work is equally reviewed throughout the school year.

Did we do what we said we were going to do? How do we know?

Tuesday, October 5

Wednesday, December 8

Friday, January 14

Thursday, February 10 Wednesday, March 23 .

PART III: DATA COLLECTION – SECTIONS A, B, AND C

Summary of the analysis of the fidelity and efficacy of the 2010-2011 IIP, including how these results influenced the formation of the 2011-2012 IIP.

The following timeline indicates where and when the IIP goals were reviewed and addressed: Grade Level Meetings and LASW

13

School Planning Team Meetings Various Staff Development Day Meetings

2010-11 ELA Strategy 1: FidelityHave we done what we said

we were going to do?

EfficacyHow well did we do it and how do we know? What difference did our actions

make?

Develop Timeline of Data Team MeetingsYES Sent to all teachers and discussed

during opening day meeting. Identify the purpose, focus, or goal for looking at student work (How might I solve a particular problem of practice?) Presenting teacher selects an effective protocol based on purpose.

YESProtocol was updated and purpose was added. Teachers must identify a purpose PRIOR to the meeting.

Host ELA Data Team Meetings that review grade level ELA data, NYS assessment results, student work and determine effective strategies.

YES

ELA data was reviewed during all LASW sessions. Based on the data, grade levels selected an Instructional focus. Meeting minutes were submitted to principal.

Implement & Monitor Research-Based Intervention Strategies to Target Students within classroom YES

Teachers used researched based strategies based on data findings. Grade level meetings were focused around implementation and sharing of progress.

Re-assess students using ongoing assessments based on data team suggestions.

YESClassroom teachers, teacher assistants along with building aide support were used to reassess students based on identified needs.

Review efficacy of prior data team suggestions.

YES

Action plans were reviewed to ensure efficacy. Teachers shared action plans and rate of growth based on intervention / instruction. Interventions proved to increase student achievement.

Utilize rubric and process observer to reflect on process.

YES

Rubric was used at one LASW meeting. Rubric results indicated that teachers were true to the process and that similar protocols are being used for “data” meetings and LASW meetings.

Review scoring of Fountas & Pinnell assessment system & reading level reporting

YESTeachers met with AIS reading teacher to review scoring and report card reporting.

Administer and analyze Fountas & Pinnell and/or Marie Clay and/or DIBELS assessments to determine appropriate interventions and differentiation within the classroom.

YES

Assessments were administered per the district timeline. Teachers had data that led to next steps in terms of instruction. Guided reading groups were formed based on level and need from miscue analysis.

Provide Fountas & Pinnell Miscue YES Marybeth EmonsJoy provided each 14

Analysis & Continuum Training. grade level with a half day of training. Teachers practiced based on actual students from their classroom. Once completed, classrooms teachers completed an analysis for guided reading groups (based on level AND need).

2010-11 ELA STRATEGY 2: FidelityHave we done what we said



make?

Train K-5 classroom teachers on district common formative assessments in writing. YES

Ellen, Sue and Marybeth reviewed CFA’s developed by the ELA committee- Sept. 2010

Administer and analyze common formative assessments to determine appropriate instructional intervention and differentiation. YES

Classroom teachers administered new CFA’s and used results to drive instruction. CFA’s were reviewed during LASW days. The use of formative assessments allowed classroom teacher in intervene sooner and provide support to students along the way.

Utilize literacy support group meetings to build a consistent writer’s workshop K-5. YES

Literacy Support Groups replaced 1 faculty meeting per month. Lessons were modeled and exit slips were used to plan future meetings.

Use classroom observations to improve best practices for writing instruction that will improve student performance on common formative assessments.

YES

Teachers utilized planning time and district subs to visit other classrooms and share best practices. Teachers used a template to record practices observed and to follow up on questions that were generated from the visit. It Is unclear if this practice improved student performance on CFA’s.

2010-11 Math Strategy 1: ACTIVITIES:

FidelityHave we done what we said



make?

Classroom Teachers will analyze assessments for learning to target students not proficient on certain standards.

Yes Classrooms teachers are using the BOCES software to target specific PI’s.

Determine appropriate interventions and strategies. Determine who will provide the intervention and when and how the

Yes Groupings are created based on need. Interventions are carried out by various staff members.

15

intervention will be implemented.

Implement & Monitor Research-Based Intervention Strategies to Target Students within classroom Yes

Teachers used researched based strategies based on data findings. Data finding and action plans were submitted to administration after grade level meetings.

Reassess the Targeted Students for Proficiency in Identified Standards within classroom

BeginningTeachers are providing interventions to students. Informal assessments are used during this phase.

Reflect on results of implemented interventions during follow-up meeting (complete the cycle). Yes

Teachers are using the LASW cycle to review work and check back in with colleagues to review efficacy. This process completes the cycle and ensures grade levels “check-in” before starting again.

2010-11 Math Strategy 2: ACTIVITIES:

FidelityHave we done what we said



make?

Teachers will administer weekly timed tests (grades 4-5).

Beginning

Time tests are being administered, but not weekly. Fastt Math is being used in conjunction and taking the place of weekly fact fluency assessments.

Utilize data from math fact timed tests to identify students who are not fluent with their facts

Beginning Fastt Math results are used to identify students.

Administer Fastt Math placement assessment. Yes Fastt Math placement assessments

were administered in September. Identified targeted students will use Fastt Math 4-5 times per week in school. 2/3: Addition and Subtraction4/5 Multiplication

Yes- Beginning

Students are using the software 2-5x per week. This information was collected by using Scholastic Achievement Manager.

Monitor fact fluency data using Scholastic Achievement Manager for students using Fastt Math

Yes Teachers use SAM reports to monitor achievement.

Provide targeted instruction for students who are not progressing in Fastt Math or on weekly timed tests.

Beginning Students who are not progressing on Fastt Math are reviewed by classroom and AIS teachers. Additional resources are utilized as appropriate.

Classroom teachers K-5 will provide time for math fact instruction and games, a minimum of three to four times weekly.

Yes Teachers are using the EM program with fidelity and playing math games to develop fact fluency. At least 60 minutes of classroom instruction time was designated for math 1-5 and submitted to administration.

16

Classroom visits indicate math time is greater than 60 minutes in most classrooms.

Create and implement a school wide recognition program for students achieving fact fluency. YES

School wide recognition plans has been established. Students are recognized via the PA system on Friday afternoon of each week. Student recognition has increased by 50% since September.

