MOLINA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - New Jersey€¦ · New Jersey Department of Education Molina Elementary...

New Jersey Department of Education Molina Elementary School 2009-2010 CAPA Collaborative Benchmark Assessment Review Camden City School District

CAPA COLLABORATIVE BENCHMARK ASSESSMENT REVIEW

CAMDEN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

MOLINA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

February 9 - 11, 2010

Introduction The New Jersey Department of Education conducted a Collaborative Benchmark Assessment review of Molina Elementary School on February 9 to 11, 2010. This school is designated as “in need of improvement” for five consecutive years as defined in the NJ Accountability Workbook. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) §1117: School Support and Recognition requires that the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) create and maintain a statewide system of intensive and sustained support for those Title I schools designated as “in need of improvement” for more than two consecutive years. As part of this required support system, the NJDOE developed the Collaborative Benchmark Assessment review process as a follow-up to the Collaborative Assessment for Planning and Achievement (CAPA) process. The purpose of the Collaborative Benchmark Assessment process is to: • Conduct a focused visit, tailored and customized to the school needs—determined by the data; • Review the implementation of the CAPA recommendations and restructuring plan in action—keeping

to the fidelity of implementation; • Jointly (with the school and district) perform: data analysis, problem solving, root cause analysis,

decision making, and planning; and • Focus on governance. The team activities included a review of the documents collected for the school portfolio and data profile; classroom visitations; and interviews with teachers, building leadership and administration, district administrators, and school support staff. Following the study of documentation and the conducting of interviews and classroom visitations, the team discussed selected CAPA indicators and the school’s restructuring plan. Based on these findings, the team offered its recommendations to the district and New Jersey Department of Education. Restructuring Plan Governance Changes The original CAPA Team visited a preK to 5 school of 553 students. This year the school is a preK to 6 school. The school failed to make AYP for total population, students with disabilities, African-American population, and economically disadvantaged population. All subgroups have made AYP through the safe-harbor criteria. The primary strategies identified by the restructuring plan were: reducing the number of special education students, increasing the rigor of instruction for LAL and mathematics, and infusing technology into the classroom instruction. Since the school had a large special education population—disproportionally large compared to other schools in Camden City—the district reduced the number of special education classrooms by five classes, from ten to five. The school has also used the SIGa funds to engage the Rutgers Institute for Student Achievement intervention to improve the school’s instructional process.


2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress Summary

Summary of 2009 State Assessment Data Analysis Language Arts Literacy: • LAL scores tend to be lower than math scores at all grade levels. • The mean scale scores for total population are 176.6 (grade 3); 166.5 (grade 4); and173.8 (grade 5), well

below the 200 cut off. • Molina School’s LAL scores are below the scores of other elementary schools of this district factor

group (DFG) of A. • Compared to other schools of the district, the 3rd grade results are similar; the 4th grade results are

lower; and the 5th grade results are higher. • In the state, females tend to score better on the LAL section of NJ ASK in all three elementary grades.

At Molina, however, this trend is reversed – males are scoring better. • At the 3rd grade level, writing scores tend to be better than reading scores. In the clusters for the total

population, 3rd grade students are doing better on writing task 1. In reading, the working with text cluster is most problematic.


• Only the white subgroup scale score compares favorably with the general population scale score. All other subgroups are below.

• No students are scoring in the advanced proficient range at any grade level. • On the 4th grade science section of the NJ ASK, the proficiency rate is 54.2% coupled with advanced

proficiency rate of 6.0% (totaling 60.2%). Female students are outscoring males on this assessment. • R.C. Molina School is in year 6. Mathematics: • Of the total tested students, 182 students or approximately 70% made partial proficiency status. Eight

students out of the tested 260 studemts of grades 3 through 6 made advanced proficiency status. Last school year’s grade 6 scores reflect the fact that the school was preK through 5 only. There were two 6th grade special education self-contained students. This year the school contains preK through 6. R.C. Molina Elementary School made 37 out of the total possible 41 indicators. This school is currently in year 5 hold for mathematics.

• All math clusters tested achieved below the just proficient means (JPM) for every grade. • Male-female proficiency scores are close except for grade 3: males 31.5% and females 19.4%. Special Education: • In mathematics data analysis, numbers & operations and patterns & algebra were the major areas in

which the students had the most difficulty. • The language arts literacy data indicate that the students were most challenged in working with text,

reading, and analyzing text. English Language Learners: • At grade 4 in LAL and grade 5 in math, all students were partially proficient. Of 59 ELLs across grades

3 to 5, only four students scored proficient in LAL. In mathematics, 13 students of the 59 tested scored proficient/advanced proficient. The overall proficiency rate for ELLs in both LAL and mathematics is lower than that for the total population.

Administrative: • The largest subgroup across all grades levels was the Hispanic students, 76% of students. Ninety-eight

percent of the students are classified as economically disadvantaged. The mean scale score was below 200 for each grade level. The range was 172.2 to 196.2. The total student population and all the subgroups made AYP in math through safe harbor.

• In language arts literacy there was a 9-to-11-point gap across the grade levels and genders. The most obvious gap was in 4th grade. In math the most obvious gap occurred in 3rd grade, where males outscored females by 16.4 points. In the 4th and 5th grades the gaps were not significant.

• Only 3rd grade math had students who scored advanced proficient. Team Lead: • Gender achievement in LAL reflects typical differences in male and female outcomes, whereby the

girls generally score higher in LAL than the boys, and in math the reverse is generally true, that the boys do better than the girls. But at Molina the boys outperformed the girls in LAL and also in math, except for 4th grade where the girls outperformed the boys in math.


Root Cause Analysis Language Arts Literacy: The following issues were cited in the 2009-2010 Title I Unified Plan and the recent school restructuring plan and offered in discussion with staff: 1. The students are severely culturally disadvantaged. Generally, their level of readiness for learning level

is low. The low degree of parental involvement hinders student success. Last year, the school’s mobility rate was reported to be approximately 38%.

2. In the past, teachers did not always know students’ academic strengths and weaknesses. Instruction was not sufficiently individualized, and remedial assistance was weak. Practices have been put into place this year to address this concern.

3. Because of limited funding, the school is not able to offer sufficient after-school programs designed to assist students.

4. The LAL curriculum has no pacing guides. It was reported that some teachers have not completed the expected programs.

5. The district makes frequent changes in instructional approaches and materials. Teachers do no have the time to “perfect” what they are doing before a program is changed. The degree of input that teachers feel they have in this process is extremely low.

Mathematics: 1. There is a lack of consistency among the math strategies used for the different grade levels. Grades K-

2 use the enVision Math text, which is a problem-based interactive math program using authentic applications and a large interdisciplinary connection with literacy. Grades 3-4 use the Harcourt Brace Math Series, which is more traditionally based and uses teacher-directed learning a majority of the time. Grades 5-6 use the LLTeach series, which is a hands-on, inquiry-based program with lack of differentiation and personalization.

2. Grades 5 and 6 general and inclusion math classes follow the LLTeach curriculum. Grades 5 and 6 self-contained classified students follow the school-mandated curriculum using the HBJ math materials.

3. Little rigor was evident during math classroom instruction. 4. The amount of benchmark assessments mandated by the district causes classroom instruction time to

be decreased. Special Education: 1. There is poor implementation of differentiation in both general and special education instruction. 2. There is a lack of opportunities for students with disabilities to participate with support and services in

general education classes (inclusion classes). 3. There is a lack of supervision by central office and building administration of programs and

implementation of student individualized educational programs. 4. There is limited exposure to general education curriculum in self-contained classes through planning,

analyzing data, and discussion of learning strategies. English Language Learners: 1. There is no bilingual prekindergarten class, so that ELLs do not have the advantage, offered by early

childhood education, to develop early language skills in the native language. 2. There are no bilingual special education classes, so that those ELLs with special needs do not have the

appropriate educational services available to them.


3. Not all FLEP students are being identified and coded on the tests to fold their results into the total LEP test results.

4. The instructional program does include the level of rigor needed to assure that students acquire the skills to be successful as measured by the NJ ASK.

Administrative: 1. Teachers do not use the data available to determine students’ strengths and weaknesses, to develop

individual learning plans, or to provide short-term instructional interventions. 2. In spite of many school-sponsored activities, there is a lack of an organized parent organization to

build the support. Participation of the stakeholders to assist students with homework and long-term projects is not evident.

3. The level of rigor and high expectations throughout the building are not consistent. 4. Teacher Survey: “The district purchases so many programs simultaneously to attempt to raise scores.

The students are constantly being tested. Regular class work progresses at a snail's pace. Now the Learnia test is being administered with skills not yet covered in class. Teachers are test examiners who fill in charts, data cards, computer programs, intervention forms, and surveys. Attempting to keep up is a nightmare!”


