Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2013-2014

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

To inspire and empower lifelong learning.

Vision Statement:

A model community of excellence and success.

Cambridge Elementary Magnet School Central Area

Hilah Mercer Jane Cline

Michelle Zeppieri

Page 1

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2013-2014RATIONALE – 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: The analysis of multiple quantitative and qualitative data sources provides clear evidence that reading comprehension skills need to improve at all grade levels at Cambridge. Weekly grade level collaborative team notes/minutes clearly show that teachers balanced their use of literary and informational text in instruction, read aloud selections, and books for student choice reading. Identical teacher surveys conducted in September 2012 and May 2013 revealed a shift from little awareness of the use of informational text to 100% of teachers tracking its use. Grade level team meetings, with notes to administration, focused on specific relevant questions used for 3 consecutive years that clearly focus on student learning and the improvement cycle. All grade level teams provided evidence that students consistently wrote in response to reading documents and passages. Ample examples were provided of students tracking their own academic progress and setting improvement goals using age appropriate tools often developed by our teachers. Walk through observations consistently demonstrated that teachers were utilizing best practices by following the four quadrants of the learning cycle, using ample small group instruction opportunities, and developing instructional centers focused on the skills being currently taught. Despite this emphasis on research based instructional practices Cambridge’s reading proficiency rates showed little improvement while math proficiency, utilizing almost exactly the same instructional practices showed significant gains.

This trend of flat unacceptably low reading proficiency scores and this past year’s improving math scores provides a rationale to deliberately focus on additional research based strategies to improve reading comprehension through the deliberate increased use of higher order questions. The ability to read well directly impacts the acquisition of knowledge in all content areas. Our data shows that our students need more experience and accountability with higher order questioning in all subject areas, especially in response to reading, aligned to the rigor of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Our instructional staff is key to providing that rigor and accountability. In school year 2012- 13, 19% of Cambridge teachers’ Professional growth plans included increasing higher order questions as their primary goal. All teachers in our 5th grade focused their PGP’s on increasing higher order questions. The results were evident in increased student achievement, especially in the content area of science, highly connected to reading achievement and the ability to analyze information.

Utilizing FCAT 2.0 data Cambridge students and teachers demonstrated the most success on math proficiency rate (+11%) and science proficiency rate (+24%); math learning gains (+14%), and learning gains for the lowest 25% in reading (+18%) and math (+12%). The school increased the overall grade points from 465 points to 513, and increase of 48 points. Reading proficiency remained flat at an unacceptably low rate of 49%, an increase of only 1% from the previous year and reading gains remained the same at 69%. Writing proficiency showed the greatest decrease, declining 24%. It should be noted that the required score for proficiency increased from 3.0 to 3.5. Had the required scored remained the same, our students scored similarly to the previous year and Cambridge would have regained its A grade. AMO’s for FCAT 2.0 showed we met the target for 5 out of 6 subgroups in math but met none in reading. While FCAT 2.0 did not show evidence of reading growth, FAIR scores showed growth from Assessment 1 to Assessment 3 at every grade level.

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

Page 2

The success Cambridge experienced with increasing our school grade points despite increasing assessment rigor leads us to the conclusion we must keep the action steps initiated in our 2012-13 plan. While we will adapt the focus of our primary on-site staff development to match our new objectives and actions steps we will continue to do the following because these current practices brought positive results:

Monitor the amount of literary and informational text used for instruction to verify 50/50% balanced literacy across curriculum areas.

Engage students in writing to summarize, clarify, explain, list, give examples, etc. distributed across lessons in all content areas

Provide, inspect, and give feedback to students using progress monitoring/goal setting tools; including data notebooks and charts

Utilize highly engaging instructional strategies learned through training with Dr. Jacque Fraser Utilize activity wheel teachers as our S.H.I.E.L.D. Team (Special Help In Everyday Learning Development) to support

each grade level (2 – 6) one day per week, providing small group instruction and providing classroom teachers the opportunity to observe/collaborate with other teachers and strengthen their practice with informational text and writing

Hold Dinner and Data Nights to allow students the opportunity to share their academic progress monitoring and the improvement goals they have established for themselves with their families

Utilize Positive Behavior Support Tier 1 strategies to encourage all students to be active learners and take responsibility for their learning.