PART III: DATA COLLECTION – SECTIONS A, B, AND C

PART III - SECTION A: School Demographic Data

STUDENT INFORMATION PERCENT OR NUMBER

Grades served K-5Enrollment (total number of students served) 515Mobility Rate (%) Mobility is defined in BEDS. Please use BEDS data. 96%Attendance Rate (%) 96%

17

STUDENT INFORMATION PERCENT OR NUMBER

Suspensions < 1%Percent of economically disadvantaged/ low-income students (eligible for free or reduced lunch) 20%

Total number of general education students 464Total number of students with disabilities (receiving IEP-mandated services) 51Number of self-contained special education classes (For high schools: total number, in all subject areas, of special education self-contained classes) 0

Number of students in general education classes receiving IEP-mandated services 51Number of special education students declassified this year 4Percent of recent immigrants (One year or less in United States) 0Number of English Language Learners (ELL)/ limited English proficient (LEP) 2Total number of students receiving ESL services 2Number of ELL/LEP students identified for special education 0Number of ELL/LEP students attaining proficiency in English 0Number of general education preschool students 0Number of special education preschool students 0Number of students in alternative programs ALP/OSP/GED 0Number of homeless students or students in temporary housing 0Ethnic and gender data: Please use the following equation…Number in subgroup/TOTAL number of students= %White: 476/513 = 93% Asian or Pacific Islander: 7/513 = 1% Male: 268/513= 52%Black: 11/513 = 2% American Indian / Alaskan Native: 7/513 = 1% Female: 245/513= 48%Hispanic: 13/513 = 2%

18

STAFF INFORMATION PERCENT OR NUMBER

Total number of full time teachers assigned to your building 34Percent of part time teachers fully licensed and permanently assigned to the school 100%Percent of full or part time teachers with more than 2 years teaching in this school 98%Percent of full or part time teachers with more than 5 years teaching anywhere 88%Percent of full or part time teachers with Masters Degree or higher 100%Number of administrators 1.5Number of guidance counselors .6Number of school psychologists .5Number of social workers 0Number of speech therapists 1Number of school nurses 2 part timeNumber of teacher assistants 2Number of teacher aides 19Number of school safety agents (ie; security personnel, SROs, etc) 0

19

PART III - SECTION B:

The following chart highlights the performance index (200 is perfect and is equivalent to all students performing at level 3 & 4 on the New York Testing Program) over the past four years at Lindbergh Elementary School in English Language Arts. The arrows highlight student performance of the SAME group of students over the time. If you read across, you will see performance index of the same grade level, but with different students. It is important to recognize that students needs change with each group of student performance results you compare.

ELA PERFORMANCE BY BUILDING AND GRADE LEVEL: Lindbergh Elementary School

OLD "New"

ELA NEW YORK

New York

YEAR G. L Performance Index

YEAR GRADE Performance YEAR GRADE Performance Index

YEAR GRADE Performance Index


Performance IndexLEVEL Index LEVEL LEVEL

2005-2006

3,4,5 184 2006

-2007

3,4,5 186 2007-2008

3,4,5 184 2008-2009

3,4,5 190 2009-10

3,4,5 193 169

2005-2006

3178

2006-2007

3 189 2007-2008

3 189 2008-2009

3 190 2009-10

3 188 165

2005-2006

4 181 2006-2007

4 181 2007-2008

4 185 2008-2009

4 191 2009-10

4 197 185

2005-2006

5 189 2006-2007

5 186 2007-2008

5 179 2008-2009

5 192 2009-10

5 193 156

20

Lindbergh English Language Arts Trend Data Results:

English Language ArtsAssessment Results 2005-2011

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010NEW CUT SCORES

Grade 3

% at Level 3 and 4 80% 91% 81% 91% 69%Performance Index 178 189 178 190 165

Grade 4


Grade 5


21

The purpose for including the data below is to look and cohorts of students in grades 3-5 over time in English Language Arts. Students in each of the cohorts were administered a different test and may contain some different students, but does show growth over time as whole.

Student Cohort NYS Assessment Data Comparison

Graduation NYS ELA Assessments over Time Year

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-20082008-2009 2009-2010

NEW CUT SCORES

2012 % at level 3 &4 81% (Gr 4) 90% (Gr 5)Performance Index

2013 % at level 3 &4 84% (Gr 4) 87% (Gr. 5)Performance Index

2014 % at level 3 &4 80% (Gr 3) 82% (Gr 4) 88%(Gr 5)Performance Index

2015 % at level 3 &4 91% (Gr 3) 87% (Gr 4)92% (Gr 5)

Performance Index

2016 % at level 3 &4 81% (Gr 3)89% (Gr4) 69% (Gr 5)

Performance Index

2017 % at level 3 &491% (Gr 3) 85% (Gr 4)

Performance Index

2018 % at level 3 &4 63% (Gr 3)Performance Index

22

K-5 ELA Formative Data Dashboard Summary:

The following data was collected from the electronic report cards implemented at the elementary level in September 2009. Teachers incorporate the benchmark level as part of a child’s assessment for a marking period, although they also take into account self-determining reading habits, including volume of reading, as well as higher level comprehension skills, stamina and reading rate. Individual grade level specific results can be found in the appendix. The information below serves as a summary of the percentage of students above, on and below grade level K-5 as reported on student progress reports during the 2009-10 school year at Lindbergh Elementary.

Summary- On or Above Grade LevelOn or Above Q1

On or Above Q2 On or Above Q3 On or Above Q4

Kindergarten NA NA NA 96%First Grade 74% 76% 75% 87%Second Grade 76% 77% 77% 79%Third Grade 66% 68% 68% 69%Fourth Grade 53% 54% 68% 78%Fifth Grade 75% 76% 79% 79%

Summary- Below Grade Level Below Q1 Below Q2 Below Q3 Below Q4 Kindergarten NA NA NA 4%First Grade 26% 24% 25% 14%Second Grade 23% 22% 23% 21%Third Grade 33% 31% 33% 31%Fourth Grade 47% 46% 32% 22%Fifth Grade 25% 24% 21% 21%

PART III - SECTION B: School Achievement Data

23

MATH PERFORMANCE BY BUILDING AND GRADE LEVEL: Lindbergh Elementary School

The following chart highlights the performance index (200 is perfect and is equivalent to all students performing at level 3 & 4 on the New York Testing Program) over the past four years at Lindbergh Elementary School in mathematics. The arrows highlight student performance of the SAME group of students over the time. If you read across, you will see performance index of the same grade level, but with different students. It is important to recognize that students needs change with each group of student performance results you compare.

OLD "New"

MATH NEW YORK

New York


YEAR GRADE Performance YEAR GRADE Performance Index

YEAR GRADE Performance Index


Performance IndexLEVEL Index LEVEL LEVEL

2005-2006

3,4,5 186 2006

-2007

3,4,5 193 2007-2008

3,4,5 193 2008-2009

3,4,5 198 2009-10

3,4,5 199 182

2005-2006

3182

2006-2007

3 196 2007-2008

3 194 2008-2009

3 200 2009-10

3 200 170

2005-2006

4 193 2006-2007

4 185 2007-2008

4 192 2008-2009

4 198 2009-10

4 198 182

2005-2006

5 181 2006-2007

5 195 2007-2008

5 192 2008-2009

5 197 2009-10

5 199 193

24

Lindbergh Mathematics Trend Data Results:

Mathematics

NYS Assessment Results2005-2010

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Grade 3 % at Level 3 and 4 85% 97% 94% 100% 71%

Performance Index 182 196 194 200 170





25

The purpose for including the data below is to look and cohorts of students in grades 3-5 over time in mathematics. Students in each of the cohorts were administered a different test and may contain some different students, but does show growth over time as whole.