CAPA DISTRICT - SCHOOL “CORE” STANDARDS AND INDICATORS for THREE-DAY VISIT

STANDARD 1: CURRICULUM/DISTRICT

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fully implemented in the school programs. 1.2 The district curriculum is implemented at the school.

1.4 The school ensures that all students have access to the district’s common academic core. STANDARD 2: CLASSROOM EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT

Multiple evaluation and assessment strategies are used to continuously monitor and modify instruction to meet student needs and support proficient student work. 2.1 Multiple classroom assessments are frequent, rigorous, and aligned with core content standards.

2.2 Students can articulate the expectations, know requirements, and assess their own and others’ work.

2.3 Test scores are used to identify gaps and adjust instructional practice for all subgroups. STANDARD 3: INSTRUCTION

There is evidence that effective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in all classrooms and are continuously monitored and aligned with individual student needs. 3.1 Instructional strategies include a variety of challenging and engaging activities.

3.3 Teachers demonstrate necessary content knowledge and pedagogy. STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTURE

The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a climate conducive to performance excellence. 4.1 The school community supports a safe, equitable, and healthy learning environment.

4.2 The members of the school community, including school leadership, instructional staff, students, parents/adult caregivers, and partners, possess and cultivate the collective will to persevere, believing it is their business to produce increased achievement and advancement of all students.

STANDARD 5: SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL The school community collaborates with families, higher education, and community organizations to remove barriers to learning and address the needs of the students. 5.1 There are structures and support services in place to reduce barriers to learning for students.

5.2 Families and the community are active partners in the educational process and work with the school to meet the needs of all students.

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The school provides for staff research-based, results-driven professional development opportunities that are consistent with the district’s professional development plan, and implements performance evaluation procedures in order to improve teaching and learning. 6.2 School-based professional development priorities are set by aligning the goals for student performance with the evidence

of achievement and with the Professional Development Plans (formerly PIPs) and evaluations of teachers and the Professional Growth Plans of principals.

STANDARD 7: LEADERSHIP AND NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE The school leaders have organized the school by focusing on teaching and learning through (a) the communication of a clear vision, mission, and goals; (b) maximizing use of all available resources; (c) creating a learning culture with high performance expectations; and (d) effective planning with input from all stakeholders. 7.1 Key leaders in the school facilitate a collaborative process to develop a shared mission, vision, values, and goals, which are

understood and ingrained in the school’s culture. 7.2 There is a demonstrated and unrelenting focus on evidence-based teaching and learning.

7.3 There is a culture of trust, continuous improvement, and accountability for performance.

7.4 School leadership and the NCLB school improvement committee plan effectively by communicating a clear purpose, direction, and strategies focused on teaching and learning through the development, implementation, and evaluation of the following: vision, goals, and the NCLB school improvement plan.


FINDINGS, KEY EVIDENCE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MOLINA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

STANDARD 1: CURRICULUM

The district’s rigorous, intentional, and aligned curriculum is fully implemented at the school.

1.2 How do all teachers use the curriculum in planning instruction?

The LAL curricular guides for grades K-5 are new as of September 2009. Most teachers report these guides to be satisfactory in design and useful for planning. Common planning time for most grade level teachers has been built into the master schedule this year.

During math classroom visitations, it is noted that all teachers follow their lesson plans, which are aligned to NJ CCCS and mandated by the board from the 2007-2008 year. Lesson plans are checked weekly by the administration; written or unwritten comments are provided. Walkthroughs are done by the administration formally or informally at least once per month. The math coach visits classrooms at a minimum of twice monthly.

There is a district curriculum that is aligned with the NJ CCCS. All special education teachers use the curriculum in planning instruction.

The school supports instruction in the classroom through regular monthly meetings with the bilingual/ESL supervisor. Although bilingual and ESL teachers informally plan together regularly, there is not a formal curriculum integration of the ESL and bilingual language arts literacy programs. The teachers are experiencing difficulty implementing the language arts literacy program due to conflicting understandings of what the core focus of the curriculum design is. Students “conference” on 100 Book Challenge with teachers but do not receive guided reading instruction. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• Each grade level team has a chairperson designated by the principal. Grade level team leaders meet with the principal once per month and turnkey information to their counterparts. Teachers at each grade level have one collaborative planning period per week; some meet during the day and some meet after school. Agendas and minutes are maintained. LAL and math coaches frequently participate in these meetings.

• Teachers do get to dialogue with teachers of other grade levels twice during the school year. • Frequent learning walks (walkthroughs) are conducted by textbook consultants, the Rutgers

Institute for Improving Achievement (RIISA) consultants, and school administrators. Findings are shared with staff.

Mathematics

• Grade level teachers meet weekly for at least 30 minutes. The bilingual teachers meet with their grade level teachers weekly. The ESL teachers meet with the bilingual teachers informally.

• The Rowan-Camden Math Partnership, school year 2006-2009, and RIISA, started in September 2009, have provided grade-specific supplementary activities and problems that mirror the NJ ASK.

• There is a professional development lending library for math supplementary materials and manipulatives.


• Calendar Math, Fast Math, and First in Math are some of the supplementary activities being used. • There is a building math coach for lesson modeling, coaching, planning, data analysis, material

supplementation, and pedagogy help.

Special Education • The teachers are able to link classroom instruction to the NJ CCCS, and it is in their objectives.

English Language Learners • The 100 Book Challenge includes appropriate titles in Spanish to support the district-adopted

reading program. • Bilingual teachers meet in grade level meetings for collaborative planning. • Bililngual teachers also meet with their cooperating ESL teachers, although informally.

Challenges: Language Arts Literacy

• Teachers are expected to implement the core LAL programs, but they have very little input into how these programs will be implemented (pre-planning). There does not seem to be any formal process in place for teachers to have input in evaluating program effectiveness (post-planning).

• The amount of time for horizontal articulation is limited to one time per week, and not all teachers have in their schedules common planning time with their grade level counterparts.

Mathematics

• There is no vertical articulation with the middle school math and elementary school teachers. • Little evidence is noted of rigor in the classroom. • The special education teacher does not meet with all of the grade level teachers that they teach.

The special education teacher meets with the student majority grade level teachers. • Grades 5 and 6 received their LLTeach materials in December of the school year. • Some 3rd grade math students do not have their own textbooks.

Special Education • Discussions are not held horizontally or vertically for effective planning and meaningful

instruction. • It is hard for the instructional staff to use effectively a curriculum that is in constant change. • Teachers are aware through training of what resources are available to support their lessons, yet

they are unable to take full advantage of the resources because the district does not provide them in a timely manner.

English Language Learners

• The school has a new reading series Storytown, 100 Book Challenge, and an ESL curriculum, but these programs are not fully integrated and focused on the goal of developing full literacy skills that transfer to English.

• The bilingual teachers meet with the grade level teachers, but the ESL teachers only meet with them infrequently since they cover several grades.

• The ESL teacher schedule does not provide push-in instruction as a part of a coordinated language arts literacy program, but rather as two stand-alone curricula taught in the same classroom.


1.4 What evidence exists that all students have access to the district’s common academic core?

All students receive 120 minutes of instruction in language arts each day. The remainder of the day consists of 90 minutes for math, 45 minutes for health/science/social studies, and 45 minutes for special areas. Basal LAL programs are utilized in all classrooms.

Each teacher has a hard copy of the curriculum and the pacing guide for their math grade level classes. Pacing guides must be adhered to for the student quarterly benchmark assessments.

There is evidence that all students, even special education students, have access to the common academic core. The fact remains that 75% of the special education population is in self-contained classes. This seems to indicate that, in practice, all students do not have access to the common academic core.

Full and appropriate services are not available to all ELLs. The master schedule shows ESL instruction is not scheduled during language arts literacy at kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 4. Some ESL instruction is scheduled during specials. There are not bilingual special education classes available for ELLs who are in self-contained classes. There are no bilingual preK services offered to ELLs. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• The district’s new curricular guides for LAL (K-5) include a modifications section offering teachers instructional approaches and suggestions for working with the special needs students assigned to their classes.

• The special areas that are available include physical education, music, art, Spanish, library, computers, and science. The schedule varies depending on the grade and the class.

Mathematics

• The implemented curriculum and the work product for the ELL classes evidence high teacher expectations.

• Specialized instructional materials are a component of all the math textbooks in use. • The inclusion teacher and partner general education teacher have one weekly common planning

period. • The inclusion teacher attends grade level meetings with their co-teacher and have one common

planning period per week.

English Language Learners • The school has an inclusion teacher for grade 1 who speaks Spanish. • Special needs students who are ELLs receive ESL instruction.


• Because there are not enough special area teachers in the building, the course offerings differ. All students participate in special area classes, but not necessarily the same specials.

• Not all teachers received their basal teaching materials at the start of the school year. • Although there are some specialized materials available (such as editions in Spanish), some teachers

report not having various basal components or manipulatives.

