GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DISTRICT STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2013 School Year
Greenwich Public Schools District Strategic Action Plan In the fall of 2011, educators at both the District and school levels conducted an analysis of standardized test scores from 2007 to 2011. Six issues emerged that account for most of the difference in performance between Greenwich and comparable Connecticut districts: 1. Low student achievement in reading and mathematics at the end of the primary grades. 2. The recent two year decline in writing scores as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test in grades three through eight. 3. Continued low performance of students in science as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test in grades five and eight and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test in grade ten. 4. Gaps in achievement among student subgroups; most notably the gap in achievement between students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch and their peers who do not qualify. 5. The growth in mathematics and reading achievement of Greenwich students lags comparable districts from grade five to grade six. 6. The performance of students who are new to the District as defined by students enrolled in the Greenwich Public Schools for less than three years. After careful consideration of these issues, in June of 2012, the Board of Education adopted three goals that will drive district improvement planning through the 2014-2015 school year: READING: The percentage of Grade 3 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Reading will be 83% by 2015. MATH:
The percentage of 8th grade students successfully passing Algebra I will be 75% by 2015 to be measured by standardized test and GPS district math test.
WRITING:
The percentage of Grade 8 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Writing will be 87% by 2015.
The following diagnostic memoranda detail why each of these goals are important, identify the root causes of underperformance and outline strategies designed to improve student achievement. The second year of the resulting District Strategic Action Plan (DSIP) will be funded by the 20132014 budget. Improvement plans in each school are aligned with the DSIP and support the achievement of the Board of Education goals.
Page 2
Greenwich Public Schools Strategic Planning Cycle Policy E - 010 August Mission articulates the purpose of the Greenwich Public Schools Core Values and Beliefs comprise the ethical framework that guides all our decisions. Strategic Directions specify long term trends that will shape strategic planning over the next five to ten years. The Vision of the Graduate broadly describes the outcomes we seek for students. District Monitoring System specifies measures for the student outcomes described in the Vision of the Graduate. Data Teams align improvement goals and action plan from the district to the school to the classroom.
June BOE reviews student achievement measures. District Monitoring System revised as necessary (implemented following school year).
April District Data Team updates action plans for continuing goals and develops action plans for new goals for the following school year.
Progress Report from the previous school year on the student achievement results from the District Monitoring System (dashboard format).
Program Monitoring Reports Provide detailed student achievement data disaggregated by school, grade and subgroup. Highlight issues impacting achievement. Suggest new student achievement measures.
February Considering Diagnostic Memorandum, BOE adds, deletes or maintain goals for following school year and adjusts strategic directions. New goals written in SMART format.
October District Data Team reports to BOE on adjustments to the District Action Plan for the current school year based on results from previous school year.
January District Data Team prepares a diagnostic memorandum for BOE updating progress on existing goals and discussing causes and solutions for potential goals.
Page 3
Greenwich Public Schools Data Team Structure
Instructional Data Team (team) Instructional Data Team (grade)
Instructional Data Team (team) Middle School Data Teams
Instructional Data Team (team)
Student achievement measures aligned from district to schools to classrooms. School Data Teams and Instructional Data Teams must account for Board of Education goals.
Instructional Data Team (team) Instructional Data Team (team)
Instructional Data Team (grade) Instructional Data Team (grade)
Instructional Data Team (grade) Elementary School Data Teams
Instructional Data Team (grade)
Instructional Data Team (grade) Instructional Data Team (grade)
District Monitoring System Board of Education Goals K-12 District Data Team
Instructional Data Team (subject) Instructional Data Team (subject)
Instructional Data Team (ES)
District Improvement Plan Instructional Data Team (subject) IDT (course)
High School Data Team
Program Data Teams (District) IDT (course)
Instructional Data Team (subject) Instructional Data Team (subject)
Instructional Data Team (subject) IDT (course)
IDT (course)
Instructional Data Team (MS)
Instructional Data Team (HS)
Page 4
District Monitoring System
Greenwich Public Schools GPS 11-12
Benchmark DRG B
▲ DRP Reading Gr 2 (Goal)
82%
NA
▲ CMT Reading Gr 3 (Goal)
79%
▲ CMT Math Gr 5 (Goal)
84%
-4%
▲ CMT Writing Gr 8 (Goal)
83%
-4%
▲ CMT Math Growth Gr 3 - 8 (VSS)
135
▲ CMT Reading Growth Gr 3 - 8 (VSS)
109
▲ CAPT Science Gr 10 (Goal)
66%
▲ CAPT Writing Gr 10 (Goal)
84%
▲ CMT Reading Gr 3 - 5 (F/R Lunch Goal)
56%
▲ CMT Math Gr 6 - 8 (F/R Lunch Goal)
46%
▲ CAPT Writing Gr 10 (F/R Lunch Goal)
62%
▲ CMT Math Gr 3 - 5 (% Advanced)
49%
▲ CMT Reading Gr 3 - 5 (% Advanced)
37%
▲ CMT Writing Gr 6 - 8 (% Advanced)
39%
Student Achievement Measure
▲ 8th Gr Students in Algebra 1
10 Year Trend
2%
1%
-1%
-7%
1%
4%
-23%
-3%
-2%
5%
-15%
57%
20%
2011 - 2012 School Year
The Monitoring System is comprised of twenty-five student achievement measures and seven demographic variables: • These student achievement measures are “leveraged indicators,” meaning they are good predictors of student achievement across all subjects and grades. • Colored triangles to the left of the measure indicate priority for improvement relative to benchmarked and trending performance: red triangles = high priority for improvement (lower benchmarked performance and flat to declining five year trend) and green triangles = low priority for improvement (higher benchmarked performance and flat to improving five year trend). • The trend line graph depicts 10 years (where available) of GPS scores. Red dots = 10 year lows, green dots = 10 year highs. • Greenwich results are benchmarked against a group of districts with similar levels of student need as determined by the State Department of Education, District Reference Group B (DRG B). • The benchmark "varichart" indicates the percentage difference between the GPS score on a measure and the mean score of the districts in the benchmark group. If the GPS score is lower than the benchmark group, the bar is red; if the GPS score is higher than the benchmark group the bar is green. • Student achievement measures selected for improvement goals by the Board of Education in bold print. • Demographic information is displayed below to provide a context for interpreting student outcome data.
▲ SAT Math & Reading Gr 12 (Mean)
1141
▲ AP Graduates (Score of 3+)
46%
▲ Foreign Language Gr 5 (Mean)
3.6
NA
▲ Visual Arts Gr 5 (Goal)
77%
NA
Minority Enrollment
30.1%
▲ Social Studies Research Gr 10 (Goal)
59%
NA
Special Education Services
10.0%
▲ Physical Fitness Gr 4 (Goal)
72%
Free / Reduced Lunch
13.9%
▲ Physical Fitness Gr 8 (Goal)
59%
Non English Home Language
17.9%
149%
▲ Physical Fitness Gr 10 (Goal)
71%
English Language Learners
5.0%
155%
▲ Technology Literacy Gr 5 (100 - 500)
399
NA
Resident Enrollment in GPS
73.3%
▲ Technology Literacy Gr 8 (100 - 500)
342
NA
Per Pupil Expenditure
$19,233
4%
40%
11%
-7%
15%
Updated 1/25/2013
Demographics and Financial
10 Year Trend
GPS 11-12
Benchmark DRG B 51%
3%
55%
39%
Page 5
Diagnostic Memorandum Writing Goal: The percentage of Grade 8 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Writing will be 87% by 2015.
Problem:
The Common Core standards place emphasis on writing across the academic disciplines.
Writing skills, particularly non-fiction writing, are critical to success in high school and college (Reeves 2000, Schmoker 2006).
For the five years through 2011, the trend in the percentage of Greenwich eighth graders achieving at goal or higher in CMT writing has been essentially flat and lags comparable districts: Greenwich Public Schools CMT Writing at Goal Grades 8 2007 - 2011 All Students 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
Greenwich DRG A DRG B
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Update Based on 2012 Results The percentage of students in grade eight scoring at goal or above in writing increased from 78.4% in 2011 to 82.6% in 2012 as compared to 86.3% in the DRG B districts and 94.0% in the DRG A districts.
Page 6
Diagnostic Memorandum Writing
Causes Cause #1: Sufficient instructional time is not allocated for students to write for information and argument in content area lessons.
Solutions What: Develop an integrated writing curriculum (informational, argumentative) in English/Language Arts (ELA), Science, Social Studies, Media consistent with Common Core expectations
Data: Data from administrator formal and informal observations indicate insufficient writing taking place in content area instruction.
Who: Program Coordinators for ELA, Science, Social Studies Media/Technology; Middle School Principals
(Additional data to support this cause will be collected as part of the Writing Action Plan.)
How implemented: Curriculum mapping process Result Measure: The amount of time students are engaged in writing for information and argument during content areas lessons will increase by 10% each year when compared to baseline data collected in the fall of 2013.
Strategies* 1. Collect baseline data on the amount of time allocated for students to write for information and argument in content area lessons. (Fall 2012) 2. Conduct a gap analysis in LA, Science, Social Studies and Media/Tech. to identify skills and genre deficiencies utilizing the curriculum-mapping system. (Fall 2012) 3. Create a vertically articulated writing skill/genre map for Science, Social Studies, and Media consistent with Common Core State Standards (Spring 2013) 4. Utilize the map to guide writing instruction in Science and Social Studies (2013-15)
Page 7
Diagnostic Memorandum Writing Causes Cause #2: Teachers are not utilizing the GPS Research and Writing Process to an optimum level in content area classes. Data: 8th Grade 21st Century Skills Assessment Data: The results from the pre to post assessment for 11-12 showed little to no growth on the Research and Informational Fluency and Critical Thinking/Problem Solving and Decision-Making strands. See Attached Grade 8 Science CMT Data: Although results increased in 11-12, scores in Strand 5 have remained consistently flat. Strand 5 is where students are required to develop investigable questions, design investigations, present and analyze data, and communicate in writing about their results. See Attached
Solutions What: Improve/Enhance capacity of Science, Social Studies and Media/Technology teachers to teach writing in their content area consistent with Common Core expectations. Who: Program Coordinators for ELA, Science, Social Studies, Media; Middle School Principals, Teachers How implemented: Professional learning Result Measure: The percentage of content area teachers who are meeting the GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction (Research and Writing Process) will be 85% (2014) and 95% (2015).