Provide a Walk to Intervention model at each grade level to insure that time is allocated for struggling students outside the mandated 90 minute reading block.

Provide small group, needs based, math instruction while utilizing math centers to reinforce skill acquisition. Continue Walk to Intervention, stressing CCSS and higher order inferential questions Monitor student progress in reading and math utilizing Pearson’s Successmaker computer assisted instruction in

grades 1 – 6.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)Research by Dr. Max Thompson, Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders, 2011, examining practice of over 5000 third grade teachers representing all 50 states revealed that when this cross section of teachers developed questions to assess reading skills related to comprehension 70% of the questions were basic recall/main idea questions. 20% of the questions assessed the ability to compare/contrast. Only 10% of the questions developed by the teachers required students to make inferences about the material they read or to display some other reading comprehension skills. Projections for state assessments including those aligned with CCSS for 2012 – 2014 indicate that 75 – 80% of questions will be higher order. His research indicated that textbook questions are 5 – 8 years behind the rigor and thought required by state tests. Research at high performing schools revealed that 65- 80% of classroom assessments and school/district benchmark assessments were composed of high order questions. The students at these schools were routinely answering questions that matched or exceeded state assessments. Dr. Thompson (2009) states that of all research based strategies extending thinking produces the highest gains in achievement. Planning for instructing higher level thinking involves students in how to use extended thinking strategies to learn content, enhance students’ academic success in school, as well as providing experience with the type of thinking that will be necessary in the world in which they will live and work.

In Essential Questions, Opening Doors to Student Understanding, 2013, Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins state that research shows essential questions are thought provoking and intellectually engaging. They call for higher-order thinking such as analysis, inference, evaluation, prediction, prompted by questions that cannot be fully answered by recall alone. The authors emphasize that intellectual engagement, a key goal of essential questions that is aligned to Common Core standards and to instructional best practices, is inherit in the use of essential questions. While not all higher order questions are essential, all essential questions are higher order and encourage discourse among students and digging deeper into concepts to derive

Page 3

fuller meaning and understanding. They suggest that since there is typically more content than can reasonably addressed in curriculum, teachers are obliged to make choices about what students are to learn. In establishing curriculum priorities, they recommend that teachers identify enduring ideas worth knowing in a subject area and then frame these “big ideas” into essential questions that offer the most potential for involving students in “doing” the subject in ways that lead to deeper understandings. Heidi Jacobs (1997) recommends that teachers map their curriculum plans around essential questions that frame student learning in the classroom around meaningful and thoughtful inquiry into important ideas at the heart of a discipline.

Robert Marzano, quotes research by conducted by Redfield and Rousseau (1981) that contrasts the effects of higher-level questionings versus lower-level questions. The researchers concluded that an analysis of the data indicate a positive overall effect (+.7292) for prominent use of higher cognitive questions in the classroom. Inferential questions require students to elaborate on information they have experienced. They state that one particularly effective type of inferential question is “elaborative interrogation” (Ozgungor & Gutherie, 2004). Elaborative interrogation has been described as questions that have the basic design: Why would this be true? Pressley et al., 1992; Willoughby & Wood, 1994) found that questions of this type can greatly enhance students’ comprehension. Elaborative interrogations begin with inferential questions. Once students answer, they are challenged to explain why they think it is so, or why they believe it is true. It requires skillful interaction with students in that the teacher asks students to make explicit their thinking, a metacognition skill that requires practice and modeling.