Mathematics • There is no formal gifted and talented program or specialized courses.


• The self-contained special education teacher meets weekly with the respective majority student grade level.

• Little evidence is noted of high expectations for special education students. • LLTeach math materials are not available in Spanish.

Special Education

• The learning needs of all students in the special education classes are not being met. There is whole class instruction with little differentiation. Work sheets appear to be the norm in the classes, with little, if any, project-based learning.

• The co-teaching model has not been developed sufficiently for instructuion to be seamless with the teachers. The special education teacher is a secondary teacher with no acknowledgement of the special education teacher when reporting student progress.

• Materials appear to be sparse and, in some cases, out of date. Teachers do not receive the required basic materials in a timely fashion in order to effect best practice and student achievement. For the most part, materials are on the students’ functioning level, not on the grade level with modifications.


• There are no bilingual special education classes for ELLs who need these services. • There are no bilingual preK classes, which are critical for the early language development needed

to be successful in school. • The ESL teachers do not always provide ESL services during language arts literacy. • Rather than having the services of a bilingual psychologist, a bilingual teacher translates for the

psychologist. This does not provide a valid assessment of the child. • Despite having the core reading materials available, in one classroom these materials are still in

wrappers. • Teachers do not always provide guided reading instruction to their students, but rather conference

with students on 100 Book Challenge reading.

STANDARD 2: CLASSROOM EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT

Multiple evaluation and assessment strategies are used to continuously monitor and modify instruction to meet student needs and support proficient student work.

2.1 How are assessments designed to measure performance in ways that advance learning through the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills?

The assessment tools utilized schoolwide include DRA (Diagnostic Reading Assessment), Storytown basal components (weekly tests; end-of-theme tests; beginning-of-year, mid-year, and end-of-year benchmark tests), READ 180 program tests, 100 Book Challenge conferences, Learnia tests, and district quarterly tests. Student writing is maintained in individual folders.


The quarterly benchmark assessments for grades 5 and 6 (LLTeach curricula) and the pacing guides are aligned using Learnia. Grades 3 and 4 also use Learnia, and their pacing guides are aligned to the benchmark assessments. The benchmark math assessments mirror the NJ ASK in type and difficulty.

The district collects data, but it is not used by the staff to drive instruction. Teacher-made tests, Learnia, and DRA are used regularly to assess and monitor student understanding and progress.

The school uses the IDEL to measure student reading levels. They also use ACCESS data to identify levels of English acquisition. However, Learnia is not available in Spanish. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• Teachers are analyzing Learnia test results with their Data Analysis Protocol. This analysis includes an identification of skill needs for each student, the instructional changes that the teacher will make, and how they will measure those instructional changes. Learnia test reports provide teachers with a skill analysis for each student and the class as a whole.

• Teachers maintain a conference notebook detailing the work students are doing with the 100 Book Challenge reading. Teachers maintain a running record of the individual conferences that they have with their students. They also keep work folders of student writing and classwork.

Mathematics

• Formative assessment strategies are built into the math lessons: Communicators, “do you understand”, “raise your hand if you do not understand”, etc.

Special Education

• Teachers use a variety of self-made tests and quizes to evaluate student performance.

English Language Learners • Some good writing practices are observed, including writing conferencing and writing folders that

reflected the writing process, including graphic organizers, drafts, and final edited writing pieces. • ESL teachers review journal writing and vocabulary acquisition weekly as part of their regular

assessment of English language development. • ACCESS “Can Do” profiles are shared by the bilingual and ESL teachers.


• It takes a great deal of instructional time to assess students with all the formal tools available to measure individual and classroom progress in reading and writing.

• Teachers are spending a significant amount of time conducting their individual conferences, and this time limits the amount of guided reading, etc., that is taking place in each classroom.

• The Learnia Data Analysis Protocol lacks any measureable goal setting, either for the whole class or individual students. Although the Learnia Data Analysis Protocol is turned into school administrators and/or coaches, it it unclear how these documents are reviewed.

• Although each student has a writing/classwork folder, no guidelines have been established for teachers as to how these folders are to be maintained. Student work progress is not maintained from year to year.


Mathematics • Portfolio assessments are not mandated by the board and are not used by math teachers as an

assessment component. • Benchmark Math Learnia assessments are not available in Spanish. Some students are not tested

for their math knowledge deficiencies or mastery. • Little evidence is seen of student projects.

Special Education • Peer evaluations are not a common practice in the classroom. There is little evidence other than

worksheets to show daily assessments. • Portfolios are not commonly used to assess student growth. Differentiation is needed in assessing

student achievement. • Rubrics are not consistently used; therefore students are not able to evaluate their own work.

English Language Learners • Although students are engaged in writing, rubrics are not used appropriately to help students

develop their own sense of the elements needed for good writing. Much of the student work posted does not include meaningful feedback.

• Student work is posted in the halls, but very little work is posted in the classrooms. • Despite IDEL results to place students in reading groups, this data is not used to form groups, and

individual reading conferences are conducted instead.

2.2 How do students know what is expected; and are they able to articulate expectations, share their work, and reflect on others’ work?

Some, but not all, students when asked can readily articulate appropriate information regarding the tasks in which they were engaging. Strategies such as “pair-share” and small cooperative groupings are noted in many LAL classes. The amount of feedback that teachers provide students is limited, and the degree to which students reflect upon and revise their work is low.

All classrooms have the objectives posted for the math lessons. Every single student interviewed can explain what they are learning during the lesson.

The students indicate that they know what is expected of them by what the teacher tells them to do. The teachers are expected to make clear student expectations and post them when stating the objective. However, the students are unable to describe verbally what is expected of them.

The use of rubrics is not appropriately embedded in teacher practice. Only very basic rubrics are displayed across the building. Student work samples have rubric scores but lack substantive feedback. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• The practice of posting instructional learning goals or objectives is utilized in some, but not all, classes.

• Students, when asked, have a clear understanding of what a rubric is and how it is to be used. • Rubrics, both NJ state and teacher-made, are displayed in some classrooms and with most hallway

displays.


Mathematics • All students interviewed are able to define what a rubric is, and the students report its use in many

types of classrooms. • Math lessons during classroom visits demonstrate that teachers use a variety of methods to check

for student progress, such as connectors, teacher circulation, “raise your hand if you understand”, and student explanations.

Special Education

• Students exchange papers in some classes to correct each other’s work.

English Language Learners • Student work is posted in the halls. • Students say that they engage in peer editing and revision of math work.


• Students report that their teachers always provide the rubric scoring. • Teachers are posting student work in classrooms and throughout the hallways. The practice of

posting a rubric with the work is inconsistent from teacher to teacher. There is no evidence that teachers provide or display exemplars.

• Teacher feedback is generally a grade, praise, or a sticker. • Students report that the task of revising their work is limited to writing assignments. They report

not having many opportunities to redo tests for the purpose of demonstrating improved understanding.

Mathematics

• Some parents are not aware of the use of rubrics. • Little evidence is seen of meaningful teacher feedback concerning student work. Students would

use this feedback to revise their work product for an increase in their grade. Students report that they have done some revisions for a better grade.

• A small amount of math exemplars is posted throughout this building. • A majority of the classrooms visited evidence teacher-led, whole-group instruction. Although the

desks are in group configuration, student peer assessment is noted in a small number of classrooms.

Special Education

• There appears to be univeral agreement among students that rubrics are not consistently used, and their understanding of rubrics is rather vague.

• There is little opportunity for students to review and revise their own work to obtain a better grade.


• Although students are engaged in writing, rubrics are not used appropriately to help students develop their own sense of the elements needed for good writing.

• The student work posted does not include meaningful feedback. • Traditional grades are still used more commonly than rubric scoring.


2.3 How is assessment data used to drive instructional practice and student placement and to address student needs?

Data is utilized for flexible groupings and guided reading groups within the classroom, for student intervention/remediation, and placement in classrooms.

Throughout the year, math teachers formally discuss classroom academic trends, curriculum, pedagogy, and individual student performances at their weekly horizontal articulation meetings.

The assessment data is collected. If analyzed, it is not shared with staff or used to drive instruction. It does not influence student placement. The individualized education program (IEP) is developed in the spring; the data received is not reviewed again in the fall.

During regular monthly meetings with the ESL supervisor, test results are discussed and reviewed. However, the bilingual and ESL teachers do not meet together to review and discuss assessment data for shared students. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• Each grade level team develops an action plan based upon NJ ASK results. These action plans include general instructional points to be considered throughout the year.

• Under RIISA’s guidance, a data management team has been newly formed, and teachers are participating on the CAPs (classroom assessment practices) team.

