1 Team LINE: Lawrence Initiative— No Excuses The Lawrence School BIT Presentation September 22,...

Team LINE:Lawrence Initiative—

No Excuses

The Lawrence SchoolBIT Presentation

September 22, 2006

A little BIT that tells a lot A little BIT that tells a lot about Lawrence…about Lawrence…

• Enza MacriPrincipal

• Amy RumbergerLA Consultant

• Eve FioricaInternal Literacy Facilitator

• Kristen BradleyExternal Literacy Facilitator

• Katie SeifertSpecial Education Teacher

• Susan Malecky Speech/Language Pathologist

• Lisbeth SciannaDEAL Teacher

• Sue Imai Kindergarten Teacher

• Sue Shippee Lopez Grade 1 Teacher

• Karen Share Grade 2 Teacher

• Carrie Nelson Grade 3 Teacher

• Erin DeToroGrade 4 Teacher

• Nancy Santostefano Grade 5 Teacher

• Marisa Frisk ESL Teacher

Building Instructional Team

The Lawrence School Mission Statement

The Lawrence School is a partnership of diverse learners,

educators, families and community members that instill an abiding love of learning, a passion to promote high achievement of

academic skills and emotional self-awareness necessary to become

respectful contributors to the community.

The Lawrence Schoolat a glance… 2005/2006

Diverse Needs:• 30% Eligible for

Free/Reduced Meals• 15% Special Education• 9% ESL

144 Female

204 Male

338 Total Students

A MulticulturalCommunity:

• Asian American 14%• Black 24%• Hispanic 14%• White 47%• American Indian 2

students

97% Participation in Parent/Teacher Conferences

Total Retentions:

2005-06: 1 (K)

2004-05: 12 (K-1)

The Lawrence SchoolPopulation

RegularEducation

SpecialEducation

Dominant LanguagesESL Students

Number of Students Language16 Spanish

2 Cambodian

2 Polish

2 Bengali

1 Chinese

1 Hindi

3 Pushto

3 Filipino

4 Turkish

1 Burmese

Attendance2004-2005

Number and Percent of StudentsExceeding 10 Absences

2005-2006Number and Percent of Students

Exceeding 10 Absences

Gr. K 26 46%

Gr. 1 26 43%

Gr. 2 5 13%

Gr. 3 19 31%

Gr. 4 15 32%

Gr. 5 16 32%

TOTAL 107 37%

Gr. K 28 40%

Gr. 1 23 40%

Gr. 2 30 44%

Gr. 3 13 30%

Gr. 4 21 30%

Gr. 5 14 29%

TOTAL 129 37%

STAFF ATTENDANCE: Average days absent: 7 days Two maternity leaves

One extended medical leave – school year 2005/2006

Student Mobility 2005-2006Total Percent Change

Grade 04/05 05/06

K 35% 31%

1 43% 47%

2 66% 31%

3 40% 33%

4 36% 41%

5 32% 36%

School 42% 37%

The Lawrence School Positive Behavioral Supports

Decreased Conduct Reports

Decreased Suspensions

40% 66%

•Foster behavioral expectations based on mutual respect •Continue implementation of Second Step Social Skills program•Utilize student behavioral conduct reports and reflections sheets•Showcase student achievement through bulletin board recognition •Promote student achievement at school-wide assemblies• Provide extra rewards for students “caught being good”•Present students with awards on a monthly basis at school assemblies

Decrease in Behavioral Referrals and Suspensions from September

2005 through June 2006

The Lawrence School Four Step Process

2005-2006

Number of Students in Four Step Process

Number of Students

Dismissed

Number of Students

Referred to Special

Education

Number of Students

Identified as Special

Education

K 10 4 1 1

1 6 5 1 1

2 12 5 1 0

3 2 1 2 0

4 6 5 1 1

5 3 1 0 0

Total 39 21 6 3

Grade LevelAssessments

Kindergarten through Fifth GradeAssessments

Standardized Assessments

•Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 3rd Edition (K)•Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (K-3)•TerraNova (1-3)•Connecticut Mastery Tests (3-5) •Blue Ribbon Assessments (5) •LAS Links (K-5)