Goal 1 of Brevard Public Schools’ current Strategic Plan focuses on student achievement and maximizing student potential in core area achievement, closing achievement gaps between student sub-groups, providing non-core learning opportunities, and promoting student acquisition of 21st Century skills. Roland, 2007, emphasized that the role of questioning has long been recognized as an essential part of structuring educational experiences. From Socrates’s belief that educational interactions between a teacher and student(s) should be built on the assumption that all knowledge is known or knowable if one can ask the right questions, to modern research on instructional practices, have acknowledged the importance of skillful questioning by teachers in the educational process. In Socrates’s deliberative process, both the teacher and the students explore, discover and inquire together. DeGarmo (1908) states, “In the skillful use of the question, more than anything else, lies the fine art of teaching; for in such use we have the guide to clear and vivid idea, the quick spur to imagination, the stimulus to thought, the incentive to action.” Research by Kerry (1982) found a teacher typically asks about 1,000 questions per week. Gall (1984) found that about 60 per cent of teachers’ questions require factual recall; about 20 per cent were procedural in nature, while only about 20 per cent required students to actually think. Goodlad (1984) and Wilen (1991) cited research that a primary goal of education is to teach students to think critically and creatively. To achieve this goal, they emphasize teachers must learn how to make better use of questioning to exercise and sharpen their students’ “higher order” cognitive skills. In Tony Wagner’s book, The Global Achievement Gap, (2008) critical thinking and problem solving skills are listed among the main skills the 21st century learner needs to be a productive, successful member of society and to compete with students in the global world. In Art Costa’s work, The Habits of Mind, (2009) he states an effective problem solver possesses habits of mind or dispositions such as the ability to: think critically, ask and pose questions, gather information, think flexibly, be creative, take risks, think interdependently, and make connections. Based on his research, critical thinking skills are essential to developing the minds of learners who are to be productive and successful in the 21st century.

Within the school we will support the increased use of essential questions and higher order questions to improve reading comprehension in all content areas through focused professional development, coaching, providing feedback and developing monitoring tools to track question rigor and type. Our schedule was developed to allow for grade level collaborative team planning on a daily basis as teams choose. Recent research within the school through exit slips/questionnaires shows that 85% of our teachers are not monitoring the use of essential questions. 46% of our teachers are not tracking the level of questions: high, medium, and low they are utilizing. Our leadership team and peer coaching staff will focus on providing grade levels assistance in examining and improving the quality of questions. We will increase teachers’ knowledge of essential and higher order questioning, monitor their use, and examine student work related to more rigorous questions.

Page 4

Page 5

CONTENT AREA: Reading Math Writing Science Parental

InvolvementDrop-out Prevention

ProgramsLanguage

ArtsSocial

StudiesArts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)Cambridge teachers will utilize essential questions in building instructional units around thought provoking, engaging, and integrating queries while increasing the use of higher order questions in lessons across all content areas.

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

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible

Timetable Budget In-ProcessMeasure

1. Completing the book study to impact planning and questioning early in the year.

1.Read and conduct a guided book study: Essential Questions, Opening Doors to Student Understanding by McTighe and Wiggins

Sharon Tolson, Director FDLRS EastCambridge FacultyCollaborative Learning Teams

Read and study book: September – DecemberImplement questioning strategies Sept. - May

$1,200.00 for books

Monthly written evaluation tool used after book study sessions. Teacher plans that incorporate essential questions

2. Need for monitoring tools that meet individual needs

2. Use/monitor essential questions for major units to focus and challenge students in core content subjects

TeachersPeer CoachesTitle 1 TeamAdministrators

October - May Students’ answers, Lesson Plans, Weekly Grade level team notes, walk through observations,

3. Need for monitoring tool

3. Monitor the use of higher order questions for a month to establish a baseline

TeachersPeer CoachesTitle 1 TeamAdministrators

October T charts, survey, Students’ answers, Lesson Plans, Weekly Grade level team notes, walk through observations

4. Need for monitoring tool

4. Increase the use of higher order thinking questions, using Depth of Knowledge stems, to at least 60% in

TeachersTitle 1 TeamAdministratorsPeer Coaches

November - May T charts, Notes from bi-weekly Title 1 problem solving meetings with administration, post survey

Page 6

intermediate grades and 40% in primary.