Strategies* 1. Collect baseline data on the level of utilization of the GPS Research and Writing Process.(Fall 2012) 2. Provide professional learning to teachers focused on the qualities of argumentative and informational writing.(20122013) 3. Provide professional learning for teachers on the design and use of core writing rubrics for focused and corrective feedback with additional criteria that is disciplinespecific for students in all content-areas. (2013-2014) 4. Provide professional learning on the writing process. (Summer 2013)
(Additional data to support this cause will be collected as part of the Writing Action Plan.)
Page 8
Diagnostic Memorandum Writing Causes
Solutions
Strategies*
Cause #3: Writing tasks across grade levels and content areas are not appropriately rigorous**.
What: Increase the student cognitive demand of writing tasks including research and information fluency within Social Studies and Science consistent with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations.
1. Collect baseline data on the level of rigor in writing tasks in content areas. (Fall 2012) 2. Identify and collect/purchase available performance tasks exemplars and related resources. (2012-2014) 3. Provide professional learning for teachers and administrators on instructional frameworks to enhance “rigor” within classroom tasks (e.g. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Webb’s Depths of Knowledge-DOK) (2012-2014). 4. Integrate effective and research-based digital tools and resources to support rigorous writing tasks and student engagement. (20122013) 5. Increase collaboration time between media specialists and content-area teachers in order to integrate research and informational fluency skills. (2012-2015)
Data: ELA Common Core Standards (http://www.corestandards.org/ the-standards/englishlanguage-arts-standards) and Appendix C (http://www.corestandards.or g/assets/Appendix_C.pdf); 8th Grade 21st Century Skills Assessment Data: See Cause #2 Data above. Grade 8 Science CMT Data: See Cause #2 Data above.
Who: Program Coordinators for ELA, Science, Social Studies, Media; Middle School Principals How implemented: Professional learning, identification/purchase of resources, exemplar tasks Result Measure: The distribution of writing tasks in which students are engaged will between balanced across Webb’s Depths of Knowledge levels as follows:
(Additional data to support this cause will be collected as part of the Writing Action Plan.)
2013-14 at 50% levels 2/3 and 50% levels 3/4
**Rigorous writing tasks are defined as those which require students to engage in reflective thought, analysis, problem-solving, evaluation or creativity to demonstrate thorough mastery and to develop cognitive skills.
2014-15 at 40% levels 2/3 and 60% levels 3/4
*Each strategy has a detailed action plan that includes specific timelines; costs; person(s) responsible.
Page 9
Greenwich Public Schools, BOE Grade Eight Writing Goal Action Plan 2012-13 Goal: The percentage of Grade 8 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Writing will be 87% by 2015.
Cause #1: Sufficient instructional time is not allocated for students to write for information and argument in content area lessons. Solution #1: Develop an integrated writing curriculum (informational, Result Measure #1: The amount of time students are engaged in writing for argumentative) in Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and information and argument during content areas lessons will increase by 10% Media/Technology to align with Common Core State Standards. each year when compared to baseline data collected in the fall of 2012. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 1. Collect baseline data on the amount of time allocated for students to write for information and argument in content areas lesson. Fall 2012 NA /A NA NA Middle School Observation Data All Middle School administrators will (MS) Principals; conduct 20 minute observations of English/Languag social studies and science classrooms e Arts (ELA) to collect baseline data on the Program amount of time students are engaged Coordinator in writing for information and argument.
Middle School Principals will aggregate the data by grade level and content area; review the data with the SDT; and report that data to the CIPL office.
Fall 2012
NA
NA
NA
MS Principals; CIPL; ELA Program Coordinator; School Data Teams (SDT) at 3 Middle Schools
Baseline Data; SDT Minutes
Page 10
Cause #1: Sufficient instructional time is not allocated for students to write for information and argument in content area lessons. Solution #1: Develop an integrated writing curriculum (informational, Result Measure #1: The amount of time students are engaged in writing for argumentative) in Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and information and argument during content areas lessons will increase by 10% Media/Technology to align with Common Core State Standards. each year when compared to baseline data collected in the fall of 2012. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2. Conduct a gap analysis in ELA, Science, Social Studies and Media/Tech. to identify skills and genre deficiencies utilizing the curriculum-mapping system. Fall 2012 NA NA NA Asst. Super. CIPL; Completion of Gap Coordinators will work with existing Program Analysis Document content-area maps/ pacing guides to Coordinators for conduct a gap analysis of current ELA, Science writing skills. (Sci), Social Studies (SS), Media/ Tech; MS Principals , October 17 NA NA NA CIPL, Program Meeting Minutes Coordinators will review “gap 2012 Coordinators for analysis” document with ELA, Sci, SS, teachers/departments at November/ Media/ Tech; MS December department meeting. Principals 3. Create a vertically aligned writing skill/genre map for the content-areas of Science, Social Studies and Media/Tech. to align with Common Core State Standards. Spring 2013 NA NA NA CIPL, Program Cross content-area Based on gap analysis document and Coordinators for scope/sequence (map) of CCSS, Coordinators will generate a ELA, Sci, SS, writing skills cross-content area map of all writing Media/ Tech; MS skills to be integrated into existing Principals units of study. 4. Utilize the “map” to guide writing instruction in Science and Social Studies. Spring 2013$10,000 TBD TBD CIPL, Program Materials Inventory and Identify/purchase available resources 2015 310 Coordinators for Distribution List; Purchase to support writing instruction within ELA, Sci, SS, Orders existing units of study. Media/ Tech; MS
Page 11
Cause #1: Sufficient instructional time is not allocated for students to write for information and argument in content area lessons. Solution #1: Develop an integrated writing curriculum (informational, Result Measure #1: The amount of time students are engaged in writing for argumentative) in Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and information and argument during content areas lessons will increase by 10% Media/Technology to align with Common Core State Standards. each year when compared to baseline data collected in the fall of 2012. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Principals Ongoing NA NA NA CIPL, Program Content-area Curriculum Teachers will integrate writing skills Coordinators for Maps/ Units of Study into existing units of study, across all ELA, Sci, SS, content-areas. Media/ Tech; MS Principals NA NA NA Grade-level IDT Vertical IDT Minutes Grade-level, vertical Instructional Data Ongoing Teams, Middle SDT Minutes Teams (IDT) will discuss, identify and School SDT implement strategies for integrating teams writing into lessons. Minutes will be reviewed by SDT.
Cause #2: Teachers are not utilizing the GPS Research and Writing Process to an optimum level in content area classes. Solution #2: Improve and enhance the capacity of Science, Social Studies Result Measure #2: The percentage of content area teachers who are meeting and Media/Technology teachers to teach writing in their content-areas the GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction (Research and Writing consistent with Common Core expectations. Process) will be 85% (2014) and 95% (2015). Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 1.Collect baseline data on the level of utilization of the GPS Research and Writing Process. Fall 2012 NA NA All Middle school administrators will conduct 20-minute observations of social studies and science instruction to collect baseline data on the
NA
MS Principals; ELA Program Coordinator
Observation Data
Page 12
Cause #2: Teachers are not utilizing the GPS Research and Writing Process to an optimum level in content area classes. Solution #2: Improve and enhance the capacity of Science, Social Studies Result Measure #2: The percentage of content area teachers who are meeting and Media/Technology teachers to teach writing in their content-areas the GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction (Research and Writing consistent with Common Core expectations. Process) will be 85% (2014) and 95% (2015). Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 percentage of content area teachers who are meeting GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction. Fall 2012 NA NA NA MS Principals; Middle School Principals will ELA Program aggregate the data by grade-level and Coordinator; content area; review the data with SDTs at 3 Middle the SDT; and report that data to the Schools CIPL office. 2. Provide professional learning to teachers focused on the qualities of argumentative and informational writing. November 12, $950 Approx TBD Program EMS ELA, Sci. & SS teachers will 2012 Building 149 $1100 Coordinators for receive professional learning on the Full Day PL- AM (D. Santman) ELA, Sci, SS, genre of writing to inform (3 hrs.). session Media/Tech; MS Principals 2013-14 (TBD) 2014-15 (TBD) November 12, $950 Approx TBD Program CMS & WMS ELA, Sci. & SS teachers 2012 Building 149 $1100 Coordinators for will receive professional learning on Full Day PL PM (D. Santman) ELA, Sci, SS, the genre of writing to inform (3 hrs.). session Media/Tech; MS Principals 2013-14 (TBD) 2014-15 (TBD) May 15 $1,900 Approx TBD Program English and Social Studies teachers Early Release 149 $1100 Coordinators for will receive professional learning on (D. Santman) ELA, Sci, SS, the genre of argumentative writing (3 Day (ERD)
Baseline data; SDT minutes
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
Page 13
Cause #2: Teachers are not utilizing the GPS Research and Writing Process to an optimum level in content area classes. Solution #2: Improve and enhance the capacity of Science, Social Studies Result Measure #2: The percentage of content area teachers who are meeting and Media/Technology teachers to teach writing in their content-areas the GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction (Research and Writing consistent with Common Core expectations. Process) will be 85% (2014) and 95% (2015). Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 hrs.).
