Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan2015-16

Name of School: Area:

````````````Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Desmond K. Blackburn

Mission Statement:

To help all students develop skills, concepts, attitudes and values which enable them to be successful members of society.

Vision Statement:

Looking toward our children’s future with challenging learning experiences that will lead to success.

Communication of School Improvement Plan: Briefly explain how the mission, vision and school improvement plan is communicated to all stakeholders.

The school mission and vision are posted throughout the building and on our webpage. The School Advisory Council also reviews the vision and mission statement at the same time the SIP is being reviewed and modified. The SIP is also posted on our webpage and a copy is available in the front office for our stakeholders to review. The mission and vision statement were both revisited by staff and the SAC at the end of the 2014-2015 school year. No revisions or changes were recommended.

Planning for the 2014-2015 School Improvement Plan was begun at the end of the 2014-1 | P a g e

Spessard L. Holland Elementary Central Area

Rick Sheppard Jane Cline

Paula Law

2015 school year. At that time, the teachers and community indicated that continuing the multi-year plan previously initiated was desirable. In July 2015, a new principal was selected for the school. The principal met with each teacher individually to discuss school strengths and needs. Similar meetings were held with parents and community members. Suggestions from these meetings and district initiatives (i.e. “Understanding by Design” were included in the plan.

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan2015-16

Part 1: Planning for Student Achievement

RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement-Examples may be, but are NOT limited to survey data, walk-through data, minutes from PLC’s or Dept. Mtgs. Move away from talking about every single data source and determine your rationale. Much like the PGP, what is your focus and why?)

Considerations/Examples: What are the areas of success? Where are concerns? What trends do you see? What kind of data are you

looking at within your school? What data do you use for teacher practice? How are teachers planning? Are plans Standards Driven? Are

Essential Questions meaningful? What do CWT tell you about instruction? How will you monitor the depth of implementation?

2014 FCAT data shows that Holland’s areas of success continue to be in our writing scores. Writing has shown slow, but continued growth. Holland has also made improvement in the Math Learning Gains category. A four year comparison of FCAT data does reveal, however, that we are losing ground in all other areas. We are not evidencing the desired learning gains in our lowest 25% of students, and our students at the top levels are remaining at a consistent level.

FAIR – FS Data from 2015 shows 3rd grade students performing below the target in the Reading Comprehension Task (RCT), Vocabulary Knowledge Task (VKT), Word Recognition Task (WRT), and Syntactic Knowledge Task (SKT). This also holds true for Holland’s 4th grade students. 5th grade students have met the ability score target in both the WRK and SKT, but have failed to meet the target elsewhere. Holland’s 6th grade students have met the ability target in each of the four areas. Each grade level has continued to make growth in each area over the 2 testing windows. However, 5th grade does show a percentile rank decrease from 79% to 71% in the WRT area.

Walk-through data reveals that Holland teachers are not utilizing small group differentiated instruction in math and reading on a daily basis. While some teachers have been noted to use “Math Talks” or “Math Workshop” daily, the area of standards focused unit planning has been noted as a weakness at some grade levels.

2 | P a g e

During Data Meetings, teachers are gaining an understanding and desire to look at item analysis data from reading assessments. Holland teachers need to continue to grow in this area in order to apply different strategies in the classroom based on the item analysis data. Prioritizing and looking deeper at the standards is also needed during Data/Grade Level Meetings.

Response to Intervention (RtI) has been successfully and fully implemented in 1st and 2nd grades. In 2014-2015, a schedule was created and staff were assigned to support 3-6 grade teachers in implementing RtI with fidelity. Preliminary FSA scores for third grade showed that of the 15 targeted students, only 2 fell in the bottom quintile.

Early Warning Indicators show 105 students during the 2014-2015 school year had 5 or more unexcused tardies. Of those, all but 2 fell into the less that 95% attendance rate. We did not have any 6th grade students that met 2 or more of the early warning indicators.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)

Move any Action Steps that have become standard practice to this section.

Lesson Study was conducted by every teacher in grades 3-6 during the 2013-2014, revealing some important insights about instruction and strategies that are most effective. A group of teachers in grades K-2 also conducted a lesson study during the 2013-2014 school year that focused on reading. This group was able to change the way they taught character traits based on what they learned from their Lesson Study. During the 2014-2015 school year, Holland teachers continued to have opportunities to improve their craft through Lesson Studies. The 2015 EDI survey revealed that teachers felt that Lesson Study has provided valuable insight into effective strategies and student learning. Teachers are continuing to create Lesson Study groups formed around John Hattie’s Visible Learning this year.

Response to Intervention (RtI) has been successfully and fully implemented in 1st and 2nd grades. Other grade levels are beginning to implementing RtI with fidelity now that a school wide schedule is in place. Support staff availability and involvement have also helped implementation.

In 2013-2014, all primary grades implemented an interest inventory and three classrooms from K-2 used that data to implement clusters. Feedback from the teachers and students that participated was very positive and the students could not wait to move to their cluster group each week. During the 2014-2015 school year, all 1st grade teachers, Self-Contained Primary ESE teacher, and 2 Kindergarten teachers participated in Clusters. There were several parent volunteers that also came in to assist by running a cluster. Once again, the students’ response to the enrichment opportunity was very positive.

Teachers are eager to learn about specific technology apps and programs that can be used to accompany the curriculum. Therefore, Holland has implemented a Tech Talk once a

3 | P a g e

month with Brevard’s Technology Integrator in order to expand and enhance teacher use of the mobile IPad lab. This year teachers have asked for a more time targeting specific classroom applications with the technology integrator in order to have specific needs of each grade level met. The schedule has been adjusted in order to address this need.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)

What does the research say about your findings? Evidenced based? What practices can you put into place to work on what the data says is

impeding student achievement?

Based on what you are seeing; what teachers are doing well; what you need to change and improve…RESEARCH SAYS YOU SHOULD…

Gardner (1993) developed the concept of multiple intelligences as a way to broaden the giftedness definition and Renzulli (1978) built the case to include motivation and creativity into gifted programs. Many Holland students continue to have high ability in one area while ordinary or even low ability in other areas.