5. Funding to add teachers to the trained staffTime to share craft

5. Train at least 1 teacher in grades 3 – 6 to use and share Kagan cooperative learning strategies.

Selected teachers in grades 3 – 6

July – December $7000.00 for training registration, accommodations, and training rate pay for teachers

Lesson plans, team notes, walk through observations, classroom seating arrangements

6. Dependent upon teacher interest and time commitment

6. Offer voluntary Thinking Maps Refresher training

Self-selected teachersArianne Rivera – Thinking Maps trainer

September - March

$149.00 – Thinking Maps Conference Registration fee for A. Riveria

Training notes and sign-in sheets

7. Need for feedback sheet that teachers are willing to utilize; “buy-in”

7. Conduct quarterly grade team walk through to a different grade level with feedback related to questioning to visited teachers

Grade level teamsAdministrationPeer Coaches

October - May Feedback sheets for observed teachers

8. Cannot dictate format of lesson plans per contract

8. Provide Plan Book edu.com to assist teachers in blending NGSSS and CCSS reflecting increased rigor of standards

TeachersCCSS ELA/Math Team TeachersAdministration

Sept. - May $840.00 Lesson plans that focus on NGSS and CCSS in intermediate grades and CCSS in primary

9. Scheduling conflicts

9. Provide a math intervention block at each grade level.

TeachersTitle 1 TeamAdministration

Oct. - May Intervention block schedule and lesson plans

10. Limited number of Title 1 Teachers

10. Assign each Title 1 teacher to a specific intermediate grade level to monitor achievement data, question strategies, and provide support.

Title 1 TeamIntermediate Teachers

September - May Notes from bi-weekly Title 1 problem solving meetings with administration

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

Page 7

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of professional practices throughout the school) In August 2013, Cambridge teachers were surveyed about their use of essential questions to guide units of study and engage students in inquiry. 20% of our teachers stated they used essential questions regularly. Most of those teachers utilized them in reading. The remaining 80% expressed a low level of knowledge regarding what essential questions are and how to implement them to improve learning. 59% of our teachers reported utilizing and tracking higher order questions, though most labeled their questions as moderate vs. higher order. 41% evaluated the majority of the questions they posed as lower level/recall.

100% of teachers are expected to complete a baseline analysis of the quantity of higher order questions they currently utilize and respond to a survey by the end of Oct. stating the results. All teachers in intermediate grades will increase their use of higher order questions, utilizing Depth of Knowledge stem verbs, to a minimum of 60% and primary grade teachers will reach a minimum of 40%. T Charts, lesson plans, and student responses will be used to monitor the use of higher order questions. The change in adult behavior will be reflected in weekly grade level team meeting notes submitted to administration, classroom observation, and in the questions utilized. The use of essential questions by teachers to frame and integrate instructional units in core curriculum areas will be expected to stimulate thought, to provoke inquiry, and spark more questions by students. Grade level team notes and lesson plans will be used to monitor and reflect the use of essential questions. They are not formally utilized or monitored as an instructional practice at our school presently. Their use is expected in each core content area (English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies) with a minimum of 2 per quarter. They will be monitored thought team meeting notes, lesson plans, and classroom observations. Teachers’ Professional Growth Plan objectives will be monitored to insure there is a strong correlation between our School Improvement Plan and our teachers’ goals or action steps.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures student achievement)Cambridge students are expected to increase their ability to answer higher order inferential questions in all core content areas as well as respond to essential questions. Stem statements and/or exit slips following the use of essential questions will be submitted by students and reviewed for feedback by teachers. Teachers will monitor their use of higher order questions and will reflect on student progress in weekly team meeting notes. DIBLES Next Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) comprehension questions are administered each quarter, five times within a school year, to all 3rd graders and to students in grades 4 – 6 who have Good Cause Exemptions, were retained, or who scored level 1 on FCAT reading. Cambridge is opting to DORF all students each time, rather than the just the 3rd grade and bottom 25% requirements. Using DORF, classroom teachers will assess the required students stated above. Title 1, S.H.I.E.L.D. and administrators will assess the remaining students. This will give a progress monitoring tool that can be compared across quarters and across grade levels. Teachers and support assessors will reflect on data and make instructional decisions based on results. Primary grades, kindergarten through 2nd grade will use listening comprehension or reading comprehension questions from Florida Assessment In Reading (FAIR) to monitor growth and adjust instruction and grouping. Reflection and planning based on DORF and FAIR results by grade level teams will guide intervention and enrichment practices. The end of year achievement results will be measured in grades 3 – 6 by an anticipated grow of 10% improvement on 2013-14 FCAT 2.0 reading proficiency results. Grades K – 2 will show evidence of a minimum increase of 10% improvement for listening comprehension or reading comprehension as measured by the initial and final DORF administration.