Additional Assessments

•Kindergarten Check List (K)•Concepts About Print (K)•DIAL-3 (K)•Developmental Reading Assessment (K-3)•Running Records (K-5)•Portfolio Assessment (K-5)•Writing Prompts (K-5)•District Spelling Assessments (1-5)•Houghton Mifflin Assessments (K-5)•McGraw Hill Math Assessments (1-5)

English Language Proficiency Assessment

English Language LearnersEnglish Language Proficiency Assessment

0102030405060708090

B egi nni ng E ar l y

I nter medi ate

I nter medi ateP r ofi c i ent A bove

P r ofi c i ent

Kindergarten through Grade Five Students

Overall Proficiency2005-2006

Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestPPVT-III

KindergartenPeabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

Extremely Low Moderate Low Average

Moderate Low Moderate High Extreme High

DIBELSDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

KindergartenDIBELS 2005-2006

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

Fall Winter Spring

At Risk Some Risk Low Risk

Initial Sound Fluency

Fall Winter Spring

Letter Naming Fluency

KindergartenDIBELS 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Fall Winter Spring

Nonsense Word Fluency

First GradeDIBELS 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

Deficit Emerging Established

Letter Naming Fluency

304050

Fall Winter Spring

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

First GradeDIBELS 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

Deficit Emerging Established

304050

Fall Winter Spring

Oral Reading Fluency

Second GradeDIBELS 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

Third GradeDIBELS 2005-2006

Fall Winter Spring

TerraNova

First Grade TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006

Percentage of Objectives Mastered

O C BU AT WM WC

2005 2006

AT: Analyze TextBU: Basic UnderstandingEEM: Evaluate and Extend MeaningIRS: Identify Reading StrategiesMW: Multimeaning WordsOC: Oral ComprehensionWC: Words in ContextWM: Word Meaning