Media/Tech; MS Principals
3. Provide professional learning for teachers on the design and use of core writing rubrics for focused and corrective feedback with additional criteria that is discipline-specific for students in all content-areas. Spring 2013 NA NA NA CIPL, MS GPS Non-fiction writing A small team of administrators and Principals, ELA, rubrics teachers will collect a variety of model Sci, SS & rubrics designed to assess non-fiction Media/Tech (informational and argumentative) Coordinators writing. Documents will be revised to address GPS content-area expectations. 2013-14 NA NA NA CIPL, MS Common non-fiction writing rubrics Principals will be utilized to assess student writing and to provide feedback to students in all content-areas. 4. Provide professional learning on the writing process. Summer 2013 NA -$7,600 NA Program EZ Traxx Attendance Lists 4-day Writing Institute for English 149 Coordinators for and Evaluations Teachers -TBD G&D LA, Sci, SS, ($220*4= Media/ Tech; MS $880*30; Principals $26,400) Summer 2013 NA -$5,700 TBD CIPL, MS EZ Traxx Attendance Lists 3-day Content-Area Writing Institute 149 Principals, ELA, and Evaluations (Sci, SS, Media/Tech. teachers) -G&D Sci, SS &
Page 14
Cause #2: Teachers are not utilizing the GPS Research and Writing Process to an optimum level in content area classes. Solution #2: Improve and enhance the capacity of Science, Social Studies Result Measure #2: The percentage of content area teachers who are meeting and Media/Technology teachers to teach writing in their content-areas the GPS Performance Standards for Writing Instruction (Research and Writing consistent with Common Core expectations. Process) will be 85% (2014) and 95% (2015). Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 ($220*3= $660 * 45=$39,600)
Media/Tech Coordinators
Cause #3: Writing tasks across grade levels and content areas are not appropriately rigorous. Result Measure #3: The distribution of writing tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depths of Knowledge levels as follows: 2013-14 at 50% levels 1/2 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-15 at 40% levels 1/2 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student writing tasks, including research and information fluency, within Science and Social Studies to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations. Strategies
Timeline
1. Collect baseline data on the level of rigor in writing tasks in content areas. Fall 2012 NA All Middle school administrators will conduct 20-minute observations of social studies and science instruction to collect baseline data on the level of rigor in writing tasks in the content areas.
Middle School Principals will aggregate the data by grade level and content area; review the data with the SDT; and report data to the ELA
Fall 2012
NA
NA
NA
MS Principals; ELA Program Coordinator
Observation Data
NA
NA
MS Principals; ELA Principals; SDTs at 3 Middle Schools
Baseline Data; SDT Minutes
Page 15
Cause #3: Writing tasks across grade levels and content areas are not appropriately rigorous. Result Measure #3: The distribution of writing tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depths of Knowledge levels as follows: 2013-14 at 50% levels 1/2 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-15 at 40% levels 1/2 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student writing tasks, including research and information fluency, within Science and Social Studies to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations. Strategies
Timeline
Program Coordinator. 2. Identify and collect/purchase available performance tasks exemplars and related resources. Fall 2012 NA NA NA Identify and gather available Performance Task exemplars and resources (e.g. websites, published materials).
English teachers will receive professional learning on Performance Task exemplars and resources (morning: 3 hrs.).
November 6, 2012
NA
NA
NA
Science and Social Studies teachers will receive professional learning on Performance Task exemplars and resources (3 hrs.).
January 30, 2013 Early Release Day
NA
NA
NA
All MS teachers will work in vertical and horizontal teams to identify, administer and double score 1 Performance Task exemplar. Purchase & administer CCSS/SBAC Interim Performance Tasks and Formative Tools in grades 3-11
Spring, 2013; Grade-level, content-area team meetings 2013-14
NA
NA
TBD
NA
CSDE will release CCSS/SBAC
Recurring Cost determined
Program Coordinators for ELA, Sci, SS, and Media/Technolo gy; MS Principals Program Coordinators for ELA, Sci, SS, and Media/Technolo gy; MS Principals Program Coordinators for ELA, Sci, SS, and Media/Technolo gy; MS Principals MS Principals, CIPL, ELA, Sci, SS & Media/Tech Coordinators Special Projects Manager & CIPL
Materials Inventory and Distribution List
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
Aggregate scores will be reviewed by SDT to determine next steps Purchase Orders; CCSS/SBAC Interim Performance Task and
Page 16
Cause #3: Writing tasks across grade levels and content areas are not appropriately rigorous. Result Measure #3: The distribution of writing tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depths of Knowledge levels as follows: 2013-14 at 50% levels 1/2 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-15 at 40% levels 1/2 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student writing tasks, including research and information fluency, within Science and Social Studies to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations. Strategies
Timeline
Performance on a per Formative Tools results Tasks and pupil basis data Formative Tools at a per pupil cost sometime in 2013-14 3. Provide professional learning for teachers and administrators on instructional frameworks to enhance “rigor” within classroom tasks (e.g. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Webb’s Depths of Knowledge-DOK). 2012 Aug. NA TBD TBD CIPL, Principals, EZ Traxx Attendance Lists Provide professional learning for all Program and Evaluations district administrators on instructional Leadership Institute Coordinators for frameworks designed to increase Math, ELA, “rigor”. 2012-14 NA Media/Tech and Leadership Deputy Council Mtgs Superintendent
Provide professional learning for ELA, Science and Social Studies teachers on instructional frameworks designed to increase “rigor”.
2012-13 Administrator PLA 2012-14 Faculty Meetings
NA
NA
TBD
TBD
MS Principals
EZ Traxx Attendance Lists and Evaluations
Page 17
Cause #3: Writing tasks across grade levels and content areas are not appropriately rigorous. Result Measure #3: The distribution of writing tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depths of Knowledge levels as follows: 2013-14 at 50% levels 1/2 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-15 at 40% levels 1/2 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Responsible Monitoring 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student writing tasks, including research and information fluency, within Science and Social Studies to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations. Strategies
Timeline
4. Integrate effective and research-based digital tools and resources to support rigorous writing tasks and student engagement. November 6, NA NA NA Program EZ Traxx Attendance Lists Science and social studies teachers 2012 (morning/ Coordinators for and Evaluations will receive 3-hours of professional afternoon) ELA, Sci, SS, and learning on the Discovery Learning Media/Technolo tool. gy; MS Principals Science and social studies teachers will receive 3-hours of professional learning on digital tools to support the information/research process. November 6 or NA TBD TBD ELA & EZ Traxx Attendance Lists ELA teachers will receive 3-hours of 12, 2012 (TBD) Media/Tech. and Evaluations professional learning on digital tools Coordinators to support the information/research process. April 10, 2013 NA TBD TBD CIPL; ELA, Sci, SS, EZ Traxx Attendance Lists Science and Social Studies teachers Media/ Tech. and Evaluations will receive professional learning on Coordinators Tech. Integration Tools to improve the quality of writing instruction (3 hrs.). 5. Increase collaboration time between media specialists and content-area teachers in order to integrate research and informational fluency skills. 2012-15 NA TBD Staffing TBD Staffing Media/Tech. Integration Specialist The district will increase the amount Per Tech Plan Per Tech Coordinator and Evaluation of collaboration time that media staff Plan MS Principals can work in classrooms to integrate technology into lessons in science and $600 (131) $600 (131) Monthly Library Media social studies classrooms. Center Report
Page 18
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Goal: The percentage of Grade 3 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Reading will be 83% by 2015. (Adopted by BOE, June 2012)
Problem:
The centerpiece of the Common Core standards is reading in the primary grades. Students “learn to read so they can read to learn.” The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test to be administered in the spring of 2015 will place strong emphasis on critical reading skills.
Literacy skills are established during the primary grades and become the foundation for continuing success in school (National Reading Panel 2000).
For the five years through 2011, the trend in the percentage of Greenwich third graders achieving at goal or higher in CMT reading has been flat and lagged comparable districts in 2011: Greenwich Public Schools CMT Reading at Goal Grades 3 2008 - 2012 All Students 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
Greenwich DRG A DRG B
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
(Continued on next page)
Page 19
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Problem (cont):
However, growth in achievement of Greenwich students from third grade to eighth grade is equal to growth in the highest performing districts: CMT Reading Vertical Scale Score Growth Gr 3 2007 to Gr 8 2012 600 580 560
566 562 556
540
538
520 DRG A SW CONN
500
DRG B State
480 460 440
Greenwich
455 451 448 447 429
420 400 Gr 3 2007
Gr 4 2008
Gr 5 2009
Gr 6 2010
Gr 7 2011
Gr 8 2012
In order to close the gap between Greenwich students and students in similar districts, it is necessary to raise achievement levels by the end of third grade by focusing on reading instruction in the primary grades (K – 3) and sustain that improvement in achievement through eighth grade.
Update Based on 2012 Results
The percentage of third grade students scoring at goal or above in reading increased from 72.0% in 2011 to 78.8% in 2012 as compared to 77.2% in the DRG B districts and 84.1% in the DRG A districts.
Page 20
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading
Causes
Solutions
Strategies*
Cause #1: Data teams need more support on how to effectively utilize data to differentiate/ focus instruction (whole group, small group, interventions).
What: Educate and support teachers (Instructional Data Teams) in the effective use and monitoring of data to differentiate/focus instruction for students.
Data: Analysis and evaluation team from the analysis of student intervention plans (available in RtI Studio)
Who: Program Coordinators for LA, Media/Technology, ELL, Special Ed; Elementary Principals, Literacy Specialists/Coaches, District Coaches and Teachers
1. Provide professional learning to enhance assessment practices (administration, analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources; school-based, 2012-14) 2. Provide targeted professional learning on the use of running records to adjust instruction for students (2012-14). 3. Instructional Data Teams will collaborate to plan small group instruction and the development of intervention plans for students utilizing multiple sources of data (school-based, 2012-14). 4. Require teachers to identify the area of reading concern(s) in RtI Studio (comprehension, accuracy, fluency) based on the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment (winter 2012-13). 5. Explore, identify and implement additional technology tools to collect and analyze student data.
Formal and informal administrator observations Common Core Foundational Skills Expectations (http://www.corestandards.org/the‐ standards/english‐language‐arts‐standards/reading‐ foundational‐skills/introduction/)
How Implemented: Professional learning and TEPL Evaluation System Result Measurement: In the spring of 2013, 80% of Greenwich Public School Elementary Instructional Data Teams (IDT) will meet Standard expectations on the Documenting Student Achievement Issue portion of GPS’ IDT Rubric (2014= 85%; 2015= 95%).
Page 21
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Causes
Solutions
Strategies*
Cause #2: Small group instruction is not consistent across the district (as determined by GPS Comprehensive Literacy Performance Standards).
What: Improve/enhance capacity of K-3 teachers to deliver small group instruction with fidelity.
1. Provide professional learning on implementing Small Group Instruction with fidelity (guided reading and strategy groups, 201213). 2. Literacy Coaches will provide professional learning via in-class coaching to teachers who require support (2012-13). 3. Students will receive targeted small group instruction (2012-15). 4. Integrate technology and appropriate tools in small group instruction and learning centers (including digital and technology tools) (2012-14).