Page 8

For the following areas, please write a brief narrative that includes the data for the year 2012-13 and a description of changes you intend to incorporate to improve the data for the year 2013-14. 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 (Identify the MTSS leadership team and it role in development and implementation of the SIP along with data sources, data management and how staff is trained in MTSS)

MTSS Leadership Team:Administration: Hilah Mercer (Principal) and Kori Hurst (Assistant Principal); Dr. Sarah Brothers (Guidance Counselor) Title I Staff: Mary Anne Pittman (Literacy Coach), Karen Tabor (Title I Math), Sandra Marines (Title I Writing/ELA); Coordinating Teacher: Erik Jacobson (Positive Behavior Support Coach)

To organize and coordinate MTSS efforts:Each grade level has a designated MTSS contact teacher who assists the team in completing the MTSS forms and processes. Each teacher has available a newly created Student Data Meeting Checklist that tracks each specific student going through the MTSS problem solving process beginning with Tier 2 with 3 successive MTSS meetings recorded on each data checklist. Cambridge employs the Continuous Improvement Model for problem solving for academic and/or behavioral improvement. We have a delineated plan of increasingly supportive MTSS interventions for students progressing through the MTSS process.

All grade level and special team teachers were trained in small groups by our school psychologist, Michelle Talenda , on August 22, 2013. An emphasis on acceptable data sources, data focus on specific skills, and intervention strategies for Tier 2 and 3 was presented/reviewed with teacher teams and administrators. Grade level communicators will provide the MTSS process information to new teachers.

Grade level data teams meet bi-weekly during planning and at least two members of the MTSS Leadership team are present for planning and assistance purposes. Teams use a problem solving model (Continuous Improvement Model) that determines root causes to academic and behavioral concerns. Based on level of concern for student, or point in the process, teachers bring specific A3 data. Teacher discusses 1-2 students of concern per meeting - beginning with retained students and those in lowest 10% and progressing to include the lowest 25%. Scientifically based programs and resources intended to improve students’ academics or behaviors are organized into three tiers. Interventions are selected as indicated by student need. Also, the guidance counselor works with teachers during these meeting to complete the Student Data Meeting checklist to ensure that all forms, observations, and documents are being completed to reflect intervention.

Collaboration is accomplished by using MTSS problem solving model and data sheets in grade level meetings. Teachers fill out Academic/Behavioral concern with extenuating circumstances and documentation of parent contact. Teachers complete MTSS Forms 1, 2 and 3A before presenting students of concern during grade

Page 9

level biweekly Tier 2 and 3 MTSS meetings. During Tier 2 and 3 MTSS meetings background information/baseline data is presented. Clear, objective, measurable goals for student progress are set. Goal gap and the correct scientifically research based intervention strategy(s) is determined. Tier 2 and 3 students are placed on a calendar for every 4-6 weeks after the initial conference (updated data). MTSS forms 1-5 must be completed prior to referral to IPST.Response to interventions will be documented on A3 data point sheets and presented to our school psychologist for graphing. Movement between tiers with adjustments to the intensity of interventions will be based on monitored data point progress. Instructional consultation will precede movement from Tier 2 to Tier 3.