In the past 20 years, school effectiveness researchers have also looked beyond the traditional schooling paradigm in an attempt to impact whole school reform. Toffler (1980) compared the different sociological eras of schools to waves. The first mindset or wave was agricultural based, the second wave was industrial and the current third wave is synthesis. These trends have impacted both schooling and gifted programs over the years. Common in the industrial framework, teachers developed the useful parts of children that could serve an industrial system (Shantz & Rideout, 2003). Entrenched in this cycle during the twentieth century, a narrow perception of intelligence was valued.

To date, the industrial second wave has promulgated a nature perspective in the formation of gifted programs across the nation. In the twenty-first century, current definitions of gifted are being challenged while program delivery models come under analysis. This is due to traditional gifted programs that predominately service only one ethnic group of students while other minorities, exceptional education and average students are left behind.

In Brevard, four criteria must be considered before a student is placed in the gifted program (School Board of Brevard County {SBBC}, 1994); an IQ Intelligence Test like the Kaufman Brief (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990), Otis-Lennon (Otis & Lennon, 1967), or Slosson Intelligence Test (Slosson, 1963). Then a norm referenced test, similar to the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) that gives achievement test percentiles, must be given. A standard score at or above two standard deviations from the mean must be obtained on the test of intelligence. A Parent Checklist of Characteristics and a

4 | P a g e

Scale for Rating Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students must also be administered. Other screening devices may be used, but are not required, like the Checklist of Creative Positives, Torrance, or the Environmental Indicators in Florida.

The challenge, then, for Holland Elementary, in light of current efforts in school improvement, is how to provide gifted and talented services to those students who do not meet the current gifted criteria. Faculty at Holland embrace the belief that a gifted education is good for all children. Research on gifted education concludes that no single criteria can be used to determine giftedness. Instead a well-defined set of clusters indicate success; creativity, task commitment and above average ability (Renzulli, 1978).

The application of gifted program know-how into general education is supported by a wide variety of research on human abilities (Bloom, 1985; Gardner, 1983, Renzulli, 1986 and Sternberg, 1985). This research clearly provides a justification for a broader conception of talent development. By focusing on giftedness as a process; opportunities, resources and encouragement, instead of as a state of being, more students can be reached. (In this manner, giftedness is used only as an adjective in a developmental perspective.) The School Wide Enrichment Model (SEM) has been in use since the 1970’s and is currently being used in hundreds of districts around the country including; St. Paul, New York City, Detroit and Fort Worth to name a few. Holland’s school improvement plan emphasizes the act of learning as the center for increased achievement and positive change.

Holland continues to struggle with increasing student movement into the level 4 and 5 range and in increasing learning gains of students in our lowest 25% range. In order to do this, Holland will implement lesson study, clusters and talent portfolios over the next three years.

The basis of lesson study is that there is always more to learn about the practice of teaching. Lesson study is a way to bring teachers together to study and solve problems. It is a way to reshape school culture where teachers work collaboratively to understand how new ideas look in practice. Teachers carefully study student thinking and then revisit the standards in light of actual instruction.

Lesson study begins with teachers studying the curriculum and formulating a goal. They then plan a research lesson collaboratively that includes anticipated student thinking and the rational for the chosen approach. One teacher then conducts the research lesson while the others observe and collect data. Finally the group reflects on the lesson and what practices led to or inhibited the desired student outcomes. Changes are discussed and

5 | P a g e

made and the lesson study cycle begins again.

Lesson study does not just target academic development, it also focuses on habits and personal qualities that contribute to student motivation, learning, and long term academic success. It looks to see if students build upon each other’s ideas during discussions, take notes, work effectively with group members, and take initiative as learners. The focus is on student thinking, uncovering student misconceptions, and understanding student strategies. Knowledge is gained about what stimulates students’ interest and inspired them to persist through a challenging task.

Test results and student work samples show what needs to improve, but lesson study offers teachers opportunity to explore how to improve. The feedback from lesson study is immediate and provides teachers a basis for changes in classroom practice and approach. The cycles of the lesson study are like a pebble tossed into a lake, creating ripples of influence across the whole school. (Lewis and Tsuchida 1997) Working collaboratively in designing a lesson that will be taught in front of others creates a strong sense of accountability, time to work through differences of opinion, and desire to utilize the best educational research.

Enrichment clusters are groups of students and adults who share common interests and come together during specially designed time blocks to pursue interests. This model for enrichment is based on an inductive approach to the pursuit of real world problems. It is student centered and is based on research that challenges the assertion that important intellectual growth can only be charted through an information transfer and standardized approach to education (Gentry, Reis, & Morgan, 1999 Reis & Gentry, 1998). Prescribed, text book driven, deductive learning is important but needs the balance of inductive learning to give students the opportunity to develop their own abilities, interests, and learning styles. Research on clusters indicate that the more time a teacher spends on clusters, the more advanced the content and the more diverse the products and services become. Archambault et al. (1993) and Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, and Salvin (1993) found that the experience of teaching clusters greatly increased a teacher’s use of differentiated strategies in their own classrooms and led to more advanced content study.

As a logical expansion to student data notebooks and student led conferences, the Total Talent Portfolio (TTP) acts as a systematic way to gather, record, and use information about each student’s strengths and abilities. Two questions guide TTP’s, what can teachers learn about each student’s interests and talents? How can teachers use this information to develop student interests and talents? Talent portfolios assist teachers in data collection, classification, analyzing data profiles and making decisions about the most appropriate options (an action plan). Students document and keep evidence of attaining small steps toward their goal(s) and are able to articulate their progress during

6 | P a g e

conferences.

Shute & Becker, 2010 states that Children today live in a “highly technological and globally competitive world” that requires a learner-centered approach that builds thinking and reasoning skills and the ability to solve complex, challenging problems in relevant ways at school and in their daily lives.

John Hattie’s Visible Learning states that feedback produces a 1.13 effect size. This is equivalent to a two grade level increase for students. Hattie has made clear that ‘feedback’ includes telling students what they have done well (positive reinforcement), and what they need to do to improve (corrective work, targets etc), but it also includes clarifying goals. This means that giving students assessment criteria for example would be included in ‘feedback’. This may seem odd, but high quality feedback is always given against explicit criteria, and so these would be included in ‘feedback’ experiments.

As well as feedback on the task, Hattie believes that students can get feedback on the processes they have used to complete the task, and on their ability to self-regulate their own learning. All these have the capacity to increase achievement. Feedback on the ‘self’ (such as ‘well done, you are good at this’) is not helpful. The feedback must be informative rather than evaluative.