Data: Formal and Informal Administrator Observations, Comprehensive Literacy Benchmark Assessment Data, Spring 2012 Grade-level F&P Benchmark data indicate: -13% of our kindergarten students (97) do not meet the district’s benchmark target -28% of our first grade students do not meet the district’s benchmark target -30% of our second grade students do not meet the district’s benchmark target -29% of our third grade students do not meet the district’s benchmark target
Who: Program Coordinators for LA, Media/Technology, ELL, Special Ed; Elementary Principals, Literacy Specialists/Coaches, District Coaches and Teachers How Implemented: Professional learning and focused instruction Result Measure: The percentage of K-3 teachers who meet the GPS Performance Standards for Small Group Instruction will be 80% by 2013, 90% by 2014 and 95% by 2015.
-33% of our fourth grade students do not meet the district’s benchmark target -43% of our fifth grade students do not meet the district’s benchmark targets
GPS Implementation Performance Targets for Small Group InstructionSee Attached
Page 22
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Cause #3: Current GPS Word Study program (Hampton Brown) may not consistently support students’ development of an automatic use of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills, by the end of Grade 2. Data: Comprehensive Literacy Benchmark Data- See Above (Cause #2) and Attached Analysis of GPS Kindergarten Task Data – See Attached Kindergarten: By the end of Kindergarten, 100% of students have mastered “beginning and “ending” sounds; By February of Kindergarten, 95% of students can identify lowercase letters; 97% can identify uppercase letters; By the end of Kindergarten, 100% of students can identify ending sounds
What: Review Greenwich Public Schools’ word study program to determine effectiveness. Do students read fluently by the end of second grade so the focus shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”? Who: Program Coordinators for LA, Media/Technology, ELL, Special Ed; Elementary Principals, Literacy Specialists/Coaches, District Coaches and Teachers How implemented: Review of GPS core K-2 Word Study program and early reading intervention programs
Result Measure: Program recommendations will be made based on: 1. Results identified in the Program Review for Grade One: Results for students meeting alignment between our “goal” on the grade one Nonsense Word Assessment will increase yearly by 2 percentage current word study points (2012 baseline= 82%, 2013= 84%, program (Hampton 2014= 86%; 2015= 88%); Results for students Brown) and the Common meeting goal on the grade one Fluency Core State Standards. Assessment will increase yearly by 5 percentage points (2012 baseline= 62%, 2013= 68%, 2. An analysis of pre-post 2014= 73%, 2015= 78%). test Fluency and Nonsense Word Assessment data to Grade Two: Results for students meeting goal compare growth between a on the grade two Nonsense Word Assessment sample of Words Their will increase yearly by 5 percentage points (2012 baseline= 67%, 2013= 72%, 2014= 77%, Way pilot and non-pilot 2015= 82%). classrooms. Results for students meeting goal on the grade two Fluency Assessment will increase yearly by 5 percentage points (2012 baseline= 56%, 2013= 61%, 2014= 66%, 2015= 71%).
Common Core Foundational Skills Expectations
1. Review and calibrate existing phonics, spelling and word recognition student assessment data; create/collect additional pre/post assessments if needed (2012-13). 2. Review Hampton Brown curriculum for alignment and to increase rigor (winter 2012-13). 3. Continue to provide Academy of OrtonGillingham training to cohorts of teachers and specialists (2012-15). 4. Continue to pilot/purchase Words Their Way word study materials and research/monitor the impact on student learning (201213). 5. Research feasibility of reinstituting a Reading Recovery program in Greenwich through the I3Scaling Up Federal grant (Summer 2012); train and/or hire Reading Recovery specialists based on available funds. 6. Schools will provide structures for consistent Instructional Data Teams (with literacy specialist support) to analyze phonics, spelling and word recognition student assessment data (2012-13). 7. Integrate technology and appropriate tools in phonics, spelling and word recognition instruction (2012-14).
(http://www.corestandards.org/the‐ standards/english‐language‐arts‐standards/reading‐ foundational‐skills/introduction/)
Page 23
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Causes
Solutions
Strategies*
Cause #4:
What: Screen Kindergarten students before October 1st to differentiate instruction or to provide interventions for students whom require additional instruction. Additionally, revised benchmark targets will support more rigorous instruction for all learners.
1. Review and revise the benchmark targets for letter name and sound assessments (Fall 2012). 2. Every child is administered the letter name and sound assessment before October 1st and the data is entered into RtI Studio (fall 2012). 3. Review Hampton Brown Kindergarten curriculum for alignment and to increase rigor (winter, 2012-13). 4. Designate consistent Instructional Data Team meetings (with literacy specialist support) to collaboratively analyze Letter Name and Sound Assessment data (schoolbased, 2012-13). 5. Continue to provide Academy of OrtonGillingham training to cohorts of teachers and specialists (2012-15). 6. Pilot Words their Way in particular Kindergarten and grade 3 sections; collect spring 2013 developmental spelling data. 7. Integrate technology and appropriate tools in letter name and sound instruction (2012-14). 8. Provide professional learning for Kindergarten teachers in the area of Emergent Reading (E. Sulzby)
Current preschool and Kindergarten curricula may not consistently prepare Kindergarten students to know enough letter names and sounds by the end of October to access phonics skills. Benchmark targets for letter name and sounds assessments may not be rigorous enough. Data: GPS Comprehensive Literacy Benchmark Data-See Above (Cause #2) and Attached Analysis and evaluation team from the analysis of student intervention plans (available in RtI Studio) Common Core Foundational Skills Expectations (http://www.corestandards.org/the‐ standards/english‐language‐arts‐standards/reading‐ foundational‐skills/introduction/)
Who: Program Coordinators for LA, Media/Technology, ELL, Special Ed; Elementary Principals, Literacy Specialists/Coaches, District Coaches and Teachers How implemented: Review current assessment data, provide professional learning and research additional early intervention programs Results Measure: October 1st Letter Name and Beginning Sound Assessment baseline data will be collected and entered into RtI Studio by October 15, 2012; growth targets will be set. Students are not consistently meeting district benchmark targets, after differentiated instruction, will be placed on intervention plans accordingly (see RtI Studio).
Page 24
Diagnostic Memorandum Reading Causes
Solutions
Strategies*
Cause #5: Some pre-school students may not receive sufficient instructional support that is aligned to academic standards within Connecticut’s Preschool Frameworks.
What: Strengthen the partnership between local preschools and the Greenwich Public Schools to support implementation of Connecticut Pre-School Frameworks.
Data: Comprehensive Literacy Benchmark Data; Kindergarten Tasks and Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessments- See Above (Causes #2 and #3) and Attached
Who: Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Program Coordinators for Pre-School, Rdg/LA, Media/Technology, ELL, Director of Special Education, Special Ed; Elementary Principals, Literacy Specialists/Coaches, District Coaches and Teachers.
1. Conduct a mini-research study to determine potential risk factors for pre-school age learners that may contribute to poor performance on the 3rd grade CMT4 (Basic and Below Basic Achievement Levels). 2. Continue and expand the collaborative relationship between public and private preschools (curriculum resources, professional development, 2013-15). 3. Determine if we need additional early literacy assessments (fall 2012). 4. Create a GPS Summer “Transition Program” for students identified early with potential support needs or who have no pre-school experience.
CT PreK Standards to CCSS http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/ccss/prek_ela_c rosswalk.pdf
How implemented: Coordinate and align preschool and Kindergarten expectations, provide professional learning. Results Measure: Student performance on October GPS Kindergarten Screening Assessments/Tasks (Baseline to be collected: 10/2012).
*Each strategy has a detailed action plan that includes specific timelines; costs; person(s) responsible.
Page 25
Greenwich Public Schools, BOE Grade Three Reading Goal Action Plan 2012‐13
Goal: The percentage of Grade 3 students at Goal/Mastery in CMT Reading will be 83% by 2015.
Cause #1: Data teams need more support on how to effectively utilize data to differentiate/ focus instruction (whole group, small group, interventions).
Solution #1: Educate and support teachers (Instructional Data Teams) in the effective use and monitoring of data to differentiate/ focus instruction for students.
Result Measure: In the spring of 2013, 80% of Greenwich Public School Elementary Instructional Data Teams (IDT) will meet Standard expectations on the Documenting the Student Achievement Issue portion of GPS’ IDT Rubric (2014= 85%; 2015= 95%). Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress‐ Responsible Monitoring 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Provide professional learning to enhance assessment practices (administration, analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources; school‐based) fall 2012 NA NA NA SDTs, GDDT Team SDT Data Collection Elementary School Data Teams Sheet for the (SDTs) will collect baseline data to Documenting the measure implementation of Student Standards identified on the Achievement Issue Documenting the Student portion of GPS’ IDT Achievement Issue portion of GPS’ Rubric Instructional Data Team Rubric. Aggregated data will be shared with the Greenwich District Data Team (GDDT). fall 2012‐13 NA NA NA District trained EZ Traxx Attendance Professional learning on the Leadership “Data‐Wise” group, List and Evaluations analysis of multiple data sources Mtgs./ Sped/RtI Coaches,
Page 26
to focus instruction will be provided for administrators.
Monday Principal Meeting (date TBD)
Professional learning will be provided for teachers to support the analysis of multiple data sources to focus instruction and the data team process.
2012‐13 Faculty/ School Improvement Plan meetings
$2,000 149‐ 1 day (Haskins/ Literacy How)
$4,000 149‐ 2 days
TBD
Special Projects Manager, CIPL, Deputy Supt., ELA & Math Coordinators Elementary Principals, ELA Coordinator, RTI/Sped Coaches, Literacy Department
EZ Traxx Attendance List and Evaluations
Provide targeted professional learning on the use of running records to adjust instruction for students. 2012‐13 PL $4,500 $8,000 TBD ELA Coordinator, EZ Traxx Attendance Professional learning to support full & ½ days 149 149 CIPL, Elementary List and Evaluations administration and analysis of 5*$900 Approx. (reference Principals, running records and Fountas & (½ day rate) 2012‐13 ELA classroom teachers Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (F&P) will be provided for PL Calendar for specifics) all teachers (basic training was provided in 2010‐11 to all K‐5 teachers). winter 2013, $3,300 $2,200 TBD Elementary Results from the Elementary Instructional Data 2014 Sub Line Sub Line Principals, sample will have Teams (IDTs) will double‐score a Teachers, Literacy 90% Inter‐rater 3 days 2days sample of F&P assessments to Department, IDTs reliability ($100)*11 ($100)*11 calibrate expectations. Instructional Data Teams (IDTs) will collaborate to plan small group instruction and the development of intervention plans for students utilizing multiple sources of data (school‐based). 2012‐15 NA NA NA Elementary Artifacts: small IDTs will focus their work on the Principals, IDTs group planning collaborative analysis of data to sheets and meeting inform instruction and develop agendas intervention plans (as needed).