Graduation NYS Math Assessments over Time Year

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010NEW CUT SCORES

2012 % at level 3 &4 94 % (Gr 4) 86% (Gr 5)Performance Index


2014 % at level 3 &4 85% (Gr 3) 88% (Gr 4) 91%(Gr 5)Performance Index

2015 % at level 3 &4 97% (Gr 3) 92% (Gr 4) 97% (Gr 5)Performance Index

2016 % at level 3 &4 93% (Gr 3) 98% (Gr 4) 95% (Gr 5)Performance Index


2018 % at level 3 &4 71% (Gr 3)Performance Index

26

Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD Mid and End of Year Assessments in Math 2-5:

Below are the percentages of students who scored above the district cut-off on the district created mid and end of year assessments. Students not scoring at or above the cut-off will be considered for AIS services from the math teacher.

Grade Level Mid Year Assessment

% of students proficient

(scoring above district determined cut-off)

End of Year Assessment

% of students proficient

(scoring above district determined cut-off)

Grade 299% Unavailable at time of publication

Grade 388% 86%

Grade 482% 84%

Grade 581% NA

(No District End of Year Assessment in Grade 5)

27

Fact Fluency Data (FASTT Math):

This intervention program helps struggling students develop fluency with basic math facts in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Using the FASTT system (Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic Teaching with Technology), the software provides a continuously adaptive program that efficiently increases math fact fluency in customized, 10-minute daily sessions.

Developing automatic recall of basic facts enables students to focus on higher-order math skills such as advanced computation, problem solving, and algebra. FASTT Math also includes prescribed print activities for those students who need additional instruction in the conceptual foundation of numbers and operations.

New York State Strand Addressed: Number Sense & OperationsGrade 3: 45-52% of third grade testGrade 4: 46-52% of fourth grade testGrade 5: 35-44% of fifth grade test

Purpose: This report shows student fact fluency growth during the selected time period. Use it to track frequency of use and assess overall progress.

28

Purpose: This report shows the number of students enrolled in FASTT Math and assigned to each operation. Use it to help you monitor fluency with all math facts. A student may be assigned to more than one aggregate operation.

30

ELA and Math Distinction Levels

Below is a snapshot of students performing at level 4 on the New York State ELA & math in grades 3-5 over the past 4 years.

% of students at level 4 MATH

GRADE 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-2009 2009-103 MATH 29% 35% 43% 43% 31%

4 MATH 32% 36% 36% 64% 41%5 MATH 25% 34% 38% 53% 42%3-5 Math 29% 35% 39% 53% 38%

% of students at level 4 ELA

GRADE 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-2009 2009-103 ELA 8% 18% 17% 16% 18%

4 ELA 10% 16% 10% 13% 11%5 ELA 27% 12% 8% 18% 18%3-5 ELA 15% 16% 12% 16% 15%

31

On this page you will see performance index targets that were set by the staff at Lindbergh Elementary School The targets were updated by the SPT in Oct 2010. Starting on the top row of each grid, you will find the actual performance index level achieved starting from the 2007-08 school year. The bottom row (in black) is NCLB targets set by the United Stated Government and the red numbers above represent our goals (significantly above the federal government targets). Our goal by 2014 is to have ALL students achieve a level 3 & 4 on the ELA and Math NYS assessment. 100% of level 3 & 4 scores is equivalent to a performance index of 200.

Goal:

200NCLB:

(200)

Goal:

198NCLB:

(189)

Goal:

196NCLB:

(178)

Goal:

194NCLB:

(167)

Goal:

191NCLB:

(155)

Goal:

188NCLB:

(144)

Actual:186NCLB:

(133)

13-14

Actual:

12-13

Actual:

11-12

Actual:

10-11

Actual:

09-10

Actual:

193-Old Cut

169-New Cut

08-09

Actual:

190

07-08

Actual:

184

LINDBERGH ELATARGETSELA TARGETS

Goal:

200NCLB:

(200)

Goal:

199NCLB:

(183)

Goal:

198NCLB:

(167)

Goal:

196NCLB:

(151)

Goal:

195NCLB:

(135)

Goal:

193NCLB:

(119)

Actual:193NCLB:

(102)

13-14

Actual:

12-13

Actual:

11-12

Actual:

10-11

Actual:

09-10

Actual:

199-old cut182-new cut

08-09

Actual:

198

07-08

LINDBERGH MATHTARGETS

32

PART III - SECTION C: Other Pertinent Data Related to Student Achievement

PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT: Analysis of Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness

Employs Multiple Data Sources NCLB Targets NYS Program Trend Data AIS Performance Data Mobility Trend Data Trend Survey Data Master Schedule Data Building Meeting Data (when & how) Action Plan Data: 2005-2008 Behavioral Data Attendance Data Staffing Data (BEDS & HR) IST DATA FASTT Math Data Fountas & Pinnell Data DIBELS Data Survey Data

Root Causes Prioritized Conclusion Statements

Includes Information on ALL Students NYS Assessment Trend Data

o Total Populationo Students with Disabilitieso Ethnicityo Limited English Proficiencyo Low Income

Demographic Information

33

Gender Enrollment Leavers

Use of Disaggregated Data NYS Performance Data by sub-group SWD Performance Data by sub-group

Climate & Variables Canisius Partnership Data Literacy Cohort Consistency of Staffing Instructional Leadership Survey

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 34

*Conclusion Statements can be found in Appendix A

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Conclusion Statement #1

On the grade 3 ELA assessments during the years 06-07, 07-08, 9-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 61.90% - 96.30% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.42% -98.57% on Standard 2- Identify elements of character, plot, and setting to understand the author’s message or intent

On the grade 4 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 06-07, 07-08 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 71% - 91% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 72% -92% on Standard 1-Information and Understanding - Identify a main idea and supporting details in informational text.

On the grade 5 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 52.27%-97.75% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 51.95%- 96.40% on the performance indicator Standard 3 Critical Analysis & Evaluation- Evaluate information, ideas, and themes in texts by identifying a central idea and supporting details

Root Cause Conclusions (based on a comprehensive review of all ELA conclusion statements)

K-5 teachers at Lindbergh do not have a pathway established to teach comprehension/test taking strategies to students due to time not being committed to develop a pathway.

Students are not exposed to enough high quality listening comprehension tasks prior to grade 3. A non-fiction / fiction pathway has not been established K-5. Students do not have a consistent strategy to successful answer questions with test language (most,

best, etc)

Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1

Implement K-5 pathway for teaching, scaffolding and practicing comprehension and

35

instructional strategies.

**Instructional strategies will focus on test taking skills, listening skills, determining importance, common language, author’s message (theme, main idea, etc.), stamina and returning to text for evidence.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Conclusion Statement #2

**The performance indicators below were taken from the 2010-11 IIP. This will be our second year with a focus on writer’s workshop at Lindbergh within the Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD.

During the 2009-10 school year, 27.5% of Lindbergh students in grades 3-5, scored a level 1 or 2 on the NYS ELA Test.