Second GradeTerraNova Assessment 2005-2006

BU AT EEM IRS WM MW WC

2005 2006

Third Grade TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006

BU AT EEM IRS WM MW WC

2005 2006

Houghton Mifflin Assessments

Houghton Mifflin Theme Assessments

Kindergarten through Grade Five Average Scores 2005-2006

Integrated Theme Test

Theme Skills Test

K 77 82

1 85 91

2 79 74

3 74 70

4 80 81

5 68 80

Connecticut Mastery Tests

Connecticut Mastery TestsReading

Connecticut Mastery Test

BelowBasic

Basic Proficient Goal Advanced

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Total Reading2005-2006

Connecticut Mastery TestDegrees of Reading Power

2005-2006Grade Level

Lawrence

Average Unit Score

Middletown

Average Unit Score

Grade 3 45.5 45.4 47

Grade 4 56.4 58.2 54

Grade 5 60.1 59.2 58

0102030405060708090

Forming a

General

Understanding

Developing

Interpretation

Making

Reader/ Text

Connections

Examing the

Content and

Structure

Reading Comprehension Content Strands

2005-2006

Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Reading

Forming aGeneral

Understanding

Developing anInterpretation

MakingReader/TextConnections

Examine theContent and

Structure

Blue Ribbon

2006 CMT

Connecticut Mastery TestsWriting

0102030405060

708090

BelowBasic

Total Writing2005-2006

Direct Assessment of Writing2005-2006

Grade Level

LawrenceAverage

Holistic Score

MiddletownAverage

Holistic Score

Grade 3 7.9 7.6 8

Grade 4 8.6 8.8 8

Grade 5 8.1 7.6 8

Connecticut Mastery TestEditing and Revising

2005-2006Percent Mastered by Content Strand

Grade Level

Lawrence

Composing/Revising

Lawrence

Editing

Middletown

Composing/ Revising

Middletown

Editing

Grade 3

19% 73% 25% 69% 12/16

Grade 4

47% 63% 50% 67% 12/16

Grade 5

53% 51% 55% 55% 14/16

Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Editing and Revising

Composing/Revising Editing

Blue Ribbon

2006 CMT

Connecticut Mastery TestsMath

0102030405060

708090

BelowBasic

Mathematics2005-2006

Challenges in MathGrade 3

Strand 10 Numerical Estimation Strategies

Strand 15 Approximating Measures

Strand 25 Mathematical Applications

Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents

Strand 11 Estimating Solutions to Problems

Strand 16 Customary and Metric Measures

Strand 25 Mathematical Applications

Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents

Strand 17 Geometric Shapes and Properties

Strand 24 Algebraic Concepts 40%

Grade 5 Comparison of Blue Ribbon and 2006 CMT Scores in Math

Blue Ribbon 2006 CMTs

Numerical andProportionalreasoning

Geometry andMeasurment

Probability andStatistics

AlgebraicFunctions

IntegratedUnderstandings

Connecticut Mastery TestsSubgroups:

Reading

CMT Reading Performance for ELL Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 0% 11% 0% 43.4%

4 0% 0% 0% 16.7%

5 0% 12.5% 0% 0%

CMT Reading Performance for Special Education Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 0% 3.8% 0% 7.7%

4 10% 8.2% 0% 12.2%

5 0% 6.8% 0% 8.5%

CMT Reading Performance for Hispanic Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 40% 17.4% 20% 21.7%

4 14% 17.4% 21.4% 39.1%

5 0% 11.8% 25% 27.5%

CMT Reading Performance for Black Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 50% 18.3% 12.5% 29.2%

4 8.3% 17.5% 25% 23.8%

5 0% 18% 16.7% 15%

CMT Reading Performance for White Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 10% 12% 60% 61.6%

4 16.1% 20.5% 64.5% 43.6%

5 3.8% 18.6% 73.1% 34.9%

Writing

CMT Writing Performance for ELL Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 0% 20% 50% 40%

4 28.6% 41.7% 0% 16.7%

5 66.7% 22.2% 0% 55.6%

CMT Writing Performance for Special Education Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 0% 16.1% 0% 12.9%

4 0% 8.7% 0% 17.4%

5 28.6% 14.6% 0% 14.6%

CMT Writing Performance for Hispanic Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 20% 33.3% 60% 27.8%

4 21.4% 29.8% 14.3% 46.8%

5 75% 35.6% 0% 33.3%

CMT Writing Performance for Black Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 42.9% 23.3% 57.1% 37.7%

4 16.7% 26.3% 33.3% 41.1%

5 16.7% 22% 50% 59.5%

CMT Writing Performance for White Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 21.1% 16.3% 73.7% 59.2%

4 14.3% 12.4% 83.9% 75.6%

5 25% 18.3% 69.2% 69.5%

CMT Math Performance for ELL Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 50% 44% 0% 11%

4 14.3% 25% 0% 25%

5 33.3% 50% 33.3% 12.5%

CMT Math Performance for Special Education Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 0% 11.5% 0% 19.2%

4 0% 32.7% 20% 12.2%

5 0% 24.1% 0% 8.6%

CMT Math Performance for Hispanic Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 20% 22.7% 40% 49.6%

4 14.3% 17% 21.4% 46.8%

5 25% 30.8% 25% 28.8%

CMT Math Performance for Black Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 50% 22.8% 12.5% 49.6%