B.E.S.T. Module IV & VI talks about formative assessment, data notebooks, and correlation to student achievement; Marzano, 2001 also shows that powerful ways to help students make connections between effort and achievement is to ask students to track their progress.

Throughout the meta analysis by John Hattie in his book, Visible Learning, a pattern emerged indicating an advantage for computer work when it is used as a supplement (0.45) instead of as a replacement for the teacher (0.30). The effects are also higher when the learner, rather than the system, had control. In other words, software that is mostly learner controlled (0.41) rather than system controlled (-0.02), showed the greatest gains for the learner when students were learning in groups.

Software packages that allow students control of pacing showed a 0.49 effect size. When the software being used allowed the teacher control of pacing the effect size was only 0.34 effect size. Just looking at students, when the student is in control of pacing there is an effect size of 0.60. When the student isn’t in control of pacing the effect size drops to 0.20. An example of this is with word processors. Especially for weaker writers, the quality of writing is enhanced when word processors are used. These students who used computers when learning to write produced work of better quality and lengthier products than students learning to write on paper (0.40).

7 | P a g e

If using exploratory programs like simulations, hyper media resources for discovery learning and general purpose tools, like word for writing, it is important that the teacher embed discussions and opportunities for each child to use different learning strategies. It is important that the teacher extend the thinking to include students who are able to articulate, explain and understand a variety of hypotheses and solutions.

In order to help teachers reach the high levels of rigor in the Florida Standards, teachers will be utilizing strategies that elicit higher levels of engagement.

Motivation/Development of a “Growth Mindset”“They just don’t have the grit to stick-with-it,” is a common refrain that is frequently heard when teachers are speaking about students as they grapple with difficult or unfamiliar content. Developing “grit” in students, as well as helping students to understand when they should ask an adult for assistance or when they should be more self-directed in their learning are essential skills for our school to consider. According to a recent study, “Building a Grad Nation,” a substantial number of American high school students remain spectacularly unmotivated and disengaged from their schooling. Did this begin in elementary school? In a separate study, conducted by Stanford University Psychologist Carol Dweck found that short term efforts to motivate students to meet external goals such as prize for exhibiting specific behaviors or improved test scores actually damage “motivation” in the long term. Experts warn that in order to properly motivate students, teachers must be careful to distinquish simple enthusiasm from true academic drive. Our current curriculum initiatives such as the implementation of the Florida State Standards requires that our academic content lead students to “dig deeper” and to make meaningful connections to their learning. The true goal of our classroom instruction is to teacher for long term transfer, not simply the ability to recite information for an assessment. This is a tremendous shift from the way that we have been teaching.

While there are many studies that reveal the complexity of “motivation”, it is important that we consider the findings and apply the strategies and techniques that will lead to greater student metacognition and active engagement in classroom activities. Spessard Holland Elementary serves a significant population of students identified as academically talented and/or gifted. Conversations with staff reveal that as content becomes more difficult, many of these students exhibit frustration or “give-up” when the answer(s) do not come easily. Are there ways that we can best address the child who is not working to his or her potential or at their optimal best? In the article, “An Age-old Problems Gets New Attention,” (2014) Sarah Sparks, relates that there is much focus and attention on academic skills all of which is in response to federal and state testing mandates, accountability requirements, etc. This, according to Sparks, has led to school focusing less attention on motivation and

8 | P a g e

perseverance. Have these testing initiatives, which were designed to boost student performance, actually hurt students’ academic drive, even at a young age?

Thomas J. Kane, an economics professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education stays that “A great school experience is when you have had enough exposure to teachers who are great at cultivating motivation, it then becomes second nature to students.” Teachers who encourage their students to look at failure as an opportunity to learn become the best mentors and instructional coaches. It is not about saying to students “if you understand the topic immediately” you are “smart,” or finding that “easy” is always a good sign, and finding things “difficult” a bad sign. This is not the message great schools send their students. Teachers who affirm with students the necessity to “learn to adjust what you are doing” as a critical assessment of one’s intellectual ability is having students re-evaluate what went astray in their thinking. This is the better way to manage such discourse.

Sparks suggests that the greater benefit to students comes when classes are organized to encourage them to try new challenging tasks as well as to bounce back from failure. Teachers grapple with what such classrooms look like in practice. The question that Sparks poses is, “If the real challenge is that people learn well from failure and mistakes, why then must we wait for it to happen?” “Why can’t teachers design for it?” Hypothetically, if Spessard Holland teachers “design” opportunities for students to problem solve and teach strategies to develop perseverance then long-term failures could be minimized. When students are permitted “time to struggle” with new problems on their own first, they are better able to evaluate different variations of the problem suing different methods to solve it. They show deeper understanding of the underlying problem and solution related to the concept. Dweck noted that when students cope with failure it can lead them to a “growth mindset,” – a state in which a person believes that intelligence or skill is a product of effort rather than inherent, unchanging ability. Such thinking has been shown to improve a student’s likelihood of succeeding in work and other life outcomes.

While Florida Standards Assessment results are not currently available, upon receipt we will look closely at our scores in an effort to establish initial benchmarks and set goals for the future. As we identify area of success and challenge the question will be “What message can we send our students on a more consistent basis about self-efficacy, motivation and work? It is believed that the message our students need to internalize is that struggle is an essential part of a great classroom climate. As a staff, we need to conclude that when things are hard, (and they should be hard,) they should be fun. Teachers are able to recognize and engage with students when they experience academic difficulty and are in danger of developing the mindset “I’m just good at this.” Leading students to the understanding that effort and struggle will bring about a correct or more complete solution. Spessard Holland is going to

9 | P a g e

put forth tremendous effort to persuade students to move outside their comfort zone by making sure they learn from their mistakes. By providing clear, consistent and immediate feedback to students (and parents) regarding the child’s level of skill acquisition will facilitate this process.

Spessard L. Holland’s sixth grade team has embraced the concept of “Student-Led-Conferences.” A part of this initiative will be the education of parents about the importance of developing a “growth mindset” by learning from mistakes and error as well as reviewing their perceptions of their child’s motivational drive about schooling. Using a Likert Scale, the following deliberate practices will be reflected on by the student and teacher:

ZEST: Shows enthusiasm. Actively participates in class activities and discussions. Invigorates others.

