+

Oskaloosa Community SchoolsAddressing Student Needs

+The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD

Middle School and High School – SINA 4 and SINA 6 Buildings. Elementary on Watch List first year (subgroups)

Professional Development was 1 early release per month with full day PD opportunities during the year. Each building had their own focus.

Little collaboration taking place – some did, others did not

Iowa Core had not been implemented consistently

Inconsistency from classroom to classroom – what, how and how assessed

Gaps existed in skills for Math and Reading

District self reports improper use of test booklets– DE does not investigate

+The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD2 Main goals: (1) Build Leadership Capacity and (2)

Increase capacity of teachers to have sustained and continuous improvement

Iowa Core implementation – Grade Level Benchmarks and Components created – 5 year cycle created

PLC Approach to Professional Development in place – early release days incorporated into schedule – collaboration and focused professional development PLC Facilitators (District and Building level teams)

District Leadership Team established (DLT) as part of Iowa Core implementation requirements Standards-Based Grading Learning Supports identified to assist students not meeting

district level expectations (1’s and 2”s) Predictive of Proficiency?

+The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD

In the meantime, the state initiatives are changing

Iowa Core implementation – The Iowa Core and the Common Core merge – MUCH more rigorous expectations for our students (Shifts in ELA and Math) Additional gaps in student skills are exposed

Instruction does NOT match level of Iowa Core! Iowa Assessments instead of ITBS/ITED - NSS instead of

%tile rank (2011-2012) RtI becomes a state focus to address gaps across the state

PLC Approach to Professional Development State identifies collaboration expectations for districts –

Oskaloosa looked to for PLC direction by other districts

+The Picture of Oskaloosa CSD

In the meantime, the state initiatives are changing

MS and HS continue on SINA Path Project-Based Learning pursued

Assist with gaps in instruction and rigor

Elementary becomes SINA (IEP and F/R) SINA Team completes a gap analysis to find reason for

status Programs versus Quality Instruction was identified by

Support Team (AEA and State) as an issue in Oskaloosa We are directed to focus on increasing the quality of

instruction rather than turning to a program Small Group Instruction chosen as consistent, quality,

research-based approach (Reader’s Workshop)

+The Picture of Oskaloosa CSDSINA Plan determined by teacher team (SINA 2

Requirements) Small Group Instruction – Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop assists ALL

students and helps identify struggling students more effectively. Instructional Coach hired to assist with this process

Demonstration classrooms created Angela Maiers expertise sought Quality instruction and consistency between classrooms is our goal

SINA 3 Requirements: In addition to Year 2 - Restructuring Schedule at Elementary shifted to include reading and writing blocks Block of time for interventions (Tier 2 and Tier 3) Intervention Coach K-3 is hired to help problem-solve and be proactive

SWAT Teams formed to analyze data and identify areas of concern in core instruction

+Trends in Oskaloosa

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Elementary En-rollment

1064 1080 1104 1101 1095 1086 1114

Elementary IEP 121 120 136 139 123 137 124

Elementary Lunch Status

464 504 542 544 407 527 580

100

300

500

700

900

1100

Elementary Enrollment, IEP and F/R History

Elementary Enrollment Elementary IEP Elementary Lunch Status

F/R +116

+Trend in Oskaloosa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Middle Enrollment 518 530 548 531 540 533 539

Middle IEP 67 64 66 57 64 65 82

Middle Lunch Status 188 224 230 240 202 251 247

50

150

250

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

MS Enrollment, IEP and F/R History

Middle Enrollment Middle IEP Middle Lunch Status

F/R +59

+Trend in Oskaloosa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

High Enrollment 771 741 703 697 671 668 704

High IEP 77 70 81 82 93 60 79

High Lunch Status 205 230 267 261 202 271 288

100

300

500

700

900

1100

High School Enrollment, IEP and F/R History

High Enrollment High IEP High Lunch Status

F/R +83

+Trend in Oskaloosa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Totals all Buildings Enrollment 2353 2351 2355 2329 2306 2287 2357

Totals all Buildings IEP 265 254 283 278 280 262 285

Totals all Buildings Lunch Status 857 958 1039 1045 811 1049 1115

250

750

1250

1750

2250

District Enrollment, IEP and F/R History

Totals all Buildings Enrollment Totals all Buildings IEPTotals all Buildings Lunch Status

F/R +258

+Oskaloosa Achievement - NCLB

2013-2014 100% of students must be proficient in Math and Reading Iowa Assessments used 2011-2012 – different metric used

NSS not percentile rank (41st %tile no longer used) Must be careful of making comparisons between ITBS/ITED

and Iowa Assessments since metric changed – and test became much more rigorous – problem solving and more complex texts and added in more informational texts and writing (revealing gaps in our levels of instruction)

Use Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) as our 2nd required assessment. Shows growth in students and is aligned to Iowa Core.

+Oskaloosa Performance What we know the data suggests:

The 1st two years of Iowa Assessments both 3rd and 4th grade did not perform at a high level

We have inconsistent performance for IEP students historically

F/R rate has increased by over 200 students Some grades do well one year and not as well the next

year. The data suggests a system consistency issue 3rd and 4th grade – while not a trend, it is an indication of an

issue Disconnect between GLB’s and Instruction Aimsweb, consistent assessments, Iowa Core shifts

Some years we performed higher than the state or AEA, others we did not System inconsistency

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+How are we Addressing Needs? Continue with Iowa Core alignment – identifying

focus areas in Math/LA and shifts

Consistency with Instruction and focusing on Quality Instructional practices SINA Work and PBL’s DLT work – “Tool for Improvement” Coach hired at MS Common/Consistent building assessments given K-5 (EX -

Text Leveling)

+How are we Addressing Needs? PLC’s look at multiple data points to identify SMART

Goals and target instruction GLB information, MAP, Iowa Assessments

Universal Screener and Progress Monitoring – Proactive approach Interventions are focused and specific K-8 Reading Corp volunteers K-3 Intervention Coach K-3

SWAT Teams at each building to analyze data Identify core areas of concern

“Critical Friend”

+How are we Addressing Needs? Identifying Best Practice Phonics Instruction

What resources do we need to implement?

Consistent language in Math and Reading

Writing process being identified

After School Program – partnership with YMCA – 21st Century Grant

Summer Jump Start at MS for 6th Graders

Tutors and interventions at HS level

+PLC’s All teachers are part of a Professional Learning

Community SMART Goals and Action Plans developed Data walls are created and analyzed – inform instruction Teachers learn together and grow together Teachers watch each other to learn Build teacher leadership – they facilitate and help make

decisions Each building has a Building Level Facilitator group to

help make PLC’s stronger and more effective. Only as strong as the PLC Facilitator Training and on-going support provided

+RtI

Response to Intervention

Focus is on strong CORE instruction Provide assistance to identified students who are struggling

Universal Screener and Progress Monitoring - Aimsweb Reading CBM (K-8), Phonics skills (K-1) Math Probes (K-12 SPED, 6-9) Standard Treatment Protocols Identified (K-8)

Program or intervention targeted at student deficit – choose systematically based on needs.

Identifies students who are below grade level target (national norms) Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, White – Tier 3, Tier 2, Tier 1 and above

Intensive, Supplemental, Average, Above Average, Well Above Average

+

Questions?