Mathematics

• After the students take the benchmark assessments, Learnia creates data analysis reports identifying student strengths and weaknesses according to the standard cumulative progress indicators. The different standards have percentages of achievement for each grade level. The coach then meets with the specific grade levels to discuss the data. Before the meeting, teachers are given a targeted needs report, which groups their students according to their needs. An item analysis can also be done, if requested.

• Each student’s progress is monitored using a Student Intervention Report; this is an individual student plan. This report addresses and provides for immediate student intervention. After the intervention, there is a place to check for mastery or still developing.

• The coach discusses the results of the quarterly benchmarks and provides strategies for remediation at the grade level meetings.

• After the analysis meeting, teachers fill out the Data Analysis Protocol Form, which is the plan the teacher will implement for the entire math class.

• Vertical articulation meeting are called by the principal a few times a year.

English Language Learners • ESL teachers have breakouts of ACCESS data that help them identify individual student needs in

English language development. • Bilingual classroom teachers use IDEL results to place students in guided reading groups.


• There is not sufficient collaborative time in the master schedule for teachers to analyze all the data that the number of formative assessments provides.


Mathematics • There is little vertical articulation with the middle school math teachers and the elementary school

math teachers. • Agendas and minutes for verical articulation meetings are needed.

Special Education

• Teachers are not afforded common planning time and rarely have the opportunity to articulate horizontally or vertically.

• The special education teachers and general education teachers do not meet for articulation on data and instruction.


• Bilingual and ESL teachers do not have common planning time in their schedules to formally discuss shared students and their needs.

• The bilingual curriculum and the ESL curriculum are separate documents that are not paced or coordinated to assure coordination of the overall language services provided to ELLs.

STANDARD 3: INSTRUCTION

There is evidence that effective and varied instructional strategies/activities are used in all classrooms and are continuously monitored and aligned with individual student needs.

3.1 To what extent are all students engaged in learning? To what extent do special program teachers (e.g ., ELL, Title I, special education, gifted and talented) collaborate with regular education teachers?

Students in the primary grades (K-3) are actively engaged, but students in the upper grades (4-6) are more passive, and traditional whole-group instruction dominates. LAL instruction viewed in most primary classes is effective. Many best practices in the teaching of early literacy are seen, such as center-based activities, guided reading, and tiered instruction. The current master schedule does not provide the time for all teachers, general and special needs, to collaborate regularly.

All students are receiving math instruction as per the mandated curricula, textbooks, and supplementary materials.

The special education students participate in special area classes and programs. There is little time given for special education teachers to work collaboratively with their general education peers. There is no common planning time built into the daily schedule.

Students observed are engaged and eager to learn; however, there is no guidance on the integration of the district series, Storytown and 100 Book Challenge, and Moving into English, the ESL component. Despite one special education teacher who speaks Spanish, there are no bilingual special education teachers. There are no bilingual preK classes; young ELLs are placed in general preK classes. As a consequence, many of these young ELLs enter kindergarten unready to learn. Additionally, many of the preK ELLs are inappropriately referred for speech therapy services.


Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• Three key programs form the core of the school’s LAL instruction: Harcourt’s Storytown, American Book Company’s 100 Book Challenge, and Scholastic’s READ 180. Storytown was implemented K-2 last year and 3-6 this year. The 100 Book Challenge has full implementation preK-6 this year. There is a group of identified students in both grades 5 and 6 who work in the READ 180 program, a program that was piloted last year and had positive results.

• Teachers are using a three-tier instructional approach that includes direct instruction, guided reading/writing, flexible groupings for remediation, and use of center-based activities

• Homework each night engages all students in approximately 30 minutes of independent reading. Students give very positive reports about this program, and most can readily tell what their level is and what “step” they are on.

• Special areas teachers are utilized to provide tutorial support for some students. • Study skills are embedded in the basal reading programs. • Word walls and !00 Book Challenge incentive charts are seen in many classrooms. • Many teachers utilize journal writing. • The librarian has formally integrated 100 Book Challenge into her program. She has leveled the

materials in the library so that students have easy access to their independent reading levels for book choosing. There is a degree of collaboration between teachers and librarian for instructional purposes.

• Technology is being effectively utilized as a learning center in many classrooms. The students receive computer instruction (as a special) under the direction of the technology teacher.

Mathematics

• Classroom instruction is conducted in a timely fashion. • Homework is consistently given and graded daily. • The enVision Math textbook for grades K-2 has a large literacy component.

Special Education • Teachers routinely address organizational and study skills. • There is an attempt to understand and address the wide range of cultures and educational gaps

when teachers prepare lessons. • Classroom management is effective, and a decline in discipline problems has advanced the learning

experience for all students.

English Language Learners • Bilingual and ESL teachers coordinate their instruction, planning informally to accommodate

individual student needs. • Students engage in writing across the curriculum and enjoy writing.


• The RIISA Actionable Inquiry Report (February 2009) stated that “79% of all currently advocated practices that should be present in an effective learning environment” were observed at Molina. The report furthermore stated, “Although some excellent practices were observed in isolated cases,


the team did not find that the practices have been integrated into the school wide instructional delivery system.”

• There is a preponderance of factory-made artifacts in the classrooms. Although visually colorful, these do not represent a high degree of teacher, and especially student, ownership of instructional practices.

• The three-tier instructional model does not clearly coordinate with the classroom activities of the 100 Book Challenge.

• Worksheets, not more authentic tasks, dominate the work done in activity centers. • Projects tend to be of the template variety (everyone doing the same thing). There does not appear

to be a recognition by teachers that projects are an excellent place to address multiple intelligences. The practice of giving students choice in how they want to show what they have learned is not evident in most classrooms. The amount of authentic learning or learning connected to real-life problems is not as high as it could be. The level of rigor seen in most instruction, as measured by Bloom’s Taxonomy, is viewed to be recall, comprehension, and application.

Mathematics

• Little evidence is seen of challenging and higher-order thinking skills. • Interdisciplinary connections are seen in a few classrooms. Very little writing is demonstrated in

math notebooks or on math work products. • Differentiation is not evidenced consistently in all classrooms. It is noted in a few classrooms. All

classrooms in grades 1 through 4 have math centers.

Special Education • The classes visited do not demonstrate time on task. • Meaningful homework is not given on a regular basis. • Instructional delivery does not address students’ varied learning styles and incorporate methods

and strategies that engage all students. Better development and use of technology needs to be put into practice.

• The instructional program for the special education student does not address a diverse population. The program lacks rigor as well as differentiation, and, as a result, maintaining student interest is a challenge.

• Students are unable to verbalize the connection between what is being taught and how it could be applied in a real-world situation.

• Greater use of varied technology should be incorporated in the instruction. • Student attention and interest are not maintained throughout instruction. • The integration of creative activities into lessons to foster curiosity and expand learning is lacking

in the majority of lessons observed.

English Language Learners • Grade 2 students are able to decode and read eagerly, but they are reading at grade 1/emergent

readers level. • Word walls are limited and do not include cognate word walls, a powerful tool for bilingual

students to expand their vocabulary. • Although core reading materials are available, some remain unopened. • ELL students do not have equal access to the array of services available to general students. They

do not receive bilingual early childhood instruction or bilingual special education services.


3.3 What evidence is there that all teachers have a deep knowledge and understanding of their content and how to teach it?

Teachers see their colleagues as their best supports and value the limited time that they have to collaborate professionally. Many report that they have not had sufficient training to implement the current district initiatives.

School documentation reveals that all teachers at RC Molina Elementary School are highly qualified (HQT). In addition, all paraprofessional meet the HQTA (highly qualified teacher assistant) standards.

Most teachers have a knowledge and understanding of their content area; their skills are addressed through teacher evaluations, professional development, and best practices. The delivery of instruction does not consistently show evidence of it.

Bilingual teachers are unclear on how to use the core reading program and the 100 Book Challenge to provide a balanced literacy program. The special education teacher who works with ELL students is not a certified bilingual special education teacher. Strengths: Language Arts Literacy

• Most classrooms visited are attractive, well-designed learning environments promoting effective student management.

• A full-time LAL coach provides instructional support for teachers. • Teachers are participating in study groups centering around research/current professional literature

(that RIISA will emphasize in the future). Each grade level provides a topical presentation for the staff. Current topics included formative assessment and discussions on accountability.

Mathematics

• Teachers are certified in the area in which they teach and are performing the duties for which they were hired.

• Very good classroom management techniques are evident. • Teachers demonstrate appropriate mathematical language and competence. • All students are well-behaved when in the classrooms and the hallways.

Special Education

• Teachers are teaching in areas for which they are certified. • Teachers demonstrate appropriate classroom management (discipline) skills and spoken and

written communication.

English Language Learners • The bilingual teachers are appropriately certified as are the ESL teachers.


• The Background Information Form reports that 59 of 61 teachers were deemed highly qualified. Staff are operating on emergency certificates in special education and biilingual classrooms.

• Teachers are not expected to make instructional goals, design approaches to those goals, and document the achievement of those goals.