Page 27
$15,000 TBD CIPL, Elementary EZ Traxx Attendance $15,000 149 Principals, IDTs List and Evaluation 149 M. Wasta M. Wasta 10 days * 10 days * $1,500 (3 $1,500 (3 schools/day) schools/day) Require teachers to identify the area of reading concern(s) in RtI Studio (comprehension, accuracy, fluency) based on the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment (F&P). NA NA NA Director of Data is entered into During the RtI Studio “data entry” winter 2012 Technology, ELA RtI Studio process, teachers will identify the Coordinator, area of reading (comprehension, Special Project accuracy, fluency) that prohibited Manager, the student from attainment of classroom teachers the benchmark target. Explore, identify and implement additional technology tools to collect and analyze student data. 2012‐15 NA Per Tech Plan Per Tech Plan Dir. of Technology, Technology Action The district will continue to (devices/ (devices/ Coordinator Media Plan‐ e.g. platforms explore alternate technologies and laptops, apps, laptops, apps, /Technology, for data collection methods for collecting and subscription to subscription to Special Project and/or progress analyzing student data (e.g. iPad, online online Manager monitoring apps, Google Forms, Clickers, assessments) assessments) Socrative, online benchmark assessments). Professional learning will be provided to support the Instructional Data Team process
2012‐14
Page 28
Cause #2: Small group instruction is not consistent across the district (as determined by GPS Comprehensive Literacy Performance Standards). Solution #2: Improve/enhance capacity of K‐3 teachers to deliver small group instruction with fidelity.
Result Measure: The percentage of K‐3 teachers who meet the Greenwich Public School Performance Standards for Small Group Instruction will be 80% by 2013, 90% by 2014 and 95% by 2015. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Provide professional learning on implementing Small Group Instruction with fidelity (guided reading and strategy groups). 2012‐13 PL $1,800 (full $1,900 (full TBD ELA Coordinator, EZ Traxx Attendance Professional learning to support full & ½ days day) day) CIPL, Elementary List and Evaluations small group instruction‐ guided (reference Principals reading & strategy groups 2012‐13 ELA 2 full‐days; 2 full‐days; (comprehension & PL Calendar 5 ½ days 5 ½ days fluency/accuracy)‐ will be for specifics) provided for K‐2 teachers.
Literacy Coaches will provide professional learning via in‐class coaching to teachers who require support. 2012‐2013 NA NA NA ELA Coordinator Coaches will conduct coaching and Literacy cycles to support Greenwich Public Coaches School Performance Standards for Small Group Instruction
The CIPL Assistant Superintendent, fall/winter the Math and the ELA Coordinator 2012‐13 will provide support for coaches to implement coaching cycles focused on the transfer of performance standards for small
NA
NA
NA
ELA and Math Coordinator
Pre‐post Google Form Coaching Cycle Inventories based on the “Indicators for Success” documents Agendas/minutes from alternate Friday coaching meetings
Page 29
Cause #2: Small group instruction is not consistent across the district (as determined by GPS Comprehensive Literacy Performance Standards). Solution #2: Improve/enhance capacity of K‐3 teachers to deliver small group instruction with fidelity. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure: The percentage of K‐3 teachers who meet the Greenwich Public School Performance Standards for Small Group Instruction will be 80% by 2013, 90% by 2014 and 95% by 2015. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15
group instruction (guided reading & strategy groups). Students will receive targeted small group instruction. 2012‐13 NA NA NA Elementary CIPL and Learning Administrators will utilize GPS Principals, Walks, informal and Performance Standard for Small classroom teachers formal observational Group Instruction to support feedback implementation of guided reading and strategy groups. 2012‐15 NA NA NA Elementary Small group planning Teachers will analyze student Principals sheets, conferring work, benchmark assessments and systems and IDT conferring notes to plan and meeting agendas implement small group instruction for all learners. Integrate technology and appropriate tools in small group instruction and learning centers (including digital and technology tools). 2013‐15 $1,200 – $ Per Media/Technology List of GPS approved $ Per Media/Technology Coordinator for pilot Technology Technology and ELA media/technology will work with literacy specialists only Plan – 5 Coordinator digital tools, resources Plan – 5 and coaches to identify and devices/ and apps. devices/ purchase appropriate applications laptops per laptops per and/or tools to support literacy classroom & classroom & instruction and learning centers. supporting supporting apps apps
Page 30
Cause #2: Small group instruction is not consistent across the district (as determined by GPS Comprehensive Literacy Performance Standards). Solution #2: Improve/enhance capacity of K‐3 teachers to deliver small group instruction with fidelity. Strategies
Timeline
Research and purchased proven intervention‐based technology tools to provide immediate feedback (accelerated learning programs).
2012‐14
Result Measure: The percentage of K‐3 teachers who meet the Greenwich Public School Performance Standards for Small Group Instruction will be 80% by 2013, 90% by 2014 and 95% by 2015. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Digital Pilot 3 Digital CIPL, List of GPS approved Learning Classrooms Learning Media/Technology media/technology Centers in @ NL: Centers in and ELA digital tools, resources $6,000 K‐2 per Tech K‐2 per Tech Coordinators and apps. Plan ($34, ($25 apps./ Plan 000/ lease student); (Devices = and $34, 000/ $50/device lease and $7,500 (15 $25/device for apps devices) for apps
Page 31
Cause #3: The current GPS Word Study program (Hampton Brown) may not consistently support students’ development of an automatic use of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills, by the end of Grade 2. Result Measure: Program recommendations will be made based on: 1. Results identified in the Program Review for alignment between our current word study program (Hampton Brown) and the Common Core State Standards. 2. An analysis of pre‐post test Fluency and Nonsense Word Assessment data to compare growth between a sample of Words Their Way pilot and non‐pilot classrooms. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress‐monitor Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Review and calibrate existing phonics, spelling and word recognition student assessment data; create/collect additional pre/post assessments if needed. NA NA NA ELA Post‐review The literacy department will review the fall‐ October 2012 Coordinator conclusions on the full scope of literacy assessments to (department status of GPS word determine if appropriate data is meeting) study assessments currently being collected to monitor (strengths/ gaps) student learning process in the areas of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills. winter/spring TBD TBD TBD ELA Resources identified Based on the conclusions from the 2012 Coordinator address the gaps review, the literacy department may identified in the identify/ purchase additional conclusions of the assessment resources as needed. Review. Results from the data NA NA NA ELA winter 2012 The literacy department and district review Coordinator leadership will review available ‐Collect assessment data to determine the Developmental effectiveness of the Hampton Brown Solution #3: Review Greenwich Public Schools’ word study program to determine effectiveness. Do students read fluently by the end of second grade so that the focus shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”?
Page 32
Cause #3: The current GPS Word Study program (Hampton Brown) may not consistently support students’ development of an automatic use of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills, by the end of Grade 2. Solution #3: Review Greenwich Public Schools’ word study program to determine effectiveness. Do students read fluently by the end of second grade so that the focus shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”?
Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure: Program recommendations will be made based on: 1. Results identified in the Program Review for alignment between our current word study program (Hampton Brown) and the Common Core State Standards. 2. An analysis of pre‐post test Fluency and Nonsense Word Assessment data to compare growth between a sample of Words Their Way pilot and non‐pilot classrooms. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress‐monitor Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15
portion of GPS’ word study program; Spelling additional assessments may be collected Assessment as needed data in RtI Studio (spring 2013) ‐Sight Word Assessments (TBD) Review Hampton Brown curriculum for alignment to Common Core State Standards and to increase rigor. fall/winter 2012 NA NA NA A small committee will be formed to conduct a mini‐review of the Hampton Brown curriculum materials to determine alignment to new CCSS expectations. Continue to provide Academy of Orton‐Gillingham training to cohorts of teachers and specialists. $7,500 TBD TBD The district will train a 3rd cohort of teachers 2012‐15 in the Orton‐Gillingham methodology (Classroom Teacher: Gr. 1‐2).
Subs (25 staff) 3 days
ELA Coordinator
Formed committee and meeting minutes
ELA & Sped Coordinator
Roster of GPS’ Academy of Orton‐ Gillingham – Cohort #3
Page 33
Cause #3: The current GPS Word Study program (Hampton Brown) may not consistently support students’ development of an automatic use of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills, by the end of Grade 2. Result Measure: Program recommendations will be made based on: 1. Results identified in the Program Review for alignment between our current word study program (Hampton Brown) and the Common Core State Standards. 2. An analysis of pre‐post test Fluency and Nonsense Word Assessment data to compare growth between a sample of Words Their Way pilot and non‐pilot classrooms. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress‐monitor Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 $5,000 Materials Continue to pilot/purchase Words Their Way word study materials and research/monitor the impact on student learning. TBD‐ based TBD ELA Pilot Implementation 2012‐15 $12,000 ‐ The district will expand pilot on Coordinator Documents (by 310 implementation of Words Their Way and conclusions: school/by classroom) continue professional learning to $3,600 ‐149 $12,000 support this research‐ based instruction. Developmental Stage Assessment (2014) Research feasibility of reinstituting a Reading Recovery program in Greenwich through the I3 –Scaling Up Federal Grant (Summer 2012); train and/or hire reading recovery specialists based on available funds. fall NA NA NA ELA Artifacts: research Contact Mary Anne Doyle at UConn’s Coordinator and communication NEAG School to determine 3‐year costs with UConn‐ Mary for re‐instating a Reading Recovery Anne Doyle program in Greenwich Public Schools through the i3‐Scaling Up Grant. Year 2: TBD ELA EZTraxx Based on availability of the i3‐Scaling Up spring/ summer Year 1: 2013 $19,500 Coordinator $4,500 Grant and supplemental district funds, approx. we will begin training staff. Solution #3: Review Greenwich Public Schools’ word study program to determine effectiveness. Do students read fluently by the end of second grade so that the focus shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”?