During the 2008-09 school year 9% of Lindbergh students in grades 3 scored a Level 1 or 2 on the New York State ELA Assessment.

During the 2008-09 school year 11% of Lindbergh students in grades 4 scored a Level 1 or 2 on the New York State ELA Assessment

During the 2008-09 school year 8 % of Lindbergh students in grades 5 scored a Level 1 or 2 on the New York State ELA Assessment.

Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #2 Cohort strategies are not consistently implemented Lack of differentiated instruction in the classroom Lack of intervention strategies in the classroom Ineffective use of data teams who analyze needs of struggling readers and writers

Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #2 36

Develop highly effective support and observation practices to improve student achievement. Use data teams to discuss common formative writing and to determine appropriate intervention and

differentiation. Build a consistent writing workshop K-5.

MATHEMATICSMath Conclusion Statement #1

On the grade 3 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 06-07,07-08, 09-10 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 66.67% - 100% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.77% - 88.13% for the performance indicator: Tell time to the minute using digital and analog clocks, greatest weakness is analog.

On the grade 4 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 08-09 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 50% - 53% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 54.31% to 61.81% on the performance indicator: Use a ruler to measure to the nearest standard unit whole, ½ and ¼ inches.

On the grade 5 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 73.86%-83.71% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 72.72%-83.09% on the performance indicator 5.M08-Measure and draw angles using a protractor.

Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1 Teachers are not providing enough opportunities for students to practice measurement using

consistent tools. K-5 Analog clock Gr. 2-5 District purchased rulers (per NYS specifications) Gr. 4-5 New York State protractors (per NYS specifications)

37

Grade 4 students at Lindbergh do not use the same protractor as grade 5 students. Everyday math / district pacing contains limited lessons to support the PI supporting measuring

angles. Student exposure to analog clocks is inconsistent K-3 due to the lack of teacher/student instructional

analog clocks. Students have limited opportunities to practice measurement (whole inch, ½, ¼, whole feet).

Measurement is taught in isolated units in EM and daily/ weekly practice is not occurring as a result.

Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1

Teachers need to provide consistent opportunities to practice measurement (see specifics in root cause) through calendar routines (primary), center activities or other teacher created resources K-5.

Math Conclusion Statement #2

***This plan was continued for the 2010-11 school year.

Math Conclusion Statement At Lindbergh Elementary School, the following performance indicators in the Number Sense and Operations Strand

were a weakness for students in grades 3-5 given the success rates at Lindbergh as compared to the region over the past two years.

3.N.19 Develop fluency with single-digit multiplication facts. 3.N.20 Use a variety of strategies to solve multiplication problems with factors up to 12 x 12 4.N.14 Use a variety of strategies to add and subtract numbers up to 10,0004.N.19 Use a variety of strategies to multiply two-digit numbers by two–digit numbers 5.N.13 Calculate multiples of a whole number and the least common multiple of two numbers5.N.18 Evaluate an arithmetic expression using order of operations including multiplication, division, addition and subtraction

Math Conclusion Statement At Lindbergh Elementary School, FASTT Math Reports indicate that student math fact fluency is an area of concern.

In Grades 2 through 4: Less than 50% of the assigned students are fluent with their facts. In Grade 5 Less than 65% of assigned students are fluent with their facts.

38

Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1

Teachers do not focus on math fluency during routines. Teachers do not all teach the EM Algorithms -affects pathway. Teachers do not all include EM games as part of their daily schedule. Lack of consistency of usage of EM timed tests (grade 4 and 5). Teachers are not consistently using FASTT Math technology. Technology concerns with hardware (batteries) and server consistency impacts the ability of students to use the

intervention program 3-5 days per week consistently.

Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #2 Develop strategies to help students master math basic facts. Develop a plan to increase student use of Fastt Math in and out of the homeroom classroom.

LINDBERGH ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONAL PRIORITIES FOR 2011-2012

Based on the above analysis the following priorities have been identified for 2011-2012 in ELA: Implement K-5 pathway for teaching, scaffolding and practicing comprehension/instructional strategies Build a consistent writing workshop K-5.

Based on the above analysis the following priorities have been identified for 2011-2012 in Math: Develop and use a variety of strategies to help students master their basic (+, -, *, /) facts which will improve student learning

within the Number Sense and Operation strand. Provide consistent opportunities to practice measurement (see specifics in root cause) through calendar routines (primary), center

activities or other teacher created resources K-5.

39

Level of Distinction Conclusion Statements

At Lindbergh Elementary during the following school year % of students scored at level 3 & 4 in ELA. 2008-2009 2009-2010

Grade 3: 18% of students scored at level 4 Grade 3: 18% of students scored at level 4 77% of students scored at level 3 51% of students scored at level 3



At Lindbergh Elementary during the following school year % of students scored at level 3 & 4 in Math.

Grade 3: 43% of students scored at level 4 Grade 3: 30% of students scored at level 4 57% of students scored at level 3 44% of students scored at level 3 Grade 4: 25 % of students scored at level 4 Grade 4: 41 % of students scored at level 4 67% of students scored at level 3 50% of students scored at level 3


Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1

Analysis of level 3 & 4 student work shows lack of test taking strategies in ELA & math. Students are not challenging themselves to read more challenging text to build vocabulary. Inconsistent modeling and teaching of test taking strategies throughout the school year due to the lack of a consistent

pathway (see ELA plan for 2011-12).

40

Students have limited experience with NYS rubrics and / or evaluating own work in ELA and math. Data works suggests students are missing questions that require higher order thinking skills

Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1 Level 3 & 4 students will be targeted in ELA and math instruction using student queries to target students not proficient

on certain standards Teachers will identify and promote higher ordering thinking skills

PART V: PROCESS FOR REPORTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Explain the process by which school staff, parents, students, and community were included in developing the needs assessment, as well as how individual student/school data were reported to school, staff and parents.

Process:The Lindbergh Elementary School Planning Team is the governing body which overseas the Instructional Improvement Plan. A math and ELA team

was created to monitor each of the documents over the course of the school year to ensure we were on track to meet our goals. Each team measured

the fidelity and efficacy of each of the plans and made the necessary revisions for the 2010-11 school year. Each of the plans was shared with the

School Planning Team. The planning team consisted of teachers, support staff, parents and administrators.

Data Reporting:

Individual student/school data is continuously communicated with students, staff and parents as it becomes available by means of conferences,

mailings, PTA meetings, and a data showcase located outside of the main office. The Instructional Improvement Plan along with data collected is

shared with parents in the beginning of the school year prior to open house. The plan is also posted on the Lindbergh Elementary School website.

Instructional Improvement Process:

41

Data Analysis→ Conclusions→ Root Cause→ Objectives→ Strategies→ Activities →Monitoring & Adjusting → Results!

42

LINDBERGH ELEMENTARYSCHOOL

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES2011-12

PARTS V AND VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN: ELA Plan # 1 Goal: By 2014, 100% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS ELA Assessment.