• Many teachers report that they were overwhelmed with the amount of testing and assessment that they did and had difficulty deciding how to use the generated data.

• The school does not have adequate substitute coverage. Frequently, inclusion teachers must be drawn from their assignments to cover classes. When no coverage is available, classes are divided and students spend the day(s) in other classrooms.

Mathematics

• Not enough cross-disciplinary connections are noted during classroom visitations. • Not all long-term substitutes are qualified to teach the students.

Special Education • An interdisciplinary approach,that would make lessons more meaningful and relevant to the

student is not evident. • Classroom management in the area of instruction in most cases is ineffective, as there is little

differentiation during instructional periods; most evident is whole-group instruction. • Teachers need to link subject matter and instructional materials to real-life situations. • Paraprofessionals have not been included in meaningful professional development to prepare them

to support instruction with new programs.

English Language Learners • The teacher who works with ELL students is not a bilingual certified teacher. • Bilingual teachers are not sure how the two reading programs, Story Town and 100 Book

Challenge, are to be integrated to provide a unified balanced literacy program. Despite the written curriculum emphasis, teachers and students express the opinion that 100 Book Challenge superseded the core program, Storytown.

STANDARD 4: SCHOOL CULTURE

The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a climate conducive to performance excellence.

4.1 Are clear and fair rules and policies in place to support a safe, equitable, and healthy learning environment? To what extent are the policies followed? The school rules are part of the daily announcements. All staff members take the safety of the students (and staff) very seriously. All visitors must sign in at front desk. They are announced before they go to the classrooms. The school is in need of numerous repairs, including the roof and the HVAC system. Concerns about the air quality are expressed by staff members. Strengths:

• School rules are shared with the entire school community with the distribution of the student handbook.


• Reports of student misbehavior are documented and submitted to vice principal and principal. District discipline policies are followed. Teachers are encouraged to supervise their students closely to defuse student-on-student problems.

• Suspension rates are below the state average. Most students feel safe in the building. • Parents express their belief that the school is a safe place for their children and do not report any

incidents of bullying or sexual harassment. • Students are respectful to visitors. • There is communications between the supplemental educational services (SES) providers and the

teachers in the day program to meet the needs of the students. Students see the relationship between their daily class work and the work in the after-school programs.

Challenges: • Most misbehavior occurs during recess. • An “in house” suspension room is not in place; therefore, the administration relies on lunch

detentions for many offenses. • The building needs to be repaired, especially the roof. It is falling down in many areas of the

building and needs to be replaced. It causes stress for students and staff. Air quality is poor from wet stained ceiling tiles, or missing tiles, and a lack of filters for the HVAC units. There are often puddles on the floor when it rains.

• Many classrooms do not have windows and may have non-operable HVAC. This may cause air quality concerns.

• There is no evidence provided that the intervention and referral services (I&RS) or pupil resource committee members routinely analyze and act upon referral and suspension data to ensure equitable application of school rules.

4.2 How does the school community express high expectations for all its members?

All teachers and students are expected to meet the same expectations. Lesson plans are reviewed every week. Although high expectations are expressed, this is not always reflected in the classroom rigor. Strengths:

• The principal reads a sampling of writing products from each teacher every marking period. Grade books are collected and reviewed at the midway point of each marking period. Implementation of 100 Book Challenge is continuously reviewed through on-line reports. Teachers update their data on a daily basis.

• Once a month, each grade level is responsible for conducting a “Teachers’ Academy” for the entire staff. This professional development discusses an important aspect of the teaching and learning process.

• Students are seen appropriately engaged throughout the building. Effective systems are in place for crowd control in large group areas such as the lunchroom and during beginning-of-the-day opening exercises.

• In the hallways, students move quietly to their destinations, sometimes accompanied by their teachers. Classrooms are well managed, and students are comfortable with each other and the teacher. There are few disruptions to the instructional day.

• Some students are aware of rubrics and how to use them to produce high-quality work.


Challenges: • The lack of consistency in expectations and the rigor of instruction do not allow students to know

what high-quality work should be like. There appears to be little sense of urgency to improve test scores.

• Staff attendance as listed on the school report card is slightly below the state average (95.0% to 95.3%).

• The lack of substitutes requires classes to be split, disrupting instruction. • Some evidence is provided of students revising their work based on meaningful feedback until they

meet or exceed the performance standard or level. • There is no evidence provided on the role of the counselors in the academic success of the

students. • Not all teachers are highly qualified.

STANDARD 5: SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL

The school community collaborates with families, higher education, and community organizations to remove barriers to learning and address the needs of students.

5.1 Does the school have a program of aligned support services that fully support the unique needs of students? What structures are in place for serving special populations (e.g ., ELL, Title I, special education, g ifted and talented students)? To what extent are staff members trained to meet the needs of these special populations?

Students are comfortable going to the school counselor to discuss problems that occur in and outside of school. The school has SES and NJ After 3 programs to assist the students. There are self-contained special education and inclusion classes in the building. ELL and bilingual programs are present. Strengths:

• The data from NJ ASK and Learnia is analyzed to develop individual learning plans and provide individual support through READ 180 classes and First in Math. In addition, the quarterly district benchmarks provide students with additional grouping for short-term interventions.

• Parent workshops are held in math and LAL to promote summer student activities that the parents can support with games and tips. A discussion of the 100 Book Challenge, an on-line Molina Math Lab, and a Summer Math Fun Activity Packet are included.

• Several classroom teachers provide the SES services. This allows excellent articulation. Challenges:

• Teachers have received training in differentiated instruction but have failed to completely embrace it as an instructional strategy

• Support services for the gifted and talented students have not been provided. • Student assessment data is not always used to drive SES instruction.


5.2 To what extent does the school actively initiate positive relationships and communication with parents and the community?

All written communication with parents is translated into Spanish. The monthly calendar, notices, and announcements are clearly written in English and Spanish. Parents volunteer in the school and are welcomed into the school. The building has a parent center. The parent handbook is bilingual. Strengths:

• Parent workshops are offered to assist parents in a variety of ways, including classes to assist with homework (literacy and math), technology, and nutrition. The bilingual school community coordinator, who has access to the community, is able to understand and resolve parental concerns.

• The school is a resource for community activities. The North Camden Community Association has an active relationship. The community group used the multipurpose room for its community holiday party (over 500 participants). The school distributes fliers for the association to announce their events to students and families.

• The Parent Center provides a comfortable location for parents to meet and communicate to share their opinions about school activities.

Challenges:

• At this time the PTO is active. However, several active members and parents have moved from the district. Teachers cannot attend PTO meetings held during the instructional day.

• There is little evidence of parental involvement in the school decision-making process. • The school website provide parents with limited bilingual access to educational links, home work

assignments, and activities in the Parent Center that will enable them to support their children’s educational experiences.

• According to the attitude surveys, the majority of both teachers and administrators disagree with the statement that the community is supportive of the school and feel the community does not always contribute to the success of the students. Interviews provide conflicting results.

• Some parents report a lack of information about school programs and activities.

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION

The school provides for staff research-based, results-driven professional development opportunities that are consistent with the district’s professional development plan, and implements performance evaluation procedures in order to improve teaching and learning.

6.2 What evidence is there that student learning is tied to teacher learning? Do teachers feel they receive adequate professional development?

The Teacher Academy professional development topics have been selected to inform teachers.


Based on a needs assessment and NJ ASK data, topics included are Formative and Summative Assessment, Boys and Reading, Lesson Design, Power of Words, Differentiated Instruction, Classroom Environments, and others. These academies provide teachers with the opportunities for collaborative book studies to improve instruction. Strengths:

• The professional development for teachers from 100 Book Challenge has challenged the teachers to look at reading skills in a critical and systematic way. These skills are organized in the Teacher’s Conference Notebook. As teachers conference with students about their reading, they are using these new insights to target needed skills so that students can advance more quickly.

• Based on a needs assessment, some teachers always want additional professional development to address the diverse learning styles and skill levels of their students.

• Seventy-four percent (46 out of 62) of the teachers report that they spent from three to 10+ days beyond the current contract devoted to school and professional responsibilities.

Challenges: • Each certified staff member is entitled to one off-site registration for a self-selected professional

development activity. Resources in the school budget have been set aside for the expenditure. To date only one person has taken advantage of this resource.

• Some teachers are “dragged” into professional development and complain that the presentations do not meet their needs. It is a struggle to meet the professional development needs of a staff that includes 30-year veterans and rookies.

• There have been many new district initiatives and their professional development programs that have been implemented at the same time. Teachers have not had the time to become comfortable and develop a high level of expertise in all content areas.

• Administrators and teachers express the need for additional professional development in classroom management using data and collaborating with colleagues.

• Professional development plans (PDPs) are not developed based on student assessment measures or documented needs. They do not appear to be collaboratively developed.