GRIT: Finishes whatever he or she begins.Tries hard after experiencing failure.Works independently with focus.

SELF CONTROL ABOUT SCHOOL WORK:Comes to class prepared.Pays attention and resists distractionFollows directions.Gets to work right away rather than delaying

SELF CONTROL – INTERPERSONALRemains calm, even when criticizedAllows others to speak with out interruptionIs polite to adults and peersKeeps temper in check by remaining positive

Brain research indicates that our emotions are intimately tied to learning. When students are afforded the opportunity to connect highly emotional relevant and meaningful life experiences learning math, science, reading, writing and social studies, teachers have a created a state of mind for the students that is more at ease with the topic (Journal Magazie, June 2014).

10 | P a g e

Brain research has also demonstrated the positive and negative effects that students’ emotional state can have on the affective filer in the amygdala (part of the limbic system of the brain). There is a release of dopamine to the brain when a student receives intrinsic praise. Dopamine in the brain brings about pleasurable feelings, especially when learning is taking place in a safe learning environment, where risk taking is encouraged, and hard work and challenging tasks are expected and not viewed as confusing or threatening. Dusatel’s research concluded that if students feel threatened, then the process of learning is disrupted, because the student is more likely to pay attention to the threat rather than on the prefrontal cortex of the brain where problem solving and higher level thought processes that are required for most instructional tasks take place.

The cortex upon threat shuts down all thinking. To counteract this, teachers must allow students time and opportunity to interact with the material. If the teacher is the only one talking, the teacher is the only one learning. Spessard L. Holland will begin implementing the “Understanding by Design” framework when brain compatible thinking is a core component of the unit’s development.

Issues of “executive functioning” and will also need to be addressed with specific groups of students where sufficient skill sets have not be developed in previous years.

Standards Based Instruction

The foundations of the Language Arts Florida Standards (LAFS) and Mathematics Florida Standards (MAFS) are defined for parents and educators by adding a focus on rigor. Each of the standards has an identified “Cognitive Demand,” that provides focus for the level of thinking which is expected and required of each student. The impact on student learning is dependent on the implementation of these standards. Authentic rigor includes high expectations for students with increased support, and an increased demonstration of learning by students. Today’s definition of rigor is to create an environment in which each student is supported so he or she can learn at high levels, and each student is required to demonstrate his or her learning at high levels. We cannot assume that simply adopting the LAFS and MAFS is enough to provide a rigorous classroom environment. Rigor includes an emphasis on what is to be taught in conjunction with ow to teach and how students show that they have learned the content. Through the use of “open-ended” assignments where

11 | P a g e

students need to think about their answers, teaches can chunk information into smaller bits so students can achieve more through the use of information that has been scaffolded thereby bring layers of complexity to the topic. By having students focus on strategies that focus on content in a more deliberate and structured manner, students will begin to feel successful in the classroom because their understanding to think about something new will growth which will result in their “feeling successful.” A major shift in this type of thinking is telling students what they will “learn” rather than what they will “do.” This subtle difference, shifts the ownership to students thereby allowing the teacher to be more of a facilitator of learning. Supported by complex questioning strategies and activities that focus on differentiation of instruction and the readiness level of students will continue to remain a major emphasis in our thinking.

The use of formative feedback means that instructional strategies are used to assess student’s work on a regular basis and in a manner that provides feedback so that students may be permitted to pose questions as well as permitting teachers to redirect instruction to lend support to students who are in need of assistance. Through active listening, teachers are able to capitalize on the “teachable moment.” Teacher engagement is also important as students respond to instruction. Through classroom walk-throughs it should be observed that there is a focus on a student’s ability to reason and think, as well as on achievement. It is important that each teacher at Spessard L. Holland find language that assists students in understanding the meaning of “rigor” and what active learning looks like through model the learning process.

While Spessard L. Holland has not implemented the practice of “Instructional Rounds,” where groups of teachers and administrators visit classrooms to “take stock” on the various practices and level of implementation of pedogogy, it is an area that we would like to explore. A first round, for example, might focus on the topic “What does student engagement look like?” In conversations with teachers, especially in the intermediate grades, teachers relate concerns regarding students disengagement, particularly in the completion of written assignments. How can the idea of “growth mindsets” be applied to this issue and student engagement be improved?

Standards-based instruction is defined as an ongoing teaching/learning cycle that ensures all students learn and master academic standards and associated concepts and skills. In this continuous process of teaching/learning, student achievement is frequently measured through a variety of formats and assessment practices, and students are provided multiple opportunities to learn until they reach mastery.

12 | P a g e

Comprehensive standards-based practices however, involve more than just knowing state and district standards; posting standards or learning goals or objectives in a classroom; referencing standards in lessons or “units” or following a textbook that is developed around state or district standards. Rather it means consistently teaching with activities, lessons, units, that are specifically designed to ensure that every child learns the grade-level expectations that lead to mastery of the standards.

In its simplest terms, a standards-based teaching and learning cycle answers four critical questions (Dufour/Eaker, 2002, 2006):

What do students need to know, understand, and be able to do?How do we teach effectively to ensure all students are learning?How do we know students are learning?What do we do when students are not learning or are reaching mastery before

expectation?

Two related studies by Spillane and Jennings (1997) and Spillane and Zeulli (1999) focused on the actual nature of standards-based classroom instruction. Both studies have been meticulously researched, are situated in a strong conceptual base, and emphasize the importance of real changes in instruction from basic skills. Spillane and Jennings (1997) interviewed and observed language arts teachers in a school district that had aligned its policies and curriculum around ambitious language arts standards. In terms of systemic reform, the district seemed an idea scene. Further, in teacher interviews, instructional similarities seemed apparent; teachers reported that they were emphasizing literature and real books more than in the past, when there was more focus on basals and lower-level skills instruction. Teachers also spoke knowledgeably of reading and standards in relation to their instruction. However, observations indicated considerable variation in instructional practice, both in the extent to which tasks were challenging of higher-order skills and the extent to which children were required to justify their answers, rather than just to express an opinion on the text. Some teachers emphasized more substantive student comments than others who organized their rooms and talked about them as if they were aligned with ambitious standards, but who basically practiced teacher-centered instruction. The authors suggested the use of state and district policy as an educative tool. They recommended that policy be designed especially to help teachers learn how to enact the reforms in their classrooms using models and examples.