4 8.3% 32.6% 28.4% 33.3%

5 16.7% 23.4% 33.3% 31%

CMT Math Performance for White Students

Grade Level

Proficient Lawrence

Proficient

Middletown

At/Above Goal

Lawrence

At/Above

Middletown

3 20% 23.1% 65% 62%

4 16.1% 24.2% 61.3% 61.1%

5 19.2% 21.8% 65.4% 59.3%

Students Receiving Free and Reduced

Grade 3 StudentsFull Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced

Full Price Lunch

Below Basic/Basic At/ Above Goal

Free and Reduced

Math: Lawrence 17.8% 53.6% 33.3% 33.3%

Middletown 16.6% 64.2% 42.8% 29.5%

Reading: Lawrence 28.6% 50% 44.4% 11.1%

Middletown 24.2% 61.6% 56.9% 26.3%

Writing: Lawrence 3.7% 77.8% 12.5% 50%

Middletown 9.2% 70.5% 32.7% 59.2%

Full Price Lunch

Below Basic/Basic At/Above Goal

Free and Reduced

Below Basic/Basic At/Above Goal

Math: Lawrence 34.7% 49% 46.6% 40.0%

Middletown 16.6% 64.2% 42.8% 29.5%

Reading: Lawrence 30.6% 55.1% 60.3% 26.7%

Middletown 24.4% 61.6% 56.9% 26.3%

Writing: Lawrence 18.3% 63.3% 53.3% 40%

Middletown 9.2% 70.5% 32.7% 59.2%

Full Price Lunch

Free and Reduced

Math: Lawrence 14.7% 64.7% 53.9% 30.8%

Middletown 18.8% 61.7% 40.9% 28.9%

Reading: Lawrence 29.4% 67.6% 76.9% 23.1%

Middletown 29.7% 60.5% 60.4% 20.8%

Writing: Lawrence 8.8% 73.5% 38.5% 23.1%

Middletown

11.2% 66.2% 24% 32.7%

Successes

Implementing Houghton Mifflin

Lawrence School implemented a research based core program in kindergarten through fifth grade to deliver effective instruction in five key areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension and fluency.

Successes

• Created consistency among teachers and grade levels• Increased TerraNova results from 2005 to 2006 in grades one though

three• Increased DIBELS results from 2005 to 2006 in Kindergarten through

grade three

Documented SuccessImplementing Houghton Mifflin

Grade LNF PSF NWF ORF

Spring

K 72 89 61 92 60 85

1 51 81 80 94 60 80 69 83

2 30 46 59 59

3 40 62

Expected Further GrowthImplementing Houghton Mifflin

• Scores will continue to increase

• Administer all required Houghton Mifflin theme assessments

• Complete all themes

Interventions

Successes

• Use benchmark assessments to assess all Kindergarten through grade three students

• Conduct Intervention Meetings– ELF, ILF and classroom teacher meet every eight weeks – Create measurable objectives for Tier Two and Three students– Develop instructional strategies to achieve goals– Administer progress monitoring assessments during eight week

cycle to guide and adjust instruction– Meet again in eight weeks to analyze progress and revise goals

and instructional strategies– Continue cycle throughout school year

• Reading First Literacy Tutor provides additional interventions

Documented SuccessInterventions

Kindergarten 75

Grade One 89

Grade Two 41

Grade Three 45

Total 63

Percentage of Students Meeting Intervention Goal

Expected Further GrowthInterventions

• Extend Intervention Meetings to grades four and five

• Include Special Education Teacher and Speech and Language Pathologist in Intervention Meetings

• Use analysis of DRA scores to include comprehension goals

Writing Prompts

Successes

Lawrence School students in grades three through five received writing instruction through Houghton Mifflin and Empowering Writers; through the use of these programs students’ holistic score average range has been 7.9 – 8.6.

Grade Level

Average Holistic Score

State Goal

Grade 3 7.9 8

Grade 4 8.6 8

Grade 5 8.1 8

Documented Success Writing Prompts

Expected Further GrowthWriting Prompts

• Empowering Writers will be implemented in grade two and will continue to be incorporated in grades three through five

• Holistically scored prompts will be given four times a year

• Incorporate a multi-sensory approach to teaching writing

• Increase the amount of opportunities for students to respond to text in writing

Phonemic Awareness

Successes

Students’ success with phonemic awareness is directly related to their ability to read and spell; teachers have explicitly and systematically taught phonemic awareness skills in Kindergarten through first grade resulting in growth in this area.

Kindergarten 61 92

First Grade 80 94

Percent of Established Students on the DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Assessment

Percent

Growth

SuccessesPhonemic Awareness

DIBELS

Expected Further GrowthPhonemic Awareness

• Continue further growth so that all Kindergarten students meet the established benchmark by spring

• Progress Monitor all students not meeting benchmark goals

Professional Development

Successes

Literacy Coaches and Language Arts Consultant provided professional development to improve student achievement and create a professional learning community.