• The professional growth plan (PGP) of the principal provides goals and intended outcomes but does not have a strong evaluation component. It does not list the evaluator of the PGP.


STANDARD 7: LEADERSHIP and NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE

The school leaders have organized the school by focusing on teaching and learning through (a) the communication of a clear vision, mission, and goals; (b) maximizing use of all available resources; (c) creating a learning culture with high performance expectations; and (d) effective planning with input from all stakeholders.

7.1 What evidence is there that the school administrators are educational leaders who understand the linkages among educational leadership, a productive school, and positive outcomes for children?

The principal is well liked by parents and teachers and has an open door policy and maintains good relations with them. Trust seems to be high among the staff and parents. The principal is going through a coaching process that is a district initiative in collaborations with the Center for Evidence-Based Education (CEBE).

Information provided in the Actionable Inquiry packet provides the school leadership with ideas and suggestions for school improvement. School leadership needs to provide greater focus and direction toward instructional improvement. Shared leadership needs additional emphasis. Strengths:

• The principal maintains positive relationships with parents and staff. • The opening-day agenda contained information on the school’s vision and mission statement. • Teachers are often recognized for their accomplishments at staff meetings.

Challenges:

• More than half of the teachers (29/54) do not believe they have sufficient time to collaborate with their colleagues.

• More than half of the teachers and administrators do not believe that sufficient efforts are made to reduce the amount of routine administrative paperwork that teachers are required to do.

• More than half of the administrators feel they do not have sufficient time to focus on instructional leadership issues.

• Thirty-four out of 53 teachers state that they feel they do not have sufficient access to office equipment and supplies.

• School leadership has little input into the hiring of staff members. • The lack of substitutes often requires that classes be split, disrupting the instructional program. • Inclusion teachers are sometimes used as substitutes in violation of the student’s IEP. • There is little evidence of the use of student assessment data to drive instruction.


7.2 What evidence is there that the principal is an educational leader who understands that formal leadership is a complex and multi-faceted role requiring moral courage, knowledge of governance and change, and the ability to share leadership?

The principal’s administrative team has begun to stucture a formalized process whereby decisions for organizational practices (schedules, professional development, etc.) are made based on data collection and analysis of student need and staff strength. Grade level meetings are used to address instructional isssues.

The principal has established a feeling of trust within the school community and has shown his knowledge and support for student performance. However, that does not appear to be able to translate into student improvement. Strengths:

• An Organizational Development Leadership Team has been established as result of the RIISA consultation in collaboration with the CEBE administrative mentoring process. Training and monthly consultations with a focus on improvement of instructional leadership are provided.

• Staff seems to be willing to assume shared leadership. Challenges:

• Ensure focused attention to the outcomes of the CEBE consultation and implement what is being learned.

• Formalize the ODLT into a real school improvement team or professional learning community (PLC).

• Invent productive ways to effectively use assessment data in timely fashion to positively improve student achievement.

• Administrators express the need for better staff attendance. • Approximately 35% of the teachers feel that the school leadership is not as effective as it should

be. • There is little evidence that decisions for organizational practices are based on student assessment

data. 7.3 How have key school leaders established a culture of trust and institutionalized a commitment to continuous improvement and accountability for performance?

The principal has established an atmosphere of mutual trust among staff and with parents. Continuous improvement and accountability for performance has not been evidenced. The ODLT has been formed in the summer and is in the emergent state of operation. This team can form the basis for continuous improvement and instructional leadership. Strengths: School

• Teachers and administrators express their belief that data is used to inform decision-making and instructional practices.

• Most teachers think that there is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the school.


• Both teachers and administrators state that they are held to high professional standards and staff evaluations are completed in a fair fashion.

• Teachers express that they receive feedback that can help improve instruction. • Administrators feel that staff members are recognized for their accomplishments.

Challenges: School

• Teachers express the belief that they have little impact on how the budget will be spent or on the establishment of policies and student discipline.

• Most teachers do not believe that teachers are involved in decision making. • Most teachers feel that they do not have sufficient input into most curricular, professional

development, and school improvement decisions. • The majority of the administrators state that they have little role in the hiring of new teachers. • There is no school leadership committee that contains all stakeholders currently in operation. • A school-based strategic action plan is not in use. • School leadership does not aggressively pursue accountability for instructional improvement. NCLB Committee • The committee does not currently function. District • Administrators feel that they do not have sufficient input into decisions that directly impact their

school. • District leadership has not established a feeling of trust and mutual respect within the district. • District directives do not allow for individual school direction and instructional leadership.

7.4 How is distributed leadership demonstrated, and what evidence is there that it is effective?

Although a NCLB committee has been established for the purpose of creating the Unified Plan, it has not functioned as a change mechanism for the school. The committee has not been effectively trained, and operational procedures have not been developed. However, an Organizational Development Leadership Team (ODLT) has been established as result of RIISA consultation in collaboration with the CEBE administrative mentoring process. Training and monthly consultations are provided with a focus on improvement of instructional leadership. Strengths:

• The ODLT has been established. • Relationship building and maintenance of those relationships are a continuing focus of

administration and the ODLT.

Challenges: • Build a capacity for getting things done – task orientation versus relationship orientation. • Establish a viable school improvement team in the school.


• The majority of the teachers and administrators believe that the faculty does not have an effective process for making group decisions and solving problems.

• While the administrators do not see the teachers as effective leaders in the school, the teacher survey expresses the opposite belief.

• Since the shared leadership committee was recently formed, there is no way to determine how it will utilize data, solicit input from collaborative teams, or have the authority to make decisions.


2009-2010 RESTRUCTURING PLAN SUMMARY—OPTION & GOVERNANCE

Check those that apply. ___x__Option 1: Implement any major restructuring of the school’s governance that is consistent with the principles of

restructuring. ______Option 3: Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s

inability to make adequate progress (consistent with existing contractual provisions and applicable statutory protections in Title 18A).

List the primary restructuring/governance changes undertaken by the district to address the requirements for schools in restructuring. For each primary governance change, indicate if the proposed change/reform has been implemented and if it is specified in sections of the school’s Title I Unified Plan.

Governance changes and major strategies

according to the School’s Restructuring Plan

* Strategy

Implementation Level

Listed in Title I Unified

Plan Yes-No

1

Reduction of special education population

3-Completed

Yes

2

Rigorous LAL instuction

1

Yes

3

Rigorous mathematics instruction

1

Yes

4

Infusing technology in instruction to address differentiation

1

Yes

5

6

* Use the following performance level scale to determine implementation: 0 – No implementation 1 – Little implementation 2 – Partial implementation 3 – Full implementation 4 – Exemplary level of development

New Jersey Department of Education Molina Elementary School 2009-2010 CAPA Collaborative Benchmark Summary Report Camden City School District

RESTRUCTURING PLAN SUMMARY

Complete the information below to determine (1) if the section is completed as required; (2) how appropriate and effective following components of the restructuring plan will be in improving student achievement; and (3) if revisions should be made.

Form

Restructuring Plan Components

Section Complete Yes-No

Section Approved Yes-No

IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions D Proposed restructuring option Yes Yes Items identified are appropriate; however, more specificity is

warranted. F-2 Changes in administrative staffing—In Table 2 list the

school’s current administrative staff by title and name during the present school year (2008-2009). Under the heading “Restructured Administrative Staff” list the positions and persons who will comprise the administrative staff in the restructured school (2009-2010).

N/A N/A No change identified

G-3 Changes in roles and responsibilities—Table 3 requests information on the roles and responsibilities of the school and district administrative staff.

N/A N/A Roles and responsibilites kept the same – persons responsible have been expanded to include coaches, supervisors, tech coordinator.

H-4 Strategies to address subgroups not making AYP in language arts literacy—Table 4 indicates how the proposed Restructuring Plan will address those student subgroups that did not make Adequate Yearly Progress in language arts literacy.

LAL: Yes

SPED:

Yes

ELL: Yes

LAL: All

strategies target total population

and not specific

subgroups

SPED: Yes

ELL: Yes

Language Arts Literacy: All strategies listed have been initiated. • The 100 Book Challenge is not addressed adequately in the

three-tier instructional model for the literacy block; this needs to be done to provide teachers with guidance and foster uniformity across grade levels.

• There is not sufficient collaborative time in the current master schedule. Consider revising.

• Administrative monitoring of writing folders, journals, and benchmark assessments does not provide teachers with meaningful feedback, and therefore instructional decision making is limited. Consider developing a more defined assessment plan and focus on teacher results

• Current funding limits SES services.


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions English Language Learners: • The teachers have a 120-minute block for LAL; they use the

same core materials in Spanish and English that the other general classrooms have. The curriculum as implemented places more emphasis on 100 Book Challenge.