43

Objective: By May 2012, 96 % of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS ELA Assessment Strategy: Implement K-5 pathway for teaching, scaffolding and practicing comprehension and instructional strategies. Targeted Audience: All K-5 Lindbergh Students (regular ed. and special ed.)Root Causes Addressed: K-5 teachers at Lindbergh do not have a pathway established to teach comprehension/test taking strategies to students.

Activities Timeframe Participants Lead Person Resources Measurable Evidence of SuccessTrain all classroom teachers on Continuum of Literacy Learning for comprehension to help teachers set student goals.

Sept 2011 Staff Development D ay

All teachersMary Beth Emons-Joy

Mary Beth Emons-Joy Continuum of Literacy Learning

Attendance and Evaluation

Train all 2-5 classroom teachers on Continuum of Literacy Learning for Test Taking Strategies;Turn key Chap 3 (Main Idea), Chap 4 (Author’s Intent) and Chap 7 (Inferring) of Test Talk to K-5 Teachers

October – December

All 2-5 teachersEllen GosselSpecial education teachers

Caroline Madden Lisa BellinaEllen Gossel

Continuum of Literacy Learning; Test Talk

Attendance and Evaluation; Meeting calendar and attendance

Grade levels will identify common test language to imbed into instruction

October – December

All 2-5 teachersEllen GosselSpecial education teachers

Ellen Gossel Continuum of Literacy Learning

Common Language posted in K-5 classrooms

Follow District ELA Timeframe for Reading and Writing Workshops

September K-5 teachersSpecial education teachers

LiaisonsBarb Hogg

ELA Timeframe for Reading and Writing Workshops

Post Daily Instructional Schedule for Instruction outside classroom door in September

Develop individual listening skills through diversified listening activities. Use push in K speech program to deliver lessons and assess.

September - June K TeachersSpeech teacher

Kate Andrzejak Phonological Awareness Push-in time

Dibels

Classroom teachers will use Interactive Read Aloud time (see District ELA Timeframe for Reading Workshop) focusing on theme/central idea

September – June K-5 teachers Special education teachers

Ellen GosselClassroom Teachers

Fiction and nonfictionScholastic News

Teacher anecdotal notes/checklists to track individual student performanceTeacher notes shared at grade level meeting. Classroom schedule of work will indicate a minimum of 15 minutes per day.

K-5 Teachers will model bulleted note taking for fiction and nonfiction during Read Aloud, Science and Social Studies; 3-5 students will use note taking skills during science and social studies

September – June K-5 teachersSpecial education teachersStudentsLibrarian

Classroom Teachers Fiction and nonfiction (textbooks and trade books)Scholastic News

Teacher notes from read aloud discussed with grade level colleagues. Student notes in science and social studiesClassroom teachers will provide feedback to students and provide follow-up instruction based on need.

Create and incorporate into Reading Workshop a minimum of 3 listening Common Formative Assessments with graphic organizers, multiple choice and short answer. Use student responses to inform instruction/grouping and at a LASW session

November for December LASW,January for February LASW,March for April LASW

2-5 teachersSpecial education teachersAIS Reading

Liaisons Three CFAsListening assessment exemplars

Common Formative Assessments and results

Continue LASW cycle with a focus on comprehension and test taking strategies (see Appendix)

September – June K-5 teachersSpecial education teachers

Liaisons Samples of conclusion statements and root causesSentence strips

Sentence strips with conclusion statement and root causes posted in the Faculty Room focusing on comprehension and test taking strategies

Milestone: Fountas & Pinnell (September, January and May), Dibels Assessment K-2 (September, January and May), three Listening Common Formative AssessmentsEvaluation: 3-5% increase each assessment period /triennially Fountas & Pinnell; students will be proficient with 1 out of the 3 targeted areas in the first administration, students will be proficient with 2 out of the 3 targeted areas in the second administration, students will be proficient with 3 out of the 3 targeted areas in the third administration (multiple choice, graphic organizers., short answer)Follow-up: Use interventions determined from analysis of student work and assessments

PARTS V AND VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN: ELA Plan # 2

Goal: By 2014, 100% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS ELA Assessment.

44

Objective: By May 2012, 96 % of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS ELA AssessmentStrategy: Implement use of Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD Writing Common Formative Assessments K-5. Targeted Audience: All K-5 Lindbergh Students (regular ed. and special ed.)Root Causes Addressed: 1. Lack of common formative assessments in writing for analysis at LASW sessions. 2. Inconsistent use of ELA curriculum guidelines.

Activities Timeframe Participants Lead Person Resources Measurable Evidence of Success

Update K-5 classroom teachers on district curriculum (including Common Core Standards) and review changes in common formative assessments in writing.

September 2011

Teachers Marybeth Emons-JoyEllen GosselSusan Rosche

Writing CurriculumCFAs

Attendance and Evaluation

Administer and analyze common formative assessments to determine appropriate instructional intervention needs and differentiation. Provide intervention/mini-lesson within small group based on need.

Beginning, Middle and End of Year

Teachers Teachers CFAs Scored CFA Protocol / Minutes / Root Cause Sentence Strips PostedStudent Assessment (after intervention)

Utilize literacy support group meetings to build a consistent writer’s workshop K-5.

October – April K-5 Teachers Deanne Lester 3-5Kathy Witter 3-5Deb Tybor K-2Ellen Gossel – Lit. TeamSue Rosche- Lit. Team

Lucy Calkins Units of StudyAmy Vanderwater District Writing Curriculum

Strategies / Units of Study Implemented in classroom Lesson PlansAdmin. ObservationsPeer Coaching

Use classroom observations to improve best practices for writing instruction that will improve student performance on common formative assessments.

October 2010-May 2011

Teachers Deanne Lester 3-5Kathy Witter 3-5Deb Tybor K-2Ellen Gossel – Lit. TeamSue Rosche- Lit. TeamMike Muscarella

Support StaffRecorded Observation DatesObservation Form

Milestone: CFAs (September, January, June) to be reviewed at LASW / data team meetings.

Evaluation: Writing progress will be evaluated tri-annually to show improvement using district writing checklist. 80% of all students at Lindbergh will have 10 out of 13 areas marked at

proficient (final CFA assessment) using the district writing checklist.

Follow-up: Interventions and differentiated instruction will be administered based upon analysis of student writing data.