SuccessesProfessional Development

District Professional Development Days• Systematic and Explicit Instruction• Differentiating Instruction• Phonics, Comprehension and • Intervention • Differentiating Phonics Instruction

Grade Level Meetings• Data Analysis• Consultancy Protocol• Phonics Instruction• Text Appropriation• Bloom’s Taxonomy• Differentiating Instruction• CMT Preparation• Fluency• Phonemic Awareness

Book Clubs• Work Stations/Centers• Vocabulary• Comprehension• Phonics• ELL

Coaching and Modeling Instruction• Provided support for all

Professional Development goals• Four-Step Process

Literacy Team Meetings• Materials• School-wide literacy initiatives• Analysis of data

Expected Further GrowthProfessional Development

• Continue to build a professional learning environment through data teams, round table discussions, book clubs, articles and on going professional development

• Refine goals based on analysis of school data

Challenges

Goal One:

Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension

Students in grades one through five will improve reading comprehension scores, specifically Making Reader/Text Connections and Examining the Content Structure, by 10-15% based on TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and CMT (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.

Challenges

Special Education Goal:

Improving Reading Comprehension

After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their comprehension of Strand 1 in order to increase scores by 10%.

Challenges

• Intervention Meetings will include comprehension goals for Tier Two and Three students not meeting benchmarks

• Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’ independent use of comprehension strategies

• Provide explicit instruction in Making Reader/Text Connections and Examining the Content and Structure

• Disseminate the alignment of Houghton Mifflin targeted skills with CMT strands

• Improve students’ written response to text through frequent use of teacher modeling, rubrics and conferencing

• Increase students’ opportunities for responding to text in writing• Increase amount of independent reading at students’ levels• Continue support for comprehension instruction through modeling and

coaching by literacy coaches and Language Arts Consultant• Utilize techniques from Strategies That Work by Stephanie Harvey and

Anne Goudvis and Mosaic of Thought by Ellin Oliver Keene and Susan Zimmermann (previously read during Lawrence School book club)

• Create and implement a scope and sequence for in-depth teaching of comprehension strategies throughout the year in grade three; if results are successful, this strategy will be extended throughout Kindergarten through fifth grade

Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Reading Comprehension

• Consult between general education teachers, special education and pupil personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming

• Provide test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures

• Continue test preparation in test taking strategies • Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing environments

and sessions• Increase student background knowledge to aid in comprehension of materials that are presented

(fiction and nonfiction)• Utilize levels of questioning to aid in the increase in students’ level of comprehension and

application• Conduct comprehension mini lessons that incorporate various reading strategies that are

explicitly taught using multiple intelligences• Build vocabulary of tier two words and multi-meaning words• Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’ independent use of

comprehension strategies• Implement SLAM strategy when writing a response to text• Provide direct instruction in strategies including highlighting text, finding key information,

supporting ideas for using the text to support a response either written or oral• Instruct in the use of graphic organizers to aid in comprehension of materials• Provide direct instruction of comprehension strategies at students’ reading level• Continue direct and multi-sensory instruction in decoding of text• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons

Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Reading Comprehension for

Special Education Students

• DRA

• Houghton Mifflin theme assessments

• TerraNova

• CMT

AssessmentsImproving Students’ Reading

Comprehension

Goal Two:

Improving Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge

Kindergarten through Fifth grade students’ vocabulary scores will increase by 10-15% as measured by Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Kindergarten), TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and CMT’s (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.

Challenges

• Implement explicit vocabulary instruction of two to three tier two words per week based on text selection from Houghton Mifflin

• Support additional vocabulary instruction in Kindergarten through consultation with Speech and Language Pathologist

• Create vocabulary word walls• Engage in daily oral language exercises• Increase the amount of independent reading at students’

reading levels• Continue support for vocabulary instruction through

modeling and coaching by Literacy Coaches and Language Arts Consultant

• Revisit Isabel Beck’s Bringing Words to Life to enhance teaching strategies

Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

• TerraNova

• Daily work samples

• Informal classroom assessments

AssessmentsImproving Students’ Vocabulary

Knowledge

Goal Three:

Improving Students’ Reading Fluency

Students in second and third grade will improve fluency scores by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency by May 2007.