I-5 Strategies to address subgroups not making AYP in mathematics—Table 5 indicates how the proposed Restructuring Plan will address those student subgroups that did not make Adequate Yearly Progress in mathematics.

Math: Yes

SPED:

Yes

ELL: Yes

SPED: Yes

Mathematics: • Strategies listed are not specific to each subgroup. There is a

list of 16 strategies to be implemented with little focus as to what are the most effective ones. Teachers should be stressing two or three most effective, research-based strategies to meet the needs of the subgroups.

English Language Learners: • LL Teach is only implemented at grades 5 & 6. At the other

grades, a new program was adopted, the enVision Math program. However, the plan should be updated to reflect this.

J-6 Impact of restructuring—current school improvement intiatives

Math: Yes

ELL: Yes

SPED: No

Mathematics: • Most practices have not significantly changed. English Language Learners: • ELLs made safe harbor; however, overall pass rates are still

very low. J-6

Impact of restructuring—current instructional efforts LAL: Yes

Math:

Yes

ELL: Yes

LAL: No

SPED:

No

Language Arts Literacy: • Three goals are noted – reduce special education

population, increase rigor, infuse technology – but not clear plans to accomplish and document.

• Identify and respond to students not making progress – there are many assessment tools available so it is necessary to clearly define which data sources teachers feel are most practical to accomplish this.

• Now that instructional time has increased to 120 minutes for LAL, better coordination of the two basal programs is needed.

• Utilize common planning time to ensure that all teachers are


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions included with appropriate grade level teams. Also consider if one meeting per week is sufficient.

Mathematics: • Academic decisions are made as directives from the central

office with little input from the faculty, staff, and school administration. Directives are made with little concern as to unique problems of the school

Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special

education in their plan. The plan needs to be revised to address the needs in all areas of special education.

English Language Learners: • Most practices have not changed significantly.

J-6 Impact of restructuring—district support efforts

LAL: Yes

Math:

Yes

ELL: Yes

LAL: No

SPED:

No

Language Arts Literacy: • District has provided materials but they have not been

received in a timely manner in all grade levels. Mathematics: • Restructured roles and responsibilities for school

governance Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • Many academic decisions are made as directives, not

collaboratively, with little follow-up and support. J-6 Impact of restructuring—parent and community

involvement efforts Math:

Yes SPED:

No Mathematics: • School members, parents, community, and union

respresentatives had input.


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • Parent involvement is strong, and parents voice support for

the school. K-7

Strategies to involve stakeholders Math:

Yes SPED:

No Mathematics: • Development of meaningful teacher evaluation forms • Leadership participation in network • There is an NCLB Committee encompassing many types of

stakeholders. Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • There is an NCLB committee that encompasses a broad

spectrum of the total education commmunity. K-7

Stakeholder involvement meetings Math:

Yes SPED:

No Mathematics: • September and monthly follow-ups as to progress Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • September and monthly follow-up

L-8 Changes in school organizational structure Structure has not changed. M-9 Changes in instructional staff assigned to each grade

level LAL: Yes

LAL: No

Language Arts Literacy: • By reducing the number of special education classrooms


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions

Math: Yes

SPED:

No

and by adding 6th grade, general class sizes have been increased; this increase in class size will have an impact.

Mathematics: • Added two pre-school classes and three grade 6 classes • Took away one bilingual 5th grade class • Self-contained special education classes reduced from ten to

five Special Education: • The leadership has not addressed a need for a major

reassignment in teaching staff to meet the academic needs of the students with disabilities.

English Language Learners: • Some slight changes were made, but there were no major

shifts in staff. Option 3

Replace all or most of school staff N/A Not a restructuring option chosen

N-10 Programmatic and instructional strategies that the school/district will implement to ensure a more effective educational program in the restructured school, based upon the analysis of the data and the planning process for restructuring.

LAL: Yes

Math:

Yes

SPED: Yes

LAL: No

SPED:

No

Language Arts Literacy: • RIISA/CEBE – at least 2-3 years of supports will be

needed; how can this be guaranteed? • Technology integration – establish instructional guidelines

and monitor • Student-centered classrooms – establish instructional

guidelines and monitor • Student portfolios – establish instructional guidelines and

monitor • Data analysis – develop a clear assessment plan that is

realistic and doable for teachers; focus on how Learnia can best be utilized or consider how the DRA can be used to differentiate instruction.

• District programs (100 Book Challenge, READ 180, Harcourt, LL Teach) – allow at least three to five years for maximum program effectiveness. Utilize data and staff


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions input to revise where appropriate.

Mathematics: • RIISA/CEBE, computerized student profiles, vertical

articulation, technology integration, and data analysis with student intervention forms, student centered classroom, portfolios, etc.

Special Education • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • Teachers are still struggling with the implementation of

balanced literacy. O-11 Professional development activities the district will

provide for school staff to ensure effective implementation of the educational program in the restructured school, based upon the analysis of the data and the planning process for restructuring.

LAL: Yes

Math:

Yes

SPED: Yes

LAL: No

SPED:

No

Language Arts Literacy: • Support is being provided by demo lessons, grade level

meetings, PD sessions lead by LAL coach, tech coordinator, RIISA consultants and textbook consultants – consider surveying staff for input as to future needs rather than depend on district PD plannings.

Mathematics: • Listed is PD for data-driven instruction. • More PD needs to be on math pedagogy and classroom

strategies. Special Education: • The district has not specifically addressed the area of special


English Language Learners: • Teachers received training on the new math program and


Form




IF NO:

Explain why and recommend revisions the language arts program. Despite a focus on balanced literacy, the teachers focus on 100 Book Challenge.

P-12 Professional development activities the district will provide for the school’s leadership staff to ensure effective implementation of the educational program in the restructured school, based upon the analysis of the data and the planning process for restructuring.

Yes Yes RIISA/CEBE mentoring is provided to all administrators on a monthly basis.


SCHOOL, DISTRICT, AND STATE RECOMMENDATIONS

LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY School 1. The school should take a long look at its current assessment practices. It appears to be overwhelming, and

teachers are not effective at filtering through all the data sources. Therefore, the use of data to drive instruction is not a strong practice. A schoolwide assessment plan should be developed by having each grade level identify and focus on key tools. (For example, Harcourt Storytown assessments might be key to the kindergarten assesment practice while Learnia tells grade 5 teachers more.) Then teachers should be expected to continue the practice of developing a classroom “action plan” that targets both whole-group performance and individual student performance. The action plans should focus on small measurable goals as documented by the key assessment tools. Progress toward those goals should be revisited at regular intervals. School leadership should monitor each teacher’s progress toward his/her instructional goals. The data management arm of the school leadership team can be charged with analyzing NJ ASK results and providing teachers with this analysis.

District 2. The district is commended for putting two strong basal literacy programs in place this year. It is strongly

recommended that a high degree of well-planned professional development, administrative support, data documentation, and monitoring of the programs be conducted beginning in the first year of implementation and going forward. It is also imperative that teachers have required materials at the start of the school year. The programs need time (three to five years is suggested) for maximum development and teachers should have input regarding the implementation of these programs. The programs should have that time before widespread changes in district initiatives occur.

3. The 100 Book Challenge is a fine supplemental program. Currently, teachers are receiving mixed messages

regarding its implementation. Because of this, time allotted for guided reading/writing is being compromised. It is strongly suggested that the 100 Book Challenge instruction be for 30-45 minutes during the afternoon session and not during the LAL block. It is also suggested that sound measures be identified to document the program’s effectiveness (DRA growth, for example, can be utilized, and perceptual surveys could support students’ growth in the affective domain, but NJ ASK scores should be avoided).

4. At no time should classes be divided and placed in other classrooms because no substitute is available.

The district should do a better job of hiring competent substitutes. MATHEMATICS School 1. Plan for the use and practice of open-ended math questions at least weekly. 2. Increase instructional rigor in all math classes. 3. Teacher PD is not differentiated to meet the teachers’ needs. District 4. Plan for more teacher PD involving math pedagogy and strategies, rather than district iniatives.


5. Evaluate the math curriculum. Add critical thinking and higher-order thinking in the math activities for all grade levels.

6. Evaluate the number of different student assessments in all subjects and use only those that inform

instructional improvement in the classroom and maximizes instructional time. 7. There should be one math program for grades K-5. SPECIAL EDUCATION School 1. Provide PD in differentiated instruction and then make it a focus during walkthroughs to see that it is

being implemented. 2. Higher expectations of students with disabilities by the staff should be developed with more inclusion of

these students into the general education classroom. Teachers should modify the grade level instructional materials to the students’ functioning level.

3. Administrators should routinely do walkthroughs and provide immediate feedback to the teacher through

a conference as a method of improving instruction. 4. Instructional delivery should address students’ varied learning styles and incorporate methods and

strategies that engage all students. 5. Building administration should monitor staff closely in order to maintain the separation of church and

state.