In order to teachers to make instructional changes that go beyond a cosmetic adjustment, considerable investment in their learning is required. For teachers to teach in ways

13 | P a g e

envisioned by the NCTM and other reformers, they need chances to learn the strategies, practice them, see the effects of their student’s learning, and reflect on what that means. Changes in instruction can lead to changes in belief in and support for the reforms, as shown by Flexer, et al (1995). However, few teachers are given the opportunity to make such principled changes and follow them through for long enough to see the effects, particularly in today’s environment of accountability. States, districts, and schools need to re-examine the ways in which teachers’ professional needs are met and how accountability is operationalized.

The findings of McMilliam, Myran and Workman (1999) further illustrate this struggle to align the teaching curriculum and the tested curriculum and also illustrate an accompanying issue of superficial, broad-coverage. The Virginia teachers surveyed in the study gave priority to covering the state-assessment. For some however, covering the required content meant adopting a pace or superficiality that made them uncomfortable. Our experience here at Spessard L. Holland Elementary is similar when comments regarding pacing guides and curriculum maps are discussed.

In addition to changes in the teaching curriculum, (or content) there is also evidence standards based practices lead to changes in teaching practice as well. We refer to teachers’ choices of instructional approaches as pedagogy. Research suggests that, in some cases, standards-based programs programs have influenced changes in pedagogical approaches. Stecher et al (1998) reported that in response to the state test, teachers in Kentucky were adopting reform-oriented approaches such as open-ended questions, extended written responses and the use of manipulative activities in mathematics. Similarly, Koretz, Mitchell, Barron and Keith (1996) found that fifth and eighth-grade teachers surveyed in their study of the Maryland Assessment program were influenced by the state assessment to teach the students higher-order skills. Teachers reported employing activities that promoted problem-solving skills, application of skills in varying contexts and the communication of mathematical concepts, all areas of emphasis on the test.

A second type of pedagogical response documented in the research is that teachers are moving their pedagogy away from reform-oriented practices in response to standards based instruction. This is an area that we need to remain cognizant of and exercise caution. Grant (2000), in a study using focus groups of teachers in New York state, reported that the state assessment program was encouraging teachers to employ what they saw as test-practice activities rather than the higher-order thinking activities that they preferred. Wong et al (2001) indicated that the Chicago district standards called for interpretive and implied reasoning skills that were not reflected in the district assessments, and as a result, the teachers were not emphasizing these high-order skills in their pedagogy. Similarly, Taylor,

14 | P a g e

Shepard, Kinner and Rosenthal (2003) in their survey of Colorado teachers, identified negative changes in pedagogy related to test preparation and practice due to the state test, although they identified some positive practices as well, such as more emphasis on writing instruction.

In a 26 study analysis conducted my McREL related to teacher instruction support several findings. The evidence suggests that standards-based instruction are strong influences on teacher’s decision making about they teach in terms of content. There is also a need for attention to the consequences of these decisions, particularly with respect to broadening and narrowing the curricula. The evidence also suggests that a standards based approach influences teacher pedagogy in some classroom rooms, although this can be a positive or a negative influence.

Therefore, our challenge at Spessard L. Holland will be to implement a standards-based approach to teaching and learning that is not entirely based on outcomes on state assessments, but rather are balanced in their approach to provide rich content delivered with sufficient rigor and depth.

Works Cited:Archambault, F.X., Jr., Westberg. K,L., Brown, S.W., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C.L.,& Zhang, W. (1993). Regular

classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Gardner, H. (1983 & 1993a). Frames of mind: The theories of multiple intelligences (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic

Books.Gentry, M., Reis, S.M., & Moran, C. (1999). Expanding program opportunities to all students: The story of one

school. Gifted Child Today, 2(4), 36-48.Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta Analyses

15 | P a g e

Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Kaufman brief intelligence test (K-bit): Manual. Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service.Lewis, C., & Tsuchida. I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student centered elementary

science. Journal of Educational Policy, 29(3), 4 -14.Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (1967). Otis-Lennon mental ability test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Reis, S.M., Gentry, M. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 21(3), 310-334. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.Renzulli, J.S (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In

R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332-357). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.Shantz, D., & Rideout, G. (2003). Education versus schooling: Seeking new paradigms for a new century.

Education, 124, 204-211.Slosson, R. L. (1963). Slosson intelligence test and Slosson oral reading test. New York: Slosson Educational.Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. S. (1985). Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University.Terman, L. M. (1925). The mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children: Genetic studies of genius.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Toffler, A. (1980). Third wave. New York: Morrow.Westberg, K.L., Archambault, F.X., Jr., Dobyns, S., & Salvin, T. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monoograph No. 93104). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Winner, E. (2000). Giftedness: Current theory and research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5),

153-156.

CONTENT AREA:

Reading Math Writing Science Parental Involvement

Drop-out Prevention Programs

Language Arts

Social Studies

Arts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)

Continuing with the goal from last year, Holland Elementary School will use engagement strategies to increase rigor across all content area over the next two years.

16 | P a g e

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible

Timetable Budget In-ProcessMeasure

Best use of Time

Increase Planning Time for teachers; schedule routine meeting times for collaborative group planning

Principal & Assistant Principal

August 2015 0 Schedule

Time for Lesson Study

Arrange for Substitutes for Lesson Study Participants in order to complete teaching and reflection steps

Teaching of lesson with group members observing and collecting data

Reflection

Assistant Principal

Lesson Study Members

Lesson Study Members

Once each semester 1000.00 Line of Duty forms

Data Collection Forms

Reflection Forms

Time for Clusters

Organize and schedule time for student clusters

Inform and Recruit Parents

Implement Clusters

Principal

Principal

Administration, Faculty & Volunteers

Sept. 2015 0 ScheduleChart

Parent Participation

Cluster product

Best use of time as Instruction Leaders

Take part in both Lesson Study and Clusters

Principal & Assistant Principal

Once each semester 0 Schedule

Lack of Parent Knowledge

Increase routine communication to families regarding programs, curriculum and related information to parents and staff.