MTSS Problem-solving process, based on the Continuous Improvement Model, is used in developing and implementing the SIP: The School Advisory Council, led by the school administration; the MTSS Leadership Team; and our Vertical Content Area Leadership Teams (Reading, Math, Science, and Language Art, including Writing) will review and advise the School Improvement Plan (SIP) developers. Moving all students to competency in core academic areas and closing the achievement gap between subgroups will be a primary focus of the SIP.

The Reading Coach will be responsible for advising, monitoring and modeling additional strategies and reviewing materials for all grade level interventions. This coach will also provide modeling of instruction for intervention groups. Our English Language Arts Common Core team and Peer Coaches will assist with staff training and providing feedback.

The 3-6 Math Coach will model instructional strategies for teaching the NGSSS Math Curriculum to classroom teachers to include CCSS practices at all grade levels and CCSS standards in primary, non-FCAT tested, grade levels. She will also provide faculty wide and grade level training. Our Math Common Core team and Peer Coaches will assist in training teachers and in providing feedback.

The Writing/ELA Coach will monitor writing in response to reading samples from each grade level K-6. She will ensure the grade level specific school-wide writing plan is implemented. She will model and assist with writing instruction in the classrooms with an increased emphasis on writing conventions. In 4th grade the emphasis will continue to be writing in response to a narrative or expository prompt to match FCAT 2.0 Writing assessment.

The Science Leadership Team will responsible for advising, monitoring and modeling strategies and reviewing materials for science instruction for all grade levels. Resources will be provided to classroom teachers in implementing the NGSSS Science Curriculum. Our Science Lab will be utilized by our Title 1 science teacher as part of the activity wheel for grades 2-6.

The Guidance Counselor and S.H.I.E.L.D. teachers will perform classroom observations on students of concern. Our Guidance Counselor will serve as the coordinator of the bi-weekly MTSS Grade Level/Data Team meetings. Title 1 teachers and Peer Coaches will participate as possible and will monitor students in the MTSS process.

Cambridge’s Academic Support Program (ASP) plan addresses intermediate students working below grade level in reading, math, writing, and science. Students are invited in order of need, beginning with those scoring level 1 on FCAT reading and/or math or below proficiency in science and writing. We provide targeted services after school and on Saturdays during January, February, and March. Our computer based instructional program, Success Maker, is incorporated into the program. We utilize a small group instruction

Page 10

and center rotation to maximize instructional time and student engagement.

Positive Behavior Support (PBS) will continue to be implemented school-wide. PBS Tier 2 interventions will also be implemented. Coordinating Teacher, Erik Jacobson (PBS Coach) will serve as Tier 2 implementer for grades 2-6. Our Guidance Counselor will be the Tier 2 coach for grades K-1. A “Check In/Check Out” intervention with parent and student involvement will be utilized when data indicates the intervention works for the student.

The data source(s) and the data management system(s) used to summarize data:Data SourcesDistrict Required Assessments (DRAs) based on the district adopted content area curriculum programs for reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. (Tier 1,2,3)Florida Assessment in Reading (FAIR) (Tier 1,2,3)Dibels Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)Brevard English Language Arts Assessment (BELAA) – under developmentPearson SuccessMaker Computer Assisted Instruction (Tier 1,2,3)Phonological Awareness Screener for Intervention (PASI) (Tier 2,3)Phonics Screener for Intervention (PSI) (Tier 2,3)Rewards-Multisyllabic Word Study (Tier 2,3)Voyager (Tier 3)

Data Management SystemsA3 VisionAS400Desktop Student Data SystemProgress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN)

Our plan to train staff on MTSS.August 2013 - May 2014teachers, MTSS Leadership Team, to include administration and Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST), will continue to meet bi-weekly to focus on compliance with Tier 1, 2, and 3 MTSS mandates and best practices. Grade level designee teachers will serve as MTSS facilitators for the teachers on their team.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT:

22% of Cambridge parents participated in the 2013 parent survey. Areas of Strength:

Communication: o Personal Phone Calls from Staffo Newsletters and Teacher notes including agenda

School /Academic Meetingso Information is useful

Safe School Environment o Walking students throughout neighborhoodo Keeping parents informed