Challenges

• Implement self-evaluation strategies through the use of a newly created, building developed fluency rubric

• Implement fluency centers where students record and evaluate their reading progress

• Administer progress monitoring assessments to Tier Two and Three students

• Enhance models of fluent reading through use of read alouds, partner reading, echo reading and choral reading

• Utilize Reader’s Theatre to reinforce reading fluency• Continue use of explicit, small group instruction to strengthen

phonics skills• Continue professional development on differentiating phonics

instruction• Continue support for fluency and phonics instruction through

modeling and coaching by literacy coaches and Language Arts Consultant

Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Reading Fluency

• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring

• Quick Phonics Screener (Reading First Initiative)

• Fluency Rubrics (Reading First Initiative)

AssessmentsImproving Students’ Reading Fluency

Challenges

Goal Four:Improving Students’ Editing and

Revising Skills

Students in grades three through five will improve Composing and Revising and Editing scores by 10-15% as measured by CMT and district writing assessments by May 2007.

Improving Editing and Revising Skills

After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their ability to compose, revise and edit a written work in order to increase CMT scores by 10%.

Challenges

Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Editing and Revising Skills

• Provide direct instruction in Editing and Revising skills based on test objectives found in CMT Language Arts Handbook

• Utilize mini-lessons found in CMT Language Arts Handbook• Embed CMT language into lessons• Implement district designed sentence combining lessons• Use student work on overheads to revise as a whole group; create center

lessons that reinforce skills• Provide direct instruction of Daily Oral Language program and Empowering

Writers in grades two through five• Continue use of Houghton Mifflin editing and revising lessons• Utilize examples of student prompts, teacher models, self reflection

techniques and writing conferences• Provide writing experiences that are contextualized writing tasks• Use multiple intelligences to support instruction of all learners• Model revision and editing techniques using student work samples• Provide additional opportunities for reinforcement through center activities

and overheads

Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Writing Instruction for

Special Education Students• Daily practice in editing and revising of written work, utilizing skills

emphasized in lessons.• Explicit instruction in grammatical structure.• Explicit instruction in orthographic rules and the identification of spelling

errors.• Review of specific vocabulary that will be utilized on the CMT.• Explicit instruction in sequencing of written work.• Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous

basis in alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures.

• Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.• Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within

testing environments and sessions.• Consultation between general education teachers and special education

and pupil personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming.

• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons

AssessmentsImproving Students’ Editing and

Revising Skills

• Monthly writing prompts

• Reading journals

• Writing journals

Challenges

Goal Five:Improving Students’ Mathematical Skills

Students in grades three through five will improve math scores (grade three: Strands 10,15,25; grade four: Strands 3, 11, 16, 25; grade five: 3, 17, 24) as measured by CMT by May 2007.

Improving Estimation

After receiving specialized instruction, the students will demonstrate their ability to apply numerical estimation strategies to solve a problem in order to increase scores by 10%.

Challenges

Strand 10 Numerical Estimation Strategies 62%

Strand 15 Approximating Measures 41%

Strand 25 Mathematical Applications 27%

Grade Three

Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents 33%

Strand 11 Estimating Solutions to Problems 36%

Strand 16 Customary and Metric Measures 31%

Strand 25 Mathematical Applications 38%

Grade Four

Strand 3 Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents 55%

Strand 17 Geometric Shapes and Properties 53%

Strand 24 Algebraic Concepts 40%

Grade Five

CMT Strands to Target

• Differentiate instruction based on assessment data• Provide direct instruction in multi-step problems• Develop a common math vocabulary across grade levels• Incorporate use of manipulatives• Implement math journals to increase opportunities for

students to justify and explain answers• Provide direct instruction on justifying and explaining

answers• Provide direct instruction in deleting extraneous

information from problems• Administer and analyze all McGraw Hill assessments

Instructional StrategiesImproving Students’ Math Instruction

• Hands on real world application relating to estimation.• Explicit instruction in the vocabulary used on the CMT that relates to estimation.• Daily practice in estimating.• Explicit instruction on the:

• Justification of an estimation.