Principal August 2015 0 Attendance sheet

Communication

Teachers will share experiences and lessons learned in their respective Cluster or Lesson Study group

All Faculty Once each semester 0 Products from Clusters & Lesson Study

AgendaCommunication

Focus informal teacher observations on the use of small group, differentiated instruction and implementation of FSA standards with fidelity. Provide feedback to teachers

Principal

Assistant Principal

On-going as a part of the IPPAS evaluation system.

0 Feedback Forms to Teachers

Knowledge Arrange for Technology Integrators to train staff on

Assistant Principal August 11, 2015 0 Agendas

17 | P a g e

effective educational apps and programs

Monthly training with a Technology Integrator

Documented use of the IPads across grade levels

Slow Equipment

Seek grant opportunities, local funding, volunteer efforts to increase technology.

Principal & School Technology Specialist

September 2015 0 Purchase Order

What to include in student portfolio

Collaborate with teachers to create and determine components of the data folders that may vary by grade level

Lead teachers September 2015 0 Ready to use student portfolios

Best use of Time

Provide opportunity for teachers to exchange a traditional parent teacher conference night with a student led conference format. Grades 5 and 6 will implement SLC’s.

Principal

Assistant Principal

November 2015

January 2015

0 Feedback froms regarding perception of student led conferences

Transfer of Knowledge

Use walk-through data to measure level of engagement of both teachers and students

Principal & Assistant Principal

4 times in the 2015-2016 school year

0 Walk-through data

Lack of experiences in Speaking and LIstening

Teachers will increase opportunities for students to present information in an oral format. Sixth grade students will participate in a “capstone” project.

PrincipalAssistant PrincipalTeachers

School Year 0 Lesson Plans,Capstone ProjectsPlays/PresentationsClassroom Walkthroughs

Standards Based Instruction

Teachers will explore the UbD format and will utilize the UbD framework to complete one unit of study.

PrincipalAssistant PrincipalTeachers

School Year 0 Lesson PlansCompleted UnitsClassroom Walkthorughs

Knowledge of current practices and evaluation of practices

Implement Instructional Rounds

PrincipalAssistant PrincipalSelected Teachers

Quarter 2 and 3 1000.00 Schedule

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection- begin with the end in mind .

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of professional practices throughout the school)

Where do you want your teachers to be? What tools will you use to measure the implementation of your strategies? How will you measure the change in adult behavior? What tool will be used to measure progress throughout the year? Use real percentages and numbers.

The objective of lesson study is to produce quality instructional strategies that positively impact student learning. The focus will be on “look-fors” of engagement: including a quality instructional practice that is based on a well-developed lesson plan. According to Thompson (2012) monitoring is best used when schools focus on a few specific instructional practices. The underlying question is, did the students learn?

18 | P a g e

The objective of clusters is to produce more high-end learning through monitoring student understanding of more advanced level information (content), methodical skills (process), and human or material resources. A pre and post survey will be utilized in order to evaluate parent and student attitude about enrichment opportunities at Holland. 60% of the teachers involved in clusters will indicate that the enrichment strategies used in Clusters transferred to what they currently do in their classrooms. There will be facilitator reporting forms used as progress monitoring. Students that participate in Clusters will also evaluate the Cluster experience.

Data from Classroom walk-throughs will indicate that student engagement increases by 20% due to transfer of knowledge from these staff development opportunities. This, when combined with Instructional Rounds, is designed to provide administration and staff with a current “picture” of the instructional practices and level of cognitive complexity that is being implemented throughout the school. These results will guide our future professional development and practice.

Thompson, M. (2012). Creating a High-Performance Learning Culture. Speaker at Brevard Workshop., June 6, 7.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures student achievement)

Where do you want your students to be? What will student achievement look like at the end of the school year 2014-15? What tool will be used to measure progress throughout the year?

Holland established student performance targets for the 2015-2016 school year as follows (as evidenced by the 2015 FSA scores):

ELA Proficiency: All Students 80%Black/African American 74%Hispanic 90%White 87%Students with Disabilities 60%Economically Disadvantaged 80%Lowest 25% making learning gains = 70%Learning gains = 79%

Math Proficiency: All Students 80%Black/African American 74%Hispanic 86%White 93%Students with Disabilities 62%

19 | P a g e

Economically Disadvantaged 81%Lowest 25% making learning gains = 70%Learning gains = 85%

Writing Level Proficiency = 80%Science Level 3-5 = 82%

Throughout the 2014-2015 School year, the school monitored the progress of all K-6 students during our Grade Level/Data Meetings. We will look at student FAIR scores, SRI scores, and District Assessment scores. Teachers will use Performance Matters to graph student progress compared to others in the school and district. Adjustments in instruction will be made based on student progress and need.

On the 2014-2015 Student Survey, the school set a goal that 95% of students respond that they feel that they have been involved in meaningful projects that involved critical thinking skills and that 86% of our students feel that they have participated in the teaching and learning process.

INSERT DATA HERE

At the time of this writing, FSA scores for 2014-2015 have not been received. Therefore, an analysis of whether or not the specific goals set forth by the school have been achieved cannot be conducted. This will be completed upon receipt of the Florida Standards Assessment, and this report updated to reflect the results of that analysis.

Although complete Florida Standards Assessment data is not available, the school is in receipt of data concerning 2014-2015 third grade students, specifically, those students scoring in the lowest quintile (bottom 20%) on the 2015 FSA. Five of Holland’s 54 third grade students scored in the lowest quintile. This represents 4% of the third grade population. This data is further disaggregated as follows:

5% of the lowest quintile were Exceptional Education students. 5% where White. 2% were African American. 2% were Asian/Pacific Islander.

The results of the 2015 FCAT Science Assessment indicated that 71% of Holland’s fifth graders performed at or above grade level. (20% Level 5; 20% Level 4; 31% Level 3). Twenty-four (24) percent scored Level 2; while 5% scored a Level 1 indicating that they

20 | P a g e

were below minimal mastery limits. Three students received “perfect” scores.