PARTS V AND VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN: Math Plan # 1 Goal: By 2014, 100% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS Math Assessment.Objective: By May 2012, 98% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS Math Assessment.Strategy: Teachers need to provide consistent opportunities to practice measurement (see specifics in root cause) through calendar routines (primary), center activities or other teacher created resources K-5. Targeted Audience: Students with Disabilities K-5

45

Root Causes Addressed: Teachers are not providing enough opportunities for students to practice measurement using consistent tools.K-5 Analog clockGr. 2-5 District purchased rulers (per NYS specifications)Gr. 4-5 New York State protractors (per NYS specifications)

Activities Timeframe Participants Lead Person Resources Measurable Evidence of Success

Purchase Judy Clocks for k-3 teachers and special education teachers

August 2011 Mike Muscarella Mike Muscarella Building budget Each k-3 teacher has a Judy Clock for instructional use

K-5 grade level teachers will review CCSS for time, linear measurement and angle measurement

September 2011Staff Dev. Day

Lindbergh Staff Mike Muscarella CCSS grade level created charts

Teachers and students will routinely teach, practice and review time using an analog clock based on student needs

September June All k-5 teachersSpecial education teachersSpecial area teachersstudents

Classroom teachersSpecial education teachers

Student EM journalJudy ClocksTime BingoClock stampsOverhead clock

EM Journal pages (time routine 1-5)Assignment of clock helper (morning routine grade 1)Completed Time Bing Sheet (grade 3)Exit slips that incorporate time (grade 2-4)Completed Math boxes (grade 2-3)

Teachers will create linear measuring centers or activities that allow students independent practice for measuring according to CCSS in math and science

September-June 2-5 teachersSpecial education teachersArt teacher

Classroom teachersSpecial education teachers

District rulersMultiple objects throughout the year

Student work Teacher Plans, Peer CoachingAdministrative Observations

Create and incorporate into math block a minimum of 3 Measurement Common Formative Assessments targeting analog clock, linear measurement and angle measurement. Use student responses to inform instruction/grouping and at a LASW session

November for December LASW,January for February LASW,March for April LASW

Special education teachersAIS Math

Caroline MaddenLisa Bellina

Three CFA’sMeasurement exemplars

Common Formative Assessments, documentation of administration dates and results

Continue LASW cycle with a focus on analog clock, linear measurement and angle measurement (see Appendix)

September – June K-5 teachersSpecial education teachers

Liaisons Samples of conclusion statements and root causesSentence strips

Sentence strips with conclusion statement and root causes posted in the Faculty Room focusing on analog clock, linear measurement and angle measurement

Milestone: Assessments for Learning, Mid-year assessments 1-5, teacher created follow up assessmentsEvaluation: Special education students will increase growth by at least 10% for each formative assessment period; November- January and January – March. Follow-up: Differentiated target instruction based on data team conclusions and prescribed interventions. Check assessment results during LASW sessionsPARTS V AND VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN: Math Plan # 2 Goal: By 2014, 100% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS Math Assessment.Objective: By May 2012, 98% of students in grades three through five at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels 3 or 4 on the NYS Math Assessment Strategy: Develop and use a variety of strategies to help students master their basic (+, -, *, /) facts which will improve student learning within the Number Sense and Operation strand. Targeted Audience: All K-5 Lindbergh Students (regular ed. and special ed.)Root Causes Addressed: Lack of fact fluency.

o FASTT Math Reports indicate that student math fact fluency is an area of concern.o In Grades 2 through 4: Less than 30% of the assigned students are fluent with addition and subtraction facts.o In Grade 5 Less than 44% of assigned students are fluent with multiplication and division facts.

46

Activities Timeframe Participants Lead Person Resources Measurable Evidence of SuccessTeachers will administer weekly timed tests (grades 4-5).

October 2011 Students 4-5 Teachers Test paper Timed Test Scores

Utilize data from math fact timed tests to identify students who are not fluent with their facts

September 2011 – June 2012

Grade 4 /5 Teachers Grade 4 /5 LiaisonAIS Math Teacher

EM Timed TestEM Timed Test Graph

Individual Student EM Timed Test Graph

Administer Fastt Math placement assessment.

September 2011 Students (2-5) Teachers (2-5) Fastt Math Completed Assessment Report

Identified targeted students will use Fastt Math 4-5 times per week in school. 2/3: Addition and Subtraction4/5 Multiplication

September 2011 Students (2-5) Teachers (2-5)Mike Muscarella

Fastt Math Fastt Math Implementation Report

Monitor fact fluency data using Scholastic Achievement Manager for students using Fastt Math

Monthly 2-5 Teachers, AIS Math Teacher

2-5 Teachers, AIS Math Teacher, Mike Muscarella

Scholastic Achievement Manager (SAM)

Fastt Math RTI Report

Provide targeted instruction for students who are not progressing in Fastt Math or on weekly timed tests.

October 2011-June 2012

2-5 Teachers, AIS Math Teacher

Classroom Teachers, AIS Math Teachers

Fastt Math Online Resources, Everyday Math DI Manual

Schedule of work- Instructional Time devoted to providing intervention strategies to students not progressing with basic facts

Classroom teachers K-5 will provide time for math fact instruction and games, a minimum of three to four times weekly.

September 2011-June 2012

1-5 Classroom Teachers Mike Muscarella Everyday Math Games

Schedule of WorkAdministrative walk-through

Continue (year 2) a school wide recognition program for students achieving fact fluency.

October 2011- June 2012

TeachersStudentsMike Muscarella

Mike MuscarellaClassroom teachers

Bulletin Board Lindbergh Fact Masters Recognition

Milestone: Timed Tests, Fastt Math reports, Assessments for LearningEvaluation: The reports, graphs and CFA data listed above will be checked quarterly at grade level meetings or data team meetings. Fastt Math students should move to the next intervention level (underperforming to developing, developing to near fluent, near fluent to fluent) 90% of students will meet proficiency (above the cut-off) on the Mid-Year and 96% of students will meet proficiency on the end-of-year assessments.Follow-up: Differentiate and target instruction based on data team conclusions. : AIS support (and classroom instruction) will be targeted around research based strategies for teaching basic facts and algorithms to students who are not fluent with their facts or who are struggling with computation. Students who are not proficient with basic facts will be enrolled in FASTT Math and will use the program a minimum of 4 times per week

PART VI: SCHOOL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN: Levels of Distinction ELA / Math Goal: By 2014, 60% of students in 3-5 at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Level 4 on the NYS Math Assessments. By 2014, 40% of students in 3-5 at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Level 4 on the NYS ELA Assessments. Objective: By May 2011, 53% of students in grades 3-5 at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels of 4 on the NYS Math Assessments. By May 2011, 23% of students in grades 3-5 at Lindbergh Elementary will achieve Performance Levels of 4 on the NYS ELA Assessments. Strategy: Analyze & Target Instruction to Level 3 students. Targeted Audience: Lindbergh Students (regular ed. and special ed.)Root Causes Addressed: Lack of targeted Level 3 & 4 instruction in ELA and Math Lack of building based targeted data dissemination.

Activities Timeframe Participants Lead Person Resources Measurable Evidence of

47

List these sequentially SuccessClassroom teachers will analyze grade 3-5 individual student queries to target students not proficient on certain standards. Classroom teachers will analyze NYS practice assessments to target students not proficient on certain standards.

September 2011-January 2012

3-5 TeachersAnn MaccagnanoAIS Teachers

Mike Muscarella NYS Student Queries Identified areas of need by student by performance indicator.

Determine appropriate interventions and strategies. Implement & Monitor Research-Based Interventions and Test Taking Strategies to Target Students within classroom.