ESE Serviceso 504s, IEP, and EP

Page 11

21st Century Skills Academics

o Reading, Math and Science

Areas of Concerns/Needs:

Communication: o Synervoice-up to date numbers needed – addressing - meeting with Pat Lewis to review reporting

systems and make on-going corrections as possible School /Academic Meetings

o Meetings not at convenient time – addressing - increasing use of 5:30 and 6:00 as start timeso Not enough prior notification – addressing - increased use of synervoice and agenda notes – renovation

of school sign Parent Topics

o Anti-bullying – addressing – held poorly attended Title 1 meeting in 2013; addressing - will include pizza at this year’s presentation which is scheduled for November with guest presenter, Janean Knight from Student Services

o Homework Help – held poorly attended Title 1 meeting in 2013– addressing - add time for teachers to model how to help students with homework in content areas

Safe School Environmento Car loop and Traffic – Addressing – Met with Cocoa Police Dept. to revamp dismissal times and order of

dismissal – added VPK four year olds to covered car loop area; bought shade structure and added picnic tables for 3 year old VPK students

ESE Serviceso Adult Services – addressing – continue to offer English acquisition classes for ELL parents and GED

opportunity through Zoo Explorer 21st Century Learning Granto Transitional Services – addressing through Individual Problem Solving Team communication with EELP

and 6th grade parents

In additional to our regularly scheduled Title 1 nights Cambridge parents, students and teachers will participate in dinner and data nights. Students will set goals, track and discuss individualized data with their parents. Cambridge English language classes are being provided through a partnership with Adult Ed and Title 1 to support non-English speaking parents with their acquisition of English. Cambridge will enhance parent involvement focused on student achievement through the increase use of Edline. Teachers in grades 3-6 will post grades weekly in core academic areas for parent review and follow-up with their students. This will in turn increase student achievement. Cambridge’s Parent Involvement Plan at https://app1.fldoe.org/bsa/parentInvolvementPlan/

Page 12

Early Warning Systems (Formerly Attendance, Suspension, and Graduation Rate)

ATTENDANCECambridge had an overall attendance rate of 95.10% at the end of the 2012-2013 school year. As a result of our increased attendance rate expectation we will continue to utilize Synervoice (automated phone call home) system to inform guardians of daily student absences and tardies. Our staff will distribute letters to parents of students with excessive absences based on the requirements of the Brevard Public Schools Attendance Policy. Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST) meetings will be conducted prior to referral of students to our Central Area Resource Teacher for Attendance as required by BPS policy.

2013 Current Attendance Rate 2014 Expected Attendance Rate

95.11% 95.20%

2013 Current Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

2014 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

158 142

2013 Current Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

2014 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

203 180

SUSPENSION:Cambridge differentiates Tier 2 through Positive Behavior Support: Response to Intervention for Behavior by use of the PBS Coach to form behavior interventions based on areas of concern for Tier 2 students and track discipline data accordingly.

2013 Total Number of In-School Suspensions

2014 Expected Number of In-School Suspensions

47 45

2013 Total Number of Students Suspended In-School

2014 Expected Number of Students Suspended In-School

39 35

2013 Number of Out-of-School Suspensions

2013 Expected Number of Out-of-School Suspensions

91 80

2013 Total Number of Students 2013 Expected Number of Students

Page 13

Suspended Out-of-School Suspended Out-of-School

48 45

CTE/STEM:

1. All Levels

a) # of STEM-related experiences provided for students (e.g. robotics competitions; field trips; science fairs) – 10 experiences: Lagoon Quest field trip, Cambridge Science Fair, Central Area Science Fair, Title 1 Math Night, Title 1 Science Night, Kennedy Space Center field trip, Brevard Community College/East Florida State College Medical Arts and EMT training program field trip, Captain Winston Scott, NASA astronaut presentation, FPL Electrical Magic presentation, City of Cocoa Wonder of Water Conservation Program

b) Participation in STEM-related experiences provided for students –Cambridge Science Lab re-established and added back into the Activity Wheel for grades 2 – 6, Harris Super Science Saturdays, Cocoa High School Feeder Chain STEM Grant Netbook computers for 5th and laptop computers for 6th grade, Lagoon Quest field trip, Cambridge Science Fair, Central Area Science Fair, Title 1 Math Night, Title 1 Science Night, Kennedy Space Center field trip, Brevard Community College/East Florida State College Medical Arts and EMT training program field trip, Caption Winston Scott, NASA astronaut presentation, FPL Electrical Magic presentation, City of Cocoa Wonder of Water Conservation Program

STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS (Required): Participate rate: 100% of Cambridge students in grades 3rd – 6th

participated in the survey at school. 78% of Cambridge students want to achieve success and worry about

making mistakes indicating they want to do well at school. Following this trend, 87% state they believe their

school work will help them later in life. 96% of our students stated they learned about online safety at school.

70% indicated they had experienced no negative online events. The vast majority of our students stated they use

technology tools to create projects; the most in math at 84%. The next subject where they use technology tools

Page 14

most was science. The subject where they used technology the least was Physical Education at 44% (pedometers

and CD’s).

87% of our students state they feel safe at school. The majority of those who stated they do not feel safe, 6.2%,

reported their problems occurred while walking or riding their bikes to school. The next largest percent 5.81

stated they had problems in the hallways.

241 Cambridge student in 3rd -6th grades participated in the 2013 student survey.

Areas of Strength: Importance of Academic

o 86% of students agree or strongly believe that their school work will help them later in life o 95% of students have learned about online safety at school

Cyber Bullyingo 85% of students understand that they should report cyber bullying to an adulto 85% of students report that are not or have not been cyber-bullied

Student Safetyo 87% of students feel safe at Cambridge

Areas of Concerns/Needs: Safety on way to school walking or riding bikes -addressing-talking to students about staying with

buddies and having administration walking in the neighborhood at dismissal Safety in hallways- addressing- increased supervision in hallways during arrival and dismissal Knowledge of what is quality research- addressing – meet with Media Specialist to address

information related to research skills and target areas myths of students(listed)o A friend shared informationo Date publishedo Top result of Google and Bing searcho Author is known

o School /Academic Meeting

Technology as a tool to create projects and develop practical use of technology – addressing – purchase of 20 iPads for classroom check out, work with 5th grade team to use Netbooks at Brevard Zoo.

Page 15

(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)

Highly Effective Teachers Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.

Descriptions of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date

1. Cambridge Elementary Magnet School welcomes pre-service teachers from both Eastern Florida State College and the University of Central Florida.

Administration Trained supervising teachers

May 2014

2. Our teachers allow the education majors to observe them in the classroom and welcome them as tutors in the America Reads, Brevard Deeds, and BCC Buddies Program

Administration, Teachers, SACC Coordinator

May 2014

3. Each new teacher hired at Cambridge receives a CET mentor teacher and is assisted by our Mentor Council Representative, National Board Certified Teachers, our Reading Coach, our Title I Coordinator, as well as writing, science, and math contact members.

Administration, Title 1 Teachers, Teacher Mentors

May 2014

4. Our Alternative Certification teachers have a district mentor, as well as a school site mentor to assist with their transition into the field of education.

Administration, Teacher Mentors May 2014

5. B.E.S.T. practices and Instructional Performance Appraisal System Observation criteria will be used to create a system for continuous improvement of instruction and supervision based on a common vision of effective teaching.

Administration May 2014

6. Our goal is to have 80% of the teaching staff hold a master’s degree or higher or National Board Certification by 2020.

Administration, Teachers May 2014

Non-Highly Effective Instructors Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).

Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field/and who are not highly

effective

Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support the staff in becoming

highly effective16% (8) are currently out of field for ESOL

• Robin Cook• Kristen Gibson• Erik Jacobson• Beverly Jones Tiffany Remington

All teachers are currently completing professional development ESOL course work being offered through the

District by year’s end

Page 16

• Sarah Taldi• Monique Vargas

• Roaxanne Woerner

Page 17