Part 2: Support Systems for Student Achievement (Federal, State, District Mandates)

For the following areas, please write a brief narrative that includes the data for the year 2014-2015 and a description of changes you intend to incorporate to improve the data for the year 2014-2015. Instructions and support are provided in each section to assist with what data you may include. The instructions are intended to be a guide and may be deleted from each cell to allow for appropriate typing space.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iv) and 1115(c)(1)(A)-(C), P.L. 107-110, NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b) and Senate Bill 850.a) Describe the process through which school leadership identifies and aligns all available resources (e.g., personnel,

instructional, curricular) in order to meet the needs of all students and maximize desired student outcomes. Include the methodology for coordinating and supplementing federal, state and local funds, services and programs.

b) Describe your school’s data-based problem-solving processes for the implementation and monitoring of your MTSS and SIP structures to address effectiveness of core instruction, teacher support systems, and small group and individual student needs.

c) Provide the person(s) responsible, frequency of meetings, and any problem-solving activities used to determine how to apply resources for the highest impact

d) Describe the systems in place that the leadership team uses to monitor the fidelity of the school’s MTSS.e) Describe the plan to support understanding of MTSS and build capacity in data-based problem solving for staff and

parents.(See Accountability and Testing website/SIPTOOLS/MTSS for a checklist that may help you with this section.)

Scott Culbreth, Guidance CounselorChris King, School PsychologistFaith Bowman, Staffing SpecialistJudy Vizzini, TeacherDebra Willman, Reading CoachTiffiny Fleeger, Assistant Principal

Grade levels met weekly with administration to analyze and discuss student data. During IPST Meetings, discussion about individual students ensured a problem solving approach was used with measurable outcomes. We will continue to use this format this year.The RtI Team's primary purpose is to monitor student growth and achievement in academics. A new “Walk to Success” in grades K-4 will be utilized this year in order to assure that RtI is implemented with fidelity.There are designed strategies evident throughout this paper to be implemented by Holland Teachers. In order for this to happen, the RtI Team first had to review and analyze school data to target strategies that are used.

21 | P a g e

The Florida FAIR Assessment is given to students at Holland and is then used to help monitor ongoing progress. Reading Decision Trees are then reviewed with teachers in order to help determine initial placement of a student in the Tier system and to monitor the fluid movement of a student as progress is realized. Data collection helps a teacher monitor progress for each student and to analyze movement needed in the Tiered System as learning gains are either increased or decreased dependent on the different strategies that are used.

Our School Counselor is entering his second year, as well as, a new staffing specialist and a new school psychologist. The School Counselor will meet with the faculty and go over the new documents that were developed by the county during preplanning in the fall of 2015.

For 2014-2015 we are helping teachers incorporate gifted and enrichment strategies through Lesson Study and Cluster groups. Both Lesson Study and Clustering will help teachers differentiate both process and product for students. It is the belief at Holland that a gifted education is good for all students.

PARENT AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT: (Parent Survey Data must be referenced) Title I Schools may use the Parent Involvement Plan to meet the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(F) and 1115(c)(1)(G), P.L. 107-110, NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b). Consider the level of family and community involvement at your school (this may include, but is not limited to, number of parent engagement opportunities offered in the school year; average number of parents in attendance at parent engagement opportunities; percent of parents who participated in parent engagement opportunities; percent of students in lowest performing quartile or subgroups not meeting AMOs whose parent(s) participated in one or more parent engagement opportunities).

Parent survey results indicated that they would like to see more parent meetings on helping their child gain study skills and an increase in activities that build higher level thinking skills such as our Future Problem Solvers, Chess Club, Student Council, etc.

During the 2014 year 78 parents participated in the online parent survey. In 2015, that number decreased to 52. During the same period, volunteer hours decreased from approximately 4925 hours to 2663 hours. The school however, does evidence a dedicated group of volunteers who typically spend the day at Holland. An organized effort, however, is needed to reach out to, and solicit additional volunteers. Parental involvement is encouraged in a variety of ways. For example, the school holds a volunteer orientation each year where volunteer opportunities are discussed and volunteers are encouraged to register with the school district. Holland also has an organized PTO that was formed in the 2013-2014 school year. The school held several traditional activities such as Celebrate America celebration, Book Fairs, Science Fair Night, Grade Level Musical Programs, Strings and Orchestra Programs, etc., where parents were encouraged to attend. In addition, a Reading and Math Night was added to provide parent education regarding the new Florida Standards, as well as encourage parental involvement in school

22 | P a g e

activities. During 2015-2016 the school will continue to partner with Satellite High School as they continue to send high school students over to support teachers in their classrooms and fulfill their course requirements. An increased emphasis will also be placed on utilizing Parent Volunteers as we move forward with Enrichment Clusters, and in seeking opportunities to bring parents into the school to become partners in their children’s education.

The results of the 2015 Parent Survey indicated that 71.5% of parents are “satisfied” with classroom instruction, through a rating of “good” or “excellent.” When surveyed regarding specific subject areas, 80% indicated that Reading/Language Arts instruction was “good” or “excellent,” while 14% rated the area “fair,” and 6% rated it as “poor.” Specific comments in this area referenced an emphasis on “reading for enjoyment” as a positive.

In mathematics, 73% of respondants rated the level of instruction as “excellent” or “good.” 14.5% rated mathematics instruction as “fair,” and 12.5% rated it as “poor.”

Science instruction was perceived as positive, with 81% of respondants rating the level of instruction as “excellent” or “good,” while 18% rated the area “fair.” No respondant rated science instruction as “poor.”

72% of respondants rated Social Studies instruction as “excellent” or “good,” while 18% rated the area as “fair,” and 10% rated the level of instruction as “poor.”

It is interesting to note that in each of the above areas, a lack of communication regarding the content being discussed in class was cited by respondants. Several referenced an inconsistency in the use of EdLine as means of communication between home and school with parents indicating that they would like to see a more consistent plan for the use of EdLine from teacher to teacher and from grade to grade.

Strengths cited in the parent survey are many and varied. The teaching staff was referenced in numerous comments (i.e. “The teachers and school personnel are caring and helpful.” “I feel that the teachers really care for individual students’ success and their overall well-being,” “I love that my child’s teacher emphasizes reading and has the children reading at a higher level than the grade they are in,” “Holland Elementary has a fine group of educators. “ “The teachers are excellent.” During the 2015-2016 school year we will capitalize on these positive interactions and seek to increase communication between home and school regarding both the academic content and grade level expectations.

STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS (Required):Address Elements of Student Survey Results found in the District Strategic Plan and describe how you will improve

23 | P a g e

student perceptions of these indicators. Strategic Plan Indicators:

Promotes 21st Century Skills 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5 Safe Learning Environment 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5

Elementary Student Survey: 21st Century Skills – Refer results pages 3 – 4 Online Safety – Refer results pages 4 - 6 School Safety – Refer results pages 6 - 7

Holland Student Survey results show that in the area of 21st Century Skills students responded at or exceeded the percentage level of the district. The 3 areas that we were within a few tenths of a percentage point below were in how to research, effective communication and Real-World Issues.. The area that we were significantly below the district average was in how the students responded to the question about using technology in math class to create meaningful projects. Holland is 7.67% below the district on this. In an effort to address these needs, during the 2015-2016 school year, teachers will focus on effective communication skills by increasing the opportunities for students to present information to the peers and families through classroom presentation, plays and presentations, etc. In addition, the sixth grade will participate in a year-long exploration of a real-world problem or topic, and will present their findings and possible solutions to their families and peer through a “capstone” type of project.

In the area of safety, both at school and on-line, our percentages were above that of the district and were highest for the question that asked the students if they felt safe at school. 90.45% of Holland students said they feel safe at school. When bullying issues were cited, they were most often cyber examples. Through parent education and communication, and a partnership with the Satellite Beach Police Department and Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, parent education will be provided as well as tips for students to minimize cyber bullying and similar incidents.

24 | P a g e

Early Warning Systems (SB 850)1. Describe the school’s early warning system and provide a list of the early warning indicators used in the

system. This list must include the following:

ELEMENTARY Attendance below 90 percent, regardless of whether absence is excused or a result of out-of-school

suspension One or more suspensions, whether in school or out of school Course failure in English Language Arts or mathematics Level 1 score on the statewide, standardized assessments in English Language Arts or mathematics Students who are not proficient in reading by third grade

2. Provide the following data related to the school’s early warning system: The number of students by grade level that exhibit each early warning indicator listed above The number of students identified by the system as exhibiting two or more early warning

indicatorsFill in BLANKS with Number of StudentsGrade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Attendance <90

30 30 28 24 20 17 23

1 or more ISS or OSS

1 1 1

Level 1 in Reading or Math

5

Course Failure in ELA or Math

Students exhibiting 2 or more indicators

1 1 4 1

3. Describe all intervention strategies employed by the school to improve the academic performance of students identified by the early warning system (i.e., those exhibiting two or more early warning indicators).

The office staff calls students’ families when absences occur. We will recognize students with perfect attendance quarterly by giving them a certificate with their progress report that has been donated by a local business sponsor. We will continue to include a school health initiative that incorporates healthy habits across all grade levels. Teachers have included washing hands in their daily procedures prior to lunch and sanitizing hands after using computers as a proactive measure against the spread of germs. Holland’s overall attendance for the 2014-2015 school year was at 94.05%

Holland should see a strengthening of reading and math skills in Kindergarten through fourth grade as the school wide Walk to Success RtI model is implemented. Sixth grade students are given the opportunity to make up the grade of an F if they attend the Middle

25 | P a g e

School Course Recovery program. We did not have any students that needed to complete that program over the summer. Holland also offers to all, but not limited to, level 1 students after school and before school help in math and reading.

School wide programs are implemented to reduce the occurrence of bullying. In media class they receive instruction twice a year on cyberbullying. Holland also utilizes a police officer that implements a general bullying program to our 6th grade students once a week. This year, he will also include the 5th grade students in this program.

CTE/STEM:1. All Levels

a) # of STEM-related experiences provided for students (e.g. robotics competitions; field trips; science fairs)b) Participation in STEM-related experiences provided for students

There are many STEM related experiences offered to students at Holland Elementary School. A primary grade level robotics team meets after school on a regular basis. All students in grades 3-6 are required to complete a science fair project and children in grades K-2 are highly encouraged to complete a project, as well. The fifth and sixth grade students are involved with many STEM related experiences such as: Truss Design Challenge/Space Week Bottle Rockets Marble race (2x2 race with 6 different surfaces) Catapults/craft sticks or straws (similar to Pumpkin Chunking but with

marshmallows) 6th Gifted homeroom is required to create an complete inquiry lab that follows the

scientific method from design with a problem that is testable, research, materials, procedure, data collecting, graphing, analyzing data, summarizing and sharing/communicating with a product or presentation of their choice)

Egg Drop Challenge Solar Oven Cook Off

Fourth grade students go on the Lagoon Quest field trip and sixth graders attend Kennedy Space Center annually.

During the 2015-2016 school year, an emphasis on STEM related assemblies will be initiated. The purpose of these assemblies is to increase student knowledge and motivation for STEM related activities and careers.

26 | P a g e

27 | P a g e

STUDENT TRANSITION AND READINESS

1. PreK-12 TRANSITION This section used to meet requirements of 20 U.S.C 6314(b)(1)(g).Describe the strategies the school employs to support incoming and outgoing cohorts of students in transition from one school level to another. Holland Elementary maintains close communication within the feeder chain system. Representatives from DeLaura Middle School routinely schedule meetings with parents, teachers and students to discuss the transition from elementary school to middle school. These meetings include counseling for course selection, adjustment to the middle school curriculum and opportunities to visit the school and observe programs, speak with students and teachers etc.

The school also maintains communication and dialog with local child care and Voluntary Pre-K programs. An open house is held for families in the spring of each year to invite transitioning students into the school.

Due to the fact that a number of our families are military, we maintain close contact with the Liason’s office at Patrick Air Force Base to provide information and support to Military families that are in transition.

2. COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS This section is required for schools with 9, 10, 11 or 12. This section meets the requirements of Sections 20 U.S.C. § 6314(b).

Describe the strategies the school uses to support college and career awareness, which may include establishing partnerships with business, industry or community organizations.

Identify the career and technical education programs available to students and industry certifications that may be earned through those respective programs.

Describe efforts the school has taken to integrate career and technical education with academic courses (e.g. industrial biotechnology) to support student achievement.

Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback Report ( http://data.fldoe.org/readiness/). As required by section 1008.37(4), FL Statutes.

Spessard Holland Elementary _________________________ __________

School Name Principal’s Signature Date

28 | P a g e