Page 34
Cause #3: The current GPS Word Study program (Hampton Brown) may not consistently support students’ development of an automatic use of phonics, spelling and word recognition skills, by the end of Grade 2. Result Measure: Program recommendations will be made based on: 1. Results identified in the Program Review for alignment between our current word study program (Hampton Brown) and the Common Core State Standards. 2. An analysis of pre‐post test Fluency and Nonsense Word Assessment data to compare growth between a sample of Words Their Way pilot and non‐pilot classrooms. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress‐monitor Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 approx. $1,500/ $6,500/ teacher*3 teacher *3 Schools will provide structures for consistent Instructional Data Team (IDT) meetings (with literacy specialist support) to analyze phonics, spelling and word recognition student assessment data. 2012‐15 NA NA NA Elementary IDT Minutes Literacy specialists will meet with IDT Principals teams to analyze multiple data sources (phonics, spelling and word recognition) to inform instruction. Integrate technology and appropriate tools in phonics, spelling and word recognition instruction. Same as Same as 2012‐15 Pilot 3 ELA and List of approved apps Identified classrooms will begin to above – per above – per Classrooms Media/ and hardware integrate literacy centers utilizing a Tech Plan – Tech Plan – @ NL: Technology range of technology tools and 5 devices/ 5 devices/ $6,000 Coordinators applications to support phonics, spelling laptops per laptops per ($25 apps./ and word recognition instruction. classroom & classroom & student); supporting supporting Solution #3: Review Greenwich Public Schools’ word study program to determine effectiveness. Do students read fluently by the end of second grade so that the focus shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”?
$7,500 (15 devices)
apps
apps
Page 35
Cause #4: Current preschool and Kindergarten curricula may not consistently prepare Kindergarten students to know enough letter names and sounds by the end of October to access phonics skills. Results Measure: October 1st Letter Name and Beginning Sound Solution #4: Screen Kindergarten students before October 1st to assessment baseline data will be collect and entered into RtI Studio differentiate instruction or to provide interventions for students by October 15, 2012; growth targets will be set. whom require additional instruction. Additionally, revised benchmark targets will support more rigorous instruction for all learners. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Review and revise the benchmark targets for Letter Name and Sound Assessments. NA NA Literacy Department The literacy department will meet early fall 2012 NA Minutes; Revised to review benchmark targets for Benchmark targets & K‐ Kindergarten Letter Name and 5 Comprehensive Sound Assessments and adjust to Literacy Document increase rigor expectations. st Every child is administered the Letter Name and Sound Assessments before October 1 and the data is entered into RtI Studio. NA NA NA RtI Studio Elementary building principals will fall 2012, 2013, 2014 work with all Kindergarten teachers to be sure letter and sound assessments are
Page 36
Cause #4: Current preschool and Kindergarten curricula may not consistently prepare Kindergarten students to know enough letter names and sounds by the end of October to access phonics skills. Results Measure: October 1st Letter Name and Beginning Sound Solution #4: Screen Kindergarten students before October 1st to assessment baseline data will be collect and entered into RtI Studio differentiate instruction or to provide interventions for students by October 15, 2012; growth targets will be set. whom require additional instruction. Additionally, revised benchmark targets will support more rigorous instruction for all learners. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 administered to all students by October 1st. Review Hampton Brown Kindergarten curriculum for alignment and to increase rigor. NA NA NA Committee Meetings A small committee will be formed fall 2012 Agendas to review Hampton Brown Kindergarten program materials to determine alignment to new Common Core State Standard expectations. Designate Instructional Data Team meetings (with literacy specialist support) to collaboratively analyze Letter Name and Sound Assessment data (school‐based) Fall 2012, NA NA NA IDT Minutes Kindergarten Instructional Data 2013, 2014 Teams (IDTs) will collaborate with literacy specialists to analyze Kindergarten screening data to determine focus for instruction/ intervention. Continue to provide Academy of Orton‐Gillingham training to cohorts of teachers and specialists. $7,500 Subs. $7,500 Subs. TBD ELA & Sped EZ Traxx Attendance 2012‐15 The district will train a 3rd cohort (25 staff) (25 staff) Coordinator List and Evaluations of teachers in the Orton‐ $5,000
$5,000
Page 37
Cause #4: Current preschool and Kindergarten curricula may not consistently prepare Kindergarten students to know enough letter names and sounds by the end of October to access phonics skills. Results Measure: October 1st Letter Name and Beginning Sound Solution #4: Screen Kindergarten students before October 1st to assessment baseline data will be collect and entered into RtI Studio differentiate instruction or to provide interventions for students by October 15, 2012; growth targets will be set. whom require additional instruction. Additionally, revised benchmark targets will support more rigorous instruction for all learners. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 310 310 Gillingham methodology (Classroom Teacher: Gr. 1‐2). Pilot Words their Way in particular Kindergarten and grade 3 sections; collect spring 2013 developmental spelling data. 2012‐13 $18,000 $15,000 TBD ELA Developmental Spelling Pilot classrooms will continue to 310 310 Coordinator Assessment Data implement Words Their Way (approx) Integrate technology and appropriate tools in letter name and sound instruction. Same as Same as NA Media/ List of digital resources Identified classrooms will begin to 2012‐15 above – per above – per Technology and tools integrate literacy centers utilizing Tech Plan – 5 Tech Plan – and ELA a range of technology tools and devices/ 5 devices/ Coordinators applications to support letter laptops per laptops per name and sound instruction. classroom & classroom & supporting apps
supporting apps
Provide professional learning for Kindergarten teachers in the area of Emergent Reading (E. Sulzby). Fall $1,800 TBD NA Kindergarten teachers will have (10/24/12) & 149 the opportunity to participate in a 2 ½ days Spring 3‐hour workshop on Emergent $900*2 (5/15/13) Reading.
ELA Coordinator
EZ Traxx Attendance List and Evaluations
Page 38
Cause #5: Some pre‐school students may not receive sufficient instructional support that is aligned to academic standards within Connecticut’s Performance Assessment Framework. Solution #5: Strengthen the partnership between local preschools and Results Measure: Student performance on October GPS Kindergarten Screening Assessments/Tasks (Baseline data to be collected: 10/2012) the Greenwich Public Schools to support implementation of Connecticut’s Pre‐School Frameworks. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Conduct a mini‐research study to determine potential risk factors for pre‐school age learners that may contribute to poor performance on the 3rd grade CMT4 (Basic and Below Basic Achievement Levels). fall 2012 NA NA NA Special Project Conclusions of mini‐ District administrators will conduct a Manager, research study post‐hoc, mini‐research study to Director of Pupil (identified risk analyze the 2012 CMT4 data (Below Services, ELA factors) Basic and Basic Achievement levels) to Coordinator determine potential risk factors (e.g. no pre‐K experience, free/reduced lunch, ELL) for students who attended pre‐school in 2007‐2008. Continue and expand the collaborative relationship between public and private preschools (via curriculum sharing & professional development). $3,600 NA PreK EZ Traxx Attendance District administrators will work with spring 2013 $3,600 149 149 Coordinator, List and Evaluations local pre‐school Directors to provide ELA Coordinator professional learning to a group of “teacher leaders” to Turn Key to additional staff members (e.g. Literacy How, emergent reading, oral language). Determine if we need additional early literacy assessments NA NA ELA Coordinator Additional The ELA department will review early winter 2012 NA assessments as literacy assessments to determine if needed additional assessments are required to monitor student progress.
Page 39
Cause #5: Some pre‐school students may not receive sufficient instructional support that is aligned to academic standards within Connecticut’s Performance Assessment Framework. Solution #5: Strengthen the partnership between local preschools and Results Measure: Student performance on October GPS Kindergarten Screening Assessments/Tasks (Baseline data to be collected: 10/2012) the Greenwich Public Schools to support implementation of Connecticut’s Pre‐School Frameworks. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 Create a Greenwich Public School Summer “Kindergarten Transition Program” for students identified early with potential support needs or for students with no pre‐school experience. NA Summer School List of students who spring 2013 NA $7,000 Conduct a mini‐screening on pre‐ Coordinator, would benefit from (2 days school students to identify a pool of Deputy Supt., early support. *$100*35 K students for which we can provide Elementary sections) additional summer support prior to Principals their Kindergarten year. NA $12,000 TBD GPS Summer School summer Offer a Kindergarten Transition ‐2 teachers enrollment 2013 Program for students with no pre‐ $15,000 school experience or for students ‐6 para‐ whose mini‐screening results indicate professionals a need for early support.
Page 40
Diagnostic Memorandum Math Goal:
The percentage of 8th grade students successfully passing Algebra I will be 75% by 2015 to be measured by standardized test and GPS district math test (BOE adopted June 2012).