• Use a number line to estimate

• Rounding of numbers to aid in estimation.

• Strategies needed to solve estimation problems• Consultation between general education teachers and special education and pupil

personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming.• Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in

alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures.• Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing

environments and sessions.• Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.• Continue to develop multi-tier lessons

Additional Instructional StrategiesImproving Math Instruction for

Special Education Students

• McGraw Hill math assessments

• Math journal

• District assessments

• District CMT binder assessments

• Daily work samples

• Teacher observations

AssessmentsImproving Students’ Math Instruction

Challenges

Increase the scores of students who receive ESL services by 5-10% as measured by English Language Proficiency Assessment, DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007

Goal Six Address Needs of:

English Language Learners

• Provide explicit instruction in language acquisition skills• Provide hands-on real world application to enhance

instruction• Utilize technology to foster language growth and

development through the Rosetta Stone program• Continue to implement non-verbal communication skills• Consult with classroom teacher to support ELL students’ • Provide opportunities to practice pragmatic language and

cultural relevant experiences• Continue to foster parent involvement• Utilize Multiple Intelligences to reach ELL students

Instructional StrategiesAddress Needs of:

Assessments Address Needs of:

• English Language Proficiency Assessment

• DIBELS, TerraNova, DRA, CMT, Blue Ribbon

• District assessments

• Portfolio review

• Anecdotal notes

Challenges

• Increase the scores of students who receive free and reduced lunch by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007

• Increase scores of minority students by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007

Goal Seven Address Needs of:

Students of Low Socioeconomic Status Minority Populations

• Offer multiple parent workshops which include free babysitting to encourage all parents to attend

• Pilot Parent Involvement Initiative based on Wesley School’s model• Provide parents with multiple opportunities for reading at home with

their children: nightly on-level reading, books on tape with cassette players, home-school connection literacy activities

• Implement PTA parent email list; identify parents who do and do not have email access

• Promote web-based parent support page• Provide bussing for evening school activities

Instructional StrategiesAddress Needs of:

Students of Low Socioeconomic StatusMinority Populations

• Parent attendance and involvement in activities

• Parent feedback evaluations

• Student assessments: DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova, DRA, running records, journals, daily work samples

AssessmentsAddress Needs of:

Students of Low Socioeconomic StatusMinority Populations

““Children are likely to live up to Children are likely to live up to what you believe of them.” what you believe of them.”

---Lady Bird Johnson---Lady Bird Johnson

““It is the supreme art of the It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative teacher to awaken joy in creative

expression and knowledge.” expression and knowledge.”

---Albert Einstein---Albert Einstein

The end of the L.I.N.E.

1 Team LINE: Lawrence Initiative— No Excuses The Lawrence School BIT Presentation September 22,...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Team LINE: Lawrence Initiative— No Excuses The Lawrence School BIT Presentation September 22,...

39 Great Excuses

No Excuses!

Sorry excuses final

When Moses Made Excuses

Beyond Excuses

No Excuses Please

Presents Webinar Excuses, Excuses! What To Do …...The Los Angeles County Bar Association Presents Webinar Excuses, Excuses! What To Do When Your Deals Fall Apart During COVID-19

Threadbare Excuses

No Excuses Management

New World Lesson 7 Excuses, Excuses

No Excuses 2008

Excuses, Excuses: Inside the Mind of a Complainer...1 Excuses, Excuses: Inside the Mind of a Complainer As rational creatures, humans have the unique ability to reflect on their personal

Excuses as Defenses

Bystander’s excuses

Smart Excuses

No Excuses Workouts

Overcoming Excuses not to Obey the Gospel. “Excuses, Excuses, Excuses!” (Luke 14:15-24)

No Excuses

Excuses Begone Affirmations

Excuses June 2015