Within a week after assessment- Ongoing

3-5 Teachers 3-5 TeachersSE TeachersEllen Gossel

NY Learns, Test Talk IST, AIS specialists, LASW teams

Differentiated groupings based on reading level AND need in both ELA and math

Reassess the Targeted Students for Proficiency on Identified Standards within classroom

After Instruction

Students, Teachers Teachers Parallel Tasks, Routines, CFA’s

Reassess students, Checklist

Identify and disseminate strategies/activities to promote higher order thinking skills (HOTS)

October 2011

K-5 Teachers Mike Muscarella Canisius College Faculty

Meeting Minutes & Shared Resources

Implement strategies to promote higher order thinking skillsMonitoring implementation to ensure fidelity

November 2011- June 2011

K- 5 Teachers Classroom Teachers N/A Unit plansEvidence in student workEvident in extended response questions (both ELA and math)

Milestone: District formative and summative assessments, student work, student writing in mathEvaluation: Assessments will be administered in alignment with the district assessment calendar. Growth will be assessed based on F & P growth chart, % of students at or above grade level in reading (report card).

Follow-up: Meet with classroom teachers and service providers. Assessment data will be analyzed during grade level meeting, faculty meetings, staff development days, school planning team meetings, and LASW sessions. Based upon the findings interventions will be adjusted at 6 week intervals by classroom teachers.

48

Appendix

Kindergarten 2010-2011 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:

Lindbergh Elementary School

Kindergarten Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Kindergarten: Kindergarten: Kindergarten: Kindergarten:Emergent Books 3 = B or above 3 = D or above 3 = D or aboveShared reading 2 = B 2 = C 2 = C 1 = Emergent 1 = BELOW C 1= BELOW C

1 = below grade expectations2 = meets grade expectations3 = above grade expectations

Above Grade Level NA NA NA 51%On Grade Level NA NA NA 45%Below Grade Level NA NA NA 4% On or Above Grade Level NA NA NA 96%

DIBELS- Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

Initial Sound Fluency September January May Established (25-35 initial sounds per minute) 85% 61% NAEmerging (10-24 initial sounds per minute) 11% 35% NADeficit (Scoring below 10 initial sounds) 3% 3% NAThe benchmark goal is for all children to have phonological awareness skills of 25-35 on Initial Sound Fluency by the Middle of Kindergarten.

Letter Naming Fluency September January May

49

Low Risk (27 or more letter names per minute ) 86% 85% 85%Some Risk (15-26 Letter Names per minute ) 10% 13% 12%At Risk (Scoring below 15 letter names per minute) 3% 2% 3%There is no benchmark goal for Letter Naming Fluency. In the beginning of Kindergarten, students should be able to name at least 8 letters of the alphabet per minute.

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency September January May Low Risk (18 or more sounds per minute) NA 72% 94%Some Risk (7-17 sounds per minute ) NA 22% 6%At Risk (Scoring below 7 sounds per minute) NA 6% 0%The benchmark goal is for all children to have established phonemic awareness skill of 35-45 on Phoneme Segmentation fluency by the end of Kindergarten or the beginning of First Grade.

First Grade 2010-2011 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:


First Grade Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Grade 1: Grade 1: Grade 1: Grade 1:3= E or above 3 = G or above 3 = I or above 3 = J or above2 = D 2 = F 2 = H 2 = I1 = C or below 1 = E or below 1 = BELOW H 1 = BELOW I


Above Grade Level 44% 62% 55% 54%On Grade Level 30% 14% 19% 33%Below Grade Level 26% 24% 25% 14% On or Above Grade Level 74% 76% 75% 87%


50

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency September January MayEstablished (35-45 sounds per minute) 84% 96% 96%Emerging (10-34 sounds per minute ) 15% 2% 4%Deficit (Scoring below 10 sounds ) 1% 1% 0%The benchmark goal is for all children to have established phonemic awareness skill of 35-45 on Phoneme Segmentation fluency by the end of Kindergarten or the beginning of First Grade.

Nonsense Word Fluency September January MayEstablished (50 or more sounds per minute ) 65% 49% 74%Emerging (30-49 letter sounds per minute) 25% 11% 24%Deficit (scoring below 30 sounds per minute) 10% 20% 3%The benchmark goal is for all children to have established alphabetic principle skills of 50 or more Nonsense Work Fluency by the middle of First Grade.

Letter Naming Fluency September January MayLow Risk 77% NA NASome Risk 17% NA NAAt Risk 6% NA NaThere is no benchmark goal for Letter Naming Fluency. In the beginning of First Grade, students who are able to name at least 37 letters of the alphabet in one minute typically are successful in achieving early literacy benchmarks.

Second Grade 2010-11 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:


51

Second Grade Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Grade 2: Grade 2: Grade 2: Grade 2:3 = K or above 3= L or above 3 = M or above 3 = N or above2 = J 2= K 2 = L 2 = M1 = below J 1= below k 1 = Below L 1= Below K




Oral Reading Fluency September January May Low Risk 73% 75% 72%Some Risk 18% 12% 17%At Risk 10% 14% 11%The benchmark goal is for all children to have established reading skills of 90 or more words per minute on Oral Reading Fluency by the end of second grade.

Third Grade 2010-11 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:

52


Third Grade Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Grade 3: Grade 3: Grade 3: Grade 3:3 = O or above 3 = P or above 3 = P or above 3 = Q or above2 = N 2 = N 2 = O 2 = P1 = Below N 1 = M or

below1 = Below P 1 = Below P


Above Grade Level 33% 35% 30% 40%On Grade Level 33% 33% 38% 29%Below Grade Level 33% 31% 32% 31% On or Above Grade Level 66% 68% 68%

Fourth Grade 2010-11 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:


53

Fourth Grade Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Grade 4: Grade 4: Grade 4: Grade 4:3 = R or above 3 = S or above 3 = T or above 3 = T or above2 = Q 2 = R 2 = S 2 = S1 = below Q 1 = below R 1 = below P 1 = below S



Fifth Grade 2010-2011 ELA Formative Data Dashboard:


Fifth Grade

54

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Grade 5: Grade 5: Grade 5: Grade 5:3 = U or above 3 = V or above 3 = W or above 3 = W or above2 = T 2 = U 2 = V 2 = V1 = below T 1 = below U 1 = below V 1 = below V

1 = below grade expectations2 = meets grade expectations

3 = above grade expectations


55

Quarter 1 October

Quarter 2 January

Quarter 3 April

Quarter 4 June

Kindergarten:Emergent BooksShared readingGuided reading

Kindergarten:3 = B or above2= B1= Emergent

Kindergarten:3 = D or above2 = C1 = below C

Kindergarten:3 = D or above2 = C1= below C

Grade 1:3= E or above 2 = D 1 = C or below

Grade 1:3 = G or above2 = F1 = E or below

Grade 1:3 = I or above2 = H1 = below H

Grade 1:3 = J or above2 = I1 = below I

Grade 2:3 = K or above2 = J1 = below J

Grade 2:3= L or above2= K1= below K

Grade 2:3 = M or above2 = L1 = below L

Grade 2:3 = N or above2 = M1= below K

Grade 3:3 = O or above2 = N1 = below N

Grade 3:3 = P or above2 = O1 = below O

Grade 3:3 = Q or above2 = P1 = below P

Grade 3:3 = Qor above2 = P1 = below P

Grade 4:3 = R or above2 = Q1 = below Q

Grade 4:3 = S or above2 = R1 = below R

Grade 4:3 = T or above2 = S1 = below P

Grade 4:3 = T or above2 = S1 = below S

Grade 5:3 = U or above2 = T1 = below T

Grade 5:3 = V or above2 = U1 = below U

Grade 5:3 = W or above2 = V1 = below V

Grade 5:3 = W or above 2 = V1 = below V

3 = above grade expectations 2 = meets grade expectations 1 = below grade expectationsPLEASE NOTE: While teachers should incorporate the benchmark level above as part of a child’s assessment for marking Progress Reports, they should also take into account self-determining reading habits, including volume of reading, as well as higher level comprehension skills (especially thinking BEYOND and ABOUT the text), stamina and reading rate.