Problem: • The Common Core mathematics standards build upon fundamentals acquired in the elementary grades to focus on geometry, algebra, probability and statistics in middle school. The high school standards require students to apply mathematical ways of thinking to real-world issues and challenges and emphasize the use of mathematical modeling. • Successful completion of Algebra I by the end of eighth grade is a prerequisite for accessing the advanced mathematics program at Greenwich High School. • The percentage of Greenwich students enrolled in Algebra I or Geometry at the beginning of eighth grade is higher than the DRG B average and lower than the DRG A average: Greenwich Public Schools % Students Enrolled in Algebra I or Higher by October 1st Grades 8 2007 - 2011 100 90 80 70 60
Greenwich DRG A DRG B
50 40 30 20 10 0
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Problem (con’t): 1 11/2/12 bmb
Page 41
Diagnostic Memorandum Math
Problem (con’t): • In 2010-2011, only two of the twenty-seven districts in DRG A and DRG B exceeded 75% of students enrolled in Algebra I or Geometry at the beginning of eighth grade - Westport at 81.0% and Granby at 83.8%. Two other districts, Easton and Farmington, exceeded 70%. • Scoring at the advanced level on the fifth grade mathematics CMT has been strongly correlated with successful completion of Algebra I by the end of eighth grade. In 2012, 55% of fifth graders scored at the advanced level on CMT mathematics. 56% of the students entering sixth grade in 2012-2013 are placed in a course sequence that would lead to the successful completion of Algebra I. This is the cohort of students who will be eighth graders in 2015. Greenwich Public Schools Students Scoring at Advanced on CMT Math vs Completing Algebra I by 8th Grade 100%
Board Goal 75% by 2015
90% 80% 70% 60% 48%
50% 40%
40%
44%
49%
49%
53%
55% 57%
53%
52%
53%
30% 20% 10% 0% 2009
2010
2011
Scoring at Advanced (Gr 5)
2012
2013
2014
2015
Completing Algebra 1 (Gr 8)
Challenges: 1. Current status of the 2014-2015 8th Grade cohort (current 6th grade). Current enrollment in 6th Grade Math at all levels is 651 students. Current enrollment in courses that would lead to successful completion of Algebra I (or higher) by the end of 8th grade (Math 6A or Pre-Algebra) is 361 students (55%). In Math 6, there are currently 36 students (5%) that met the district’s CMT scaled score criteria (290+) for placement into 6A. These students likely did not meet the other criteria (teacher recommendation based on class performance, 70% or higher on district placement exam). Overall, the current percentage of students who would be eligible to complete Algebra I (or higher) by the end of 8th grade is 60% at most. This percentage varies greatly from school to school (EMS – 72%, CMS – 53%, WMS – 38%). – (see attached) 11/2/12 bmb
Page 42
Diagnostic Memorandum Math
Challenges (con’t): 2. Current status of students enrolled in Algebra I in 8th grade compared to DRG A and DRG B districts. As part of the ED165 data filed with the state of Connecticut, districts self-report the number of 8th grade students enrolled in Algebra I or Geometry by October 1st. In 2010-2011, Greenwich had 52.5% of 8th graders enrolled in one of these two courses compared to the DRG A average of 58.4% and the DRG B average of 47%. When compared to other area districts, Greenwich outperformed New Canaan (50.2%), Fairfield (44.9%), and West Hartford (51.1%) and was close to the average of Ridgefield (55.6%) and Wilton (53.8%). 3. The number of students who successfully complete advanced mathematics at the high school level has increased more than five-fold since 1999 without the requirement of Algebra I at 8th Grade. In looking at data from 1999 to the present, the number of students successfully completing advanced mathematics courses at Greenwich High School has increased from 120 in 1999 to 801 in 2012. This has been achieved without requiring Algebra I as a “gateway” at the 8th grade level. – (see attached) 4. Research has shown that Algebra I at 8th grade is not an appropriate placement for large numbers of students. A number of studies have been done regarding the placement of students in Algebra I at the 8th grade level. One study has shown that students inappropriately placed in Algebra I not only struggle, but also bring down the level of rigor for the students who are appropriately placed in the class. (Robelen, 2012). A large study conducted by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2008 concluded that students at both ends of the spectrum are adversely affected by “misplaced” students (p. 13; Loveless, 2008). Another study has shown that moderately math-proficient students placed in Algebra I in 8th grade performed significantly worse on end-of-year state math tests, and lower-performing students placed in Algebra I were significantly less likely to take more advanced math courses later on (Sparks, 2012).
11/2/12 bmb
Page 43
Diagnostic Memorandum Math
Challenges (con’t): 5. Operationalizing this Stretch Goal will have to be managed carefully with students, staff and parents. The pursuit of this stretch goal requires careful communications and clear expectations. Many students are ready for Algebra in 8th grade; we already know that 57% of 8th graders in 20112012 have successfully completed the course before entering high school. However, many students will not be academically prepared or developmentally ready for Algebra in middle school, particularly in the next few years. It will take a few years to implement a revised curriculum that will prepare more students to take Algebra in middle school, beginning in the elementary school years. Also, 8th grade Algebra will not be the best path for some students. A student’s placement in 8th grade Algebra will be carefully considered, and will be based on the individual student’s readiness. We do not want to place a student in a course for which they are not academically or developmentally ready to succeed, as this can have negative effects on both student performance and attitudes toward learning mathematics (LeGeros, 2012).
Causes Cause #1: Students affected by this goal have already been placed in 6th grade math using district criteria (CMT scores, placement exam scores, class performance). Data: 6th Grade Course Placement: Current placement is approximately 53% in this cohort.
Solutions
Strategies*
What: Develop and implement a plan for 1. Conduct gap analysis supplemental instruction to prepare between curriculum in selected students currently placed in Math Math 6 and Math 6A th 6 to move to Pre-Algebra in 7 grade. (2012-2013) 2. Identify students targeted for supplemental Who: Program Coordinators for Math and Media/Tech, MS Math Learning instruction (2012-2013) Facilitators, Instructional Coach, Middle 3. Identify supplemental School Principals materials (possibly online) to support How Implemented: Curriculum analysis, instruction (2012-2013) Supplemental instruction 4. Provide instructional coaching to support Results Measure: The number of teachers in differentiated math instruction (2012students enrolled in Pre-Algebra in 7th grade will increase from 53% in 20122015) 2013 to 59% in 2013-2014. 5. Offer Summer Bridge to Pre-Algebra course to targeted students not attaining Pre-Algebra placement by the end of the school year (Summer 2013)
11/2/12 bmb
Page 44
Diagnostic Memorandum Math
Causes Cause #2: Current K-8 math curriculum/ program materials do not contain the amount of rigorous problem solving necessary to promote the algebraic thinking skills required to be successful in Algebra I at 8th grade.
Solutions
Strategies*
1. Conduct a full review of the GPS math curriculum and related materials (2012-2013) 2. Implement aligned Who: Program Coordinators for Math curriculum with and Media/Tech, Instructional Coaches, supporting materials Middle School Math Learning (2013-2014) Facilitators, K-12 Vertical Math Team, 3. Provide professional Curriculum Study Committee learning for teachers surrounding CCSS How Implemented: Curriculum review, (Standards for Identification/purchase of resources; Mathematical Practice), Professional learning rigorous instruction (Performance Tasks, Data: Results Measure: The number of Math Workshop, Common Core students performing at the Advanced level Accountable Talk) (2012State Standards for on the CMT/SBAC at Grade 5 will 2013) Mathematics increase from 53% in 2011-2012 to 65% 4. Provide professional (http://www. in 2014-2015. learning for teachers in Corestandards.org/ new program materials assets/CCSSI_Math (2013-2014) %20Standards.pdf)
Causes Cause #3: Administrators, teachers and students have not had sufficient experience with the types of cognitively demanding tasks that are expected to be used in the Common Core/SBAC assessments.
What: Provide a rigorous mathematics curriculum with materials to support and promote problem solving and algebraic thinking skills
Solutions What: Increase the cognitive demand of student mathematical performance tasks to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations, and provide professional learning for administrators and teachers to support student learning. Who: Program Coordinators for Math and Media/Tech, Instructional Coaches, Middle School Math Learning Facilitators, K-12 Vertical Math Team, Curriculum Study Committee
Strategies* 1. Collect baseline data on the level of rigor in mathematical tasks (Fall 2012) 2. Identify and collect available Performance Task exemplars and resources (e.g. websites, published materials). (2012-2014) 3. Provide professional learning for all district administrators and teachers on frameworks to increase instructional rigor (2012-2014)
11/2/12 bmb
Page 45
Diagnostic Memorandum Math
Data: Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (http://www. Corestandards.org/ assets/CCSSI_Math %20Standards.pdf) (Additional data to support this cause will be collected as part of the Math Action Plan)
How Implemented: Identification/purchase of exemplars/resources; Professional learning
4. Integrate effective and research-based digital tools and resources to support rigorous mathematical tasks and student engagement (2013-2015)
*Each strategy has a detailed action plan that includes specific timelines, costs, person(s) responsible.
11/2/12 bmb
Page 46
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
th
Goal: The percentage of 8 grade students successfully passing Algebra I will be 75% by 2015 to be measured by standardized test and GPS district math test.
Cause #1: Students in the cohort affected by this goal have already been placed in 6th grade math using district placement criteria (CMT Scores, Placement Exam, Class Performance). The current placement numbers have approximately 53% of students on the pathway to Algebra I or higher by 8th grade.
Solution #1: Develop and implement a plan for supplemental instruction to Result Measure #1: The number of students eligible to enter Pre-‐Algebra in th prepare selected students currently placed in Math 6 to move to Pre-‐Algebra 7 grade will increase from 53% in 2012-‐2013 to 59% in 2013-‐2014. th in 7 Grade. Strategies Timeline Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15 1. Conduct gap analysis between curriculum in Math 6 and Math 6A. September 19, NA NA NA Assistant Supt • Coordinator will work with Middle • Meeting minutes for Curriculum, School Math Learning Facilitators and 2012 (Early • Gap Analysis th Release) Instruction and 6 grade teachers to determine Document Professional prerequisite skills necessary for Pre-‐ Learning (CIPL); Algebra that are not taught in Math 6. Program Coordinator for Math NA NA NA CIPL; Program • Coordinator will review “gap analysis” October 17, • Meeting Minutes th 2012 Coordinator for document with 6 Grade Math Math teachers at department meetings in October. 2. Identify students targeted for supplemental instruction. th NA NA NA CIPL; Program • Based on district criteria for 6 grade September • List of Students with 2012 Coordinator for math placement, Coordinator will CMT Scores and Math identify students who were close to Placement Exam the CMT and placement exam cutoffs Scores to potentially receive targeted supplemental instruction in skills identified in gap analysis.
11/7/12 bmb
Page 47
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
th NA NA Coordinator will consult with 6 grade Fall 2012 math teachers to review list of students (generated above) at the end of the first academic quarter (marking period) to determine if student class work and grades supports candidacy for supplemental instruction. 3. Identify supplemental materials to support instruction. $10,000 TBD • Identify/purchase available resources Fall 2012 310, 307 (possibly online) to support math instruction in skills identified in gap analysis. 4. Provide instructional coaching support to teachers in differentiated Math instruction. 2012-‐2013 NA TBD • Secondary instructional coach will th provide support to 6 grade math teachers in differentiation as part of regularly scheduled coaching cycles.
•
•
Hire an instructional coach to provide support to middle school math teachers in differentiation and rigorous instruction
2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015
NA
TBD
NA
Program Coordinator for th Math; 6 Grade Math Teachers
•
Revised list of students targeted to receive supplemental instruction.
TBD
CIPL; Program Coordinators for Math, Media/ Tech
• • •
Materials Inventory Purchase Orders Distribution List
TBD
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math; Secondary Instructional Coach CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
•
Coaching cycle schedule Coaching action plan
Recurring Cost
•
• • • • •
5. Offer Summer Bridge to Pre-‐Algebra Course to Selected Students who do not attain placement in Pre-‐Algebra for Grade 7. NA $12,000 TBD CIPL; Program • Provide tuition free attendance at the Summer 2013 (one teacher) Coordinator for Summer Bridge to Pre-‐Algebra course Math; Summer for students in the selected group School who do not attain placement in Pre-‐ Coordinator Algebra by the end of the school year.
•
11/7/12 bmb
•
Administrator observations Coaching cycle schedule; Coaching action plan Coaching survey Coaching evaluation plan (based on TEPL) Bridge to Pre-‐Algebra Exam Scores, % of students Placed in Grade 7 Pre-‐ Algebra
Page 48
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
Cause #2: Current elementary math curriculum/ program materials do not contain the amount of rigorous problem solving and performance tasks necessary to promote the algebraic thinking skills required to be successful in Algebra I at 8th grade. Solution #2: Provide a rigorous K-‐8 mathematics curriculum with materials to support and promote problem solving and algebraic thinking skills. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure #2: The number of students performing at the Advanced level on the CMT/SBAC at Grade 5 will increase from 55% in 2011-‐2012 to 60% in 2014-‐2015. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
1. Conduct a full review of the GPS Math curriculum and related materials. Summer 2012 $9,240 • Conduct an alignment study of 139 current K-‐5 Everyday Math materials with CCSS (content and practice standards) and produce a unit-‐by-‐unit implementation guide for teachers. November 6, NA • Provide professional learning for teachers surrounding CCSS (Standards 2012 (MS) and November 12, for Mathematical Practice), rigorous instruction (Performance Tasks, Math 2012 (ES) Full Day PL; Early Workshop, Accountable Talk) Release Days (10/24/12, 1/30/13, 4/10/13, 5/15/13) 2012-‐2015 NA • Establish a Vertical Math Team and meet bi-‐monthly to problem solve around district math issues including CCSS alignment, grade-‐to-‐grade articulation, etc. 2012-‐2013 NA • Establish a Curriculum Study Committee to provide input for the curriculum review.
11/7/12 bmb
NA
NA
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
•
Completed alignment/ implementation guides
NA
NA
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math; District Elementary Math Coaches; Middle School Math Learning Facilitators
•
EZ-‐Traxx Attendance List EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Program Coordinator for Math; HS Math Program Administrator CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
•
• •
Meeting minutes District Math Wiki
•
Curriculum Review charge Meeting minutes
•
Page 49
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
Cause #2: Current elementary math curriculum/ program materials do not contain the amount of rigorous problem solving and performance tasks necessary to promote the algebraic thinking skills required to be successful in Algebra I at 8th grade. Solution #2: Provide a rigorous K-‐8 mathematics curriculum with materials to support and promote problem solving and algebraic thinking skills. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure #2: The number of students performing at the Advanced level on the CMT/SBAC at Grade 5 will increase from 55% in 2011-‐2012 to 60% in 2014-‐2015. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
•
Identify potential new programs for grades K-‐8 aligned with the rigorous expectations of Common Core State Standards.
Fall 2012
NA
NA
NA
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
•
Investigate potential new programs for grades K-‐8 through evaluation of samples by Curriculum Study Committee (inclusive of the K-‐12 Vertical Math Team) and off-‐site visits to other districts.
2012-‐2013
$1,000 (131, 211)
NA
NA
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math, Media/Tech
Engage the services of a consultant to assist in the evaluation of materials, alignment of curriculum to CCSS, and development of implementation plan. Implement aligned curriculum with supporting program materials
2012-‐2013
•
•
11/7/12 bmb
•
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
• •
Preliminary Curriculum Review documents indicating programs to be investigated NCSM CCSS Curriculum Analysis Tool List of scheduled site visits Off-‐site Visit Checklist/Notes Curriculum Review Documents Implementation Plan
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math, Media/Tech; Elementary and Middle School Principals
•
Implementation Plan
•
• •
2013-‐2014; 2014-‐2015
$8,000 (149; S. Leinwand)
NA
NA
$490,000 (Estimate based on K-‐5 Rollout) **Revised 10/17/12**
NA
TBD for 6-‐8 (Recurring cost will include $75,000 to fund K-‐5 consumable repurchase)
Page 50
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
Cause #2: Current elementary math curriculum/ program materials do not contain the amount of rigorous problem solving and performance tasks necessary to promote the algebraic thinking skills required to be successful in Algebra I at 8th grade. Solution #2: Provide a rigorous K-‐8 mathematics curriculum with materials to support and promote problem solving and algebraic thinking skills. Strategies •
Provide professional learning for teachers and administrators surrounding new program materials and implementation plan
Timeline 2013-‐2014; 2014-‐2015
Result Measure #2: The number of students performing at the Advanced level on the CMT/SBAC at Grade 5 will increase from 55% in 2011-‐2012 to 60% in 2014-‐2015. Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
NA
$125,000 (Approx. Cost for PD and G&D)
$125,000 (Approx. Cost for PD and G&D)
CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math
• •
EZ-‐Traxx Attendance List EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation
Cause #3: Administrators, teachers, and students have not had sufficient experience with the types of cognitively demanding tasks that are expected to be used in the Common Core/SBAC assessments. Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student mathematical performance tasks to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations, and provide professional learning for administrators and teachers to support student learning. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure #3: The distribution of mathematical tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depth of Knowledge levels (correlated to the SEC Cognitive Demand in Mathematics) as follows: 2013-‐14 at 50% levels 2/3 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-‐15 at 40% levels 2/3 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
1. Collect baseline data on the level of rigor in mathematical tasks. Fall 2012 NA • All Elementary and Middle School administrators will conduct 10 minute observations of math instruction to collect baseline data on the level of rigor in mathematical tasks Fall 2012 NA • Elementary and Middle School Principals will aggregate the data by grade level; review the data with the SDT; and report data to the Math Program Coordinator.
11/7/12 bmb
NA
NA
NA
NA
Program Coordinator for Math; MS Principals; ES Principals Program Coordinator for Math; MS Principals
•
Observation Data
• •
Baseline Data SDT Minutes
Page 51
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
Cause #3: Administrators, teachers, and students have not had sufficient experience with the types of cognitively demanding tasks that are expected to be used in the Common Core/SBAC assessments. Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student mathematical performance tasks to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations, and provide professional learning for administrators and teachers to support student learning. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure #3: The distribution of mathematical tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depth of Knowledge levels (correlated to the SEC Cognitive Demand in Mathematics) as follows: 2013-‐14 at 50% levels 2/3 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-‐15 at 40% levels 2/3 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
2. Identify and collect/purchase available performance tasks exemplars and related resources. 2012-‐2014 TBD TBD NA • Identify and gather available Performance Task exemplars and resources (e.g. websites, published materials). November 6, NA NA NA • Elementary classroom and Middle School/High School math teachers will 2012; November 12, receive professional learning on 2012 Performance Task exemplars and resources (3 hours)
•
•
All elementary and middle school math teachers will work in vertical and horizontal teams to identify and administer 1 performance task and calibrate student expectations. Purchase & administer SBAC Interim Performance Tasks and Formative Tools in grades 3-‐11
Grade-‐level, content-‐area team meetings
NA
NA
NA
2013-‐14
NA
TBD (per pupil cost not known)
TBD (per pupil cost not known)
Program Coordinator for Math
• •
Materials inventory Distribution List
Program Coordinator for Math; HS Math Program Administrator; District Elementary Math Coaches CIPL; Program Coordinator for Math; ES Principals; MS Principals Special Projects Manager & CIPL
•
EZ-‐Traxx Attendance List EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation
•
•
Aggregate scores will be reviewed by SDT to determine next steps
• •
Purchase orders SBAC Interim Performance Tasks and Formative Tools Results data
•
11/7/12 bmb
Page 52
Greenwich Public Schools Grade Eight Math Goal Action Plan 2012-‐13
Cause #3: Administrators, teachers, and students have not had sufficient experience with the types of cognitively demanding tasks that are expected to be used in the Common Core/SBAC assessments. Solution #3: Increase the cognitive demand of student mathematical performance tasks to align with Common Core/SBAC performance task expectations, and provide professional learning for administrators and teachers to support student learning. Strategies
Timeline
Result Measure #3: The distribution of mathematical tasks in which students are engaged will be balanced across Webb’s Depth of Knowledge levels (correlated to the SEC Cognitive Demand in Mathematics) as follows: 2013-‐14 at 50% levels 2/3 and 50% levels 3/4 2014-‐15 at 40% levels 2/3 and 60% levels 3/4 Fiscal Impact and Funding Source Person(s) Progress Monitoring Responsible 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15
3. Provide professional learning for teachers and administrators on instructional frameworks to enhance “rigor” within classroom tasks (SEC Cognitive Demand Categories for Mathematics, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Webb’s Depths of Knowledge). 2012 Aug. NA CIPL; Program • Provide professional learning for all • EZ-‐Traxx Attendance Coordinators for district administrators on frameworks Leadership List Institute Math, ELA, to increase instructional “rigor.” • EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation Media/Tech; 2012-‐14 NA TBD NA Principals; Leadership Deputy Council Mtgs. Superintendent 2012-‐14 Faculty NA TBD TBD CIPL; Program • Provide professional learning for all • EZ-‐Traxx Attendance Meetings Coordinators for teachers on frameworks to increase List Math, ELA, instructional “rigor.” • EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation Media/Tech; Principals 4. Integrate effective and research-‐based digital tools and resources to support rigorous mathematical tasks and student engagement. Early Release NA TBD TBD Program • Elementary classroom and middle • EZ-‐Traxx Attendance (1/30/13); Coordinators for school Math teachers will receive List Additional Math and professional learning on Tech • EZ-‐Traxx Evaluation dates TBD Media/Tech Integration Tools to increase math achievement (3 hrs.).
11/7/12 bmb
Page 53