Revised 9/9/10

LINDBERGH ELEMENTARY ELA CONCLUSION STATEMENTS:

Conclusion Statement (strength):

Kenmore-Tonawanda F&P Benchmarks for Instructional Reading Levels (2010-2011)

56

On the grade 3 ELA assessments during the years 06-07, 07-08, 09-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 79%-84% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 68%-73% on the performance indicator 02 Literacy & Expression- Make predictions, draw conclusions and make inferences about events and characters.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 3 ELA assessments during the years 06-07, 07-08, 9-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 61.90% - 96.30% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.42% -98.57% on Standard 2- Identify elements of character, plot, and setting to understand the author’s message or intent

Conclusion Statement SWD (weakness):On the grade 3 ELA assessments during the years 07-08, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 20%-70% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 30.40%- 80.49% on the performance indicator identifying main ideas and supporting details in informational text.

Conclusion Statement SWD (weakness):On the grade 3 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 35%- 83.33% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 42.7%-93.15% on the performance indicator Identify elements of character, plot, and setting to understand the author’s message or intent.

Conclusion Statement (strength):On the grade 4 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 09-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 79%-84% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 68%-73% on the performance indicator 02 Literacy & Expression- Make predictions, draw conclusions and make inferences about events and characters.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 4 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 06-07, 07-08 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 71% - 91% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 72% -92% on Standard 1-Information and Understanding - Identify a main idea and supporting details in informational text.

Conclusion Statement SWD (strength):

57

On the grade 4 ELA assessments during the years 06-07, 08-09, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 16.67%-70% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 26.45%-72.09% on the performance indicator Standard 2 Literary Response & Expression- Use specific evidence from stories to identify themes; describe characters, their actions and motivations; relate a sequence of events.

*Lindbergh success rates ranges from 50-100% on this specific performance indicators as a result we have selected this PI.

Conclusion Statement SWD (weakness):On the grade 4 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 45.45%-70% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 46.01%- 74.32% on Standard 1 FRS1S performance indicator Identify main idea and support details in informational text.

Conclusion Statement (strength):On the grade 5 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 61.36%-97.75 % as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 97.13%-47.98% on the performance indicator Standard 2 Literary Response & Expression- Identify literary elements such as setting, plot, and character, of different genres

Conclusion Statement (weakness):

On the grade 5 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 52.27%-97.75% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 51.95%- 96.40% on the performance indicator Standard 3 Critical Analysis & Evaluation- Evaluate information, ideas, and themes in texts by identifying a central idea and supporting details

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 5 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 31.25%-42.86% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 47.49%- 63.68% on the performance indicator Standard 2 Literary Response & Expression- Define Characteristics of different genres.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):

58

On the grade 5 ELA assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 25%-62.5% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 39.12%- 70.78% on the performance indicator Standard 3 Critical Analysis & Evaluation- Evaluate information, ideas, opinions, and themes in texts by identifying a central idea and supporting details.

LINDBERGH ELEMENTARY MATH CONCLUSION STATEMENTS:

Conclusion Statement (strength):

On the grade 3 math assessments during the years 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 96.3% - 97.6%- as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 88.2%- 94.9% on the performance indicator 3.N.06- Use and explain the commutative property of addition and multiplication.

Conclusion Statement (strength):On the grade 3 math assessments during the years 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 96.3% - 97.6%- as compared to the students in Erie 1 BOCES who had a success rate of 88.2%- 94.9% on the performance indicator 3.S.07- Read and interpret data in bar graphs and pictographs.

***The Lindbergh success rate appears to be very high although after further review of the data, there appears to be a slight gap in student performance.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 3 math assessments during the years 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 67.90% - 90.48%- as compared to the students in Erie 1 BOCES who had a success rate of 61.08%- 92.73% on the performance indicator 3.N.18- Uses a variety of strategies to add and subtract three digit numbers (with or without regrouping).

Conclusion Statement SWD (weakness):

59

On the grade 3 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09,09-10 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 55.56% - 70% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 63.29% - 73.93% on the performance indicator Identify odd and even numbers

Conclusion Statement SWD (weakness):On the grade 3 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 06-07,07-08, 09-10 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 66.67% - 100% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.77% - 88.13% for the performance indicator: Tell time to the minute using digital and analog clocks, greatest weakness is analog.

Conclusion Statement SWD (strength):On the grade 3 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 77.78% to 100% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 72.87% -78.49% on performance indicator:Use the symbols <, >, =, (with and without the use of a number line) to compare whole numbers.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 4 math assessments during the years 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, students at Lindbergh had success rates ranging from 46.1%- 68% as compared to students in Erie 1 Boces who had success rates of 51.9%- 78.7% on the performance indicator 4.S.06- Formulate conclusions and make predictions from graphs.

Conclusion Statement SWD (Weakness):On the grade 4 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 08-09 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 50% - 53% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 54.31% to 61.81% on the performance indicator: Use a ruler to measure to the nearest standard unit whole, ½ and ¼ inches.

Conclusion Statement (Strengths):On the grade 4 Math assessments during the years 05-10 SWD at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 55.55%- 100% as compared to the SWD in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 55.35%-87.77% for the performance indicator: Use the symbols <, >, =, (with and without the use of a number line) to compare whole numbers.

60

Conclusion Statement (strength):On the grade 5 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 67.05%-100% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.49% - 97.63% on the performance indicator 4.SO4 Read and interpret line graphs.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 5 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 73.86%-83.71% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 72.72%-83.09% on the performance indicator 5.M08-Measure and draw angles using a protractor.

Conclusion Statement (weakness):On the grade 5 Math assessments during the years 2009-2010, students at Lindbergh had a success rate of 41.1% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 66.14% on the performance indicator 5.A02-Translate simple verbal expressions into algebraic expressions.

Conclusion Statement (Weakness):On the grade 5 Math assessments during the years 05-06, 07-08, 08-09, students at Lindbergh had a success rate ranging from 50%-58.82% as compared to the students in Erie 1 Boces who had a success rate of 61.68% - 66.41% on the performance indicator 5.M.08. Measure and draw angles using a protractor.

61

new york state education department · web view3.n.19 develop fluency with single-digit...

Documents