District 6. The district should make every effort to offer the READ 180 program to any student who is not

achieving proficiency. 7. Provide training for the professional staff in the co-teaching model. 8. Provide sufficient teacher’s editions/manuals for each textbook, workbook, and other materials used for

instruction. ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS School 1. Formal common planning time for bilingual and ESL teachers should be provided. Although this occurs

informally, full and appropriate time should be scheduled to better assure that teachers have the time to review data together and map out how individual student needs are to be met.

2. Review coding of the NJ ASK to assure that all former ELLs are identified on the headers and

appropriately counted. The proper coding of these students should increase the proficiency rates for this subgroup.


District 3. The district should establish bilingual pre-kindergarten classes for ELLs to assure that they develop the

early language skills needed to prepare them to enter kindergarten ready to learn. Research is very clear that early language development in the native language links home and school and helps these young learners to develop the language and conceptual base needed to be successful in school.

4. The district should provide the all appropriate special education services for ELLs. The services of a full

bilingual child study team is needed to assure any ELL who is referred for a child study evaluation is appropriately assessed. Furthermore, there should be bilingual special education teachers to serve these students. Currently, IEPs are not followed because the school/district does not provide the resources and staff to meet these students’ special needs.

5. The district should review the bilingual and ESL curricula to clearly define: how the two curricula are

paced; how transition from native language reading and writing is to be effected; how the bilingual and ESL teachers are to work collaboratively to assure a smooth transition; and how the 120-minute literacy block is to be used and the bilingual and ESL teachers’ roles in that block of time.

SCHOOL CULTURE 1. Expand the membership on the School Improvement Committee to increase teacher and community

participation. 2. Building repairs should be a priority focus. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Professional development should be embedded and ongoing, developed around student assessment data

and instructional needs, with sufficient follow-up to ensure implementation of instructional improvement. 2. PDPs should be tied to the teacher’s observations and annual performance reports, with strengths and

weaknesses addressed in the professional development plan. Longitudinal student assessment data should be included to identify both school and teacher areas of concern to be addressed in the PDP.

LEADERSHIP and NCLB SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE 1. Increase the capacity for instructional leadership and managing school improvement by formalizing and

empowering the Organizational Development and Leadership Team to become a true professional learning community and a change agent for continuous improvement and greater student achievement. It is highly recommended that this team be expanded to contain related subcommittees to manage change and implement school improvement functions, including, but not limited to: student data analysis, research on best practices, professional development planning, community involvement, and collaborative decision making. This committee should meet regularly and report the results of these meeting to all stakeholders in a timely fashion. Chairmanship of the committee should rotate among members to ensure shared leadership. The principal is a member and should work closely with the team, but is not to be the chair.


DISTRICT 1. Consider allowing individual schools the option of developing some shared decision-making to determine

instructional priorities based on the school’s needs.


SUMMARY OF CLASSROOM VISITS

The results of the classroom visits provide a view of instruction within the building. This summary is only a cross-section or snapshot of instruction. Several rounds of classroom walkthroughs should be conducted to provide a representative and thorough understanding of the nature of instruction in the school. The Molina Elementary School is an older but well-maintained building that is a safe and nurturing environment. During the CAPA three-day review, the LAL specialist visited 17 classrooms in grades K to 6. There were a number of indicators in which most classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) orderly, attractive learning environments; (2) displays of student work; (3) students interested in reading; and (4) center-based activities for the purpose of active engagement. There were fewer examples of (1) students utilizing technology and other resources for project-based activities; and (2) rigorous and challenging instruction. It is clear that the Molina school teachers care about their students and want clear direction that will promote higher student achcievement. The CAPA Review mathematics subteam visited 14 classrooms during the visit, including classrooms from grade levels 1 to 6. There were a number of indicators in which most classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) monitoring student understanding throughout the lesson, (2) students exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward the teacher, (3) orderly and well-maintained classrooms, and (4) lessons that were appropriately paced to maintain student focus. There were fewer cases of (1) co-teaching, (2) students engaging in self-reflection, (3) differentiating instruction, (4) higher-order thinking skills, and (5) communicating why the lesson is being taught. Overall, there was a wide range of instruction observed during the school review. The CAPA special education subteam visited 11 special education classrooms and two general education classrooms in the Molina Elementary School, which houses preK to 6th grade: Self-contained: MD-2 classes LAL, Austistic-1 Class, LD-1 class-LAL, and LD-1 class-Math; K-LAL; 1st Grade-ICS-LAL; 3rd Grade-ICS-LAL; 4th Grade-ICS-LAL; 5th Grade-ICS-LAL; and 6th Grade-ICS-LAL. The classroom visitations followed the Walkthrough Summary Form format in a holistic manner. The level of student engagement in the learning process was a focus, as was evidence of the lesson’s objective. There appeared to be effective communication between teacher and student in the classes visited. Instruction was teacher-centered with no differentiation within the lesson. Work sheets were commonplace. Students interacted with their peers in an age-appropriate manner and at times were observed working in a small-group setting. There was little evidence of co-teaching in the inclusion classes. For the most part, the special education teacher was used as a secondary resource rather than a co-teacher. Both general and special education teachers’ names do not appear on the student progress report card. Technology was evident but under-utilized in most classes visited. Overall, there was minimum evidence of rigor and higher-order thinking skills in the instruction observed. The students were afforded little opportunity to self reflect on their work and express the results of their assignment with the teacher or classroom aide. The CAPA Review English language learner subteam visited all five bilingual classrooms encompassing grades kindergarten through the combination 4/5 class, and one bilingual classroom where the ESL teacher was partnering with the bilingual teacher. There were a number of indicators in which these classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) monitoring student understanding throughout the lesson, (2) students exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward the teacher, (3) orderly and well-maintained classrooms, and (4) lessons that were appropriately paced to maintain student focus. In one classroom the students read aloud to the CAPA team member, showing their comfort in reading and eagerness to learn.


The CAPA Review administrative subteam visited eight classrooms during the visit, including classrooms from the K-6 grade levels. There were a number of indicators in which most classrooms exhibited good practices, including (1) student research projects, (2) students exhibiting a sense of comfort and respect toward the teacher, (3) orderly and well-maintained classrooms, and (4) lessons that were appropriately paced to maintain student focus. There were fewer cases of (1) team teaching, and (2) students engaging in self-reflection. Some students knew about and used rubrics. Overall, there was a wide range of instruction observed during the school review.

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTATION REVIEW

The team activities included a review of the documents collected for the school portfolio and data profile, including: • Parental Involvement documentation including bilingual flyers and parent handbooks • Communications to parents • Agendas and minutes of staff meetings • Agendas and minutes of grade level team meetings • Agendas and minutes of grade level chairperson meetings • District and school website • District Title I Unified Plan • SES information • Actionable Inquiry Information • Teacher School Climate Survey • Administrator School Climate Survey • Opening day information packet • NJ ASK assessment data • Principal’s response to essential questions • Principal’s professional growth plans • Background information form • Cycle II data • 2009-2010 Title I Unified Plan • 2009 Restructuring Plan • Grades K-5 LAL curricular guides • Building master schedule • Parent Handbook • Learnia results for benchmark 1; DRA results for beginning of year and mid-year • Learnia Data Analysis Protocol; Grade level NJ ASK Action Plans • Actionable Inquiry Report (February 2009) from RIISA consultants • Walkthrough documentation (Quick Visit Collaborative Feedback form; writing sample checks) • Lesson plans • Instructional model for literacy block • Textbooks, workbooks, worksheets


• Student class folders, journals • Displays of student work • 2009-2010 District Title I Unified Plan, Checklist, and Consolidated Application • 2009-2010 Restructuring Plan School Report • School Highly Qualified Teacher Report • PDPs and related teacher evaluations • Student math notebooks, work products and folders • Copies of Learnia Math Test Results • Review of student individualized education programs (IEPs) • Cycle II data, AYP profile charts, three year trend charts, and cluster analysis/pie charts • Master schedule • Curriculum Guides/Materials • Background Information form (modified) • Professional Growth Plans • Student Discipline/Conduct Handout • Classroom materials, basal components, teacher-made materials, computer programs • READ 180 Program • Supplemental Education Services (SES) Approved Providers • 2009-10 School Title I Improvement Plan • Staff evaluations and walkthrough reports • Agendas from PD sessions for bilingual/ESL teachers • ESL Curriculum Guide • District Literacy Curriculum Guide • ACCESS results and “Can Do” lists • RIISA/CEBE Report (February 2009) • Master schedules for all bilingual/ESL staff • Teacher observations • Opening day information packet • NJ ASK assessment data • Principal’s response to essential questions


IN CONCLUSION

Members of the CAPA review team express their appreciation to the staff and community of Molina Elementary School for their gracious welcome and for their open interaction with us during our visit. We encourage the school community to review this report, asking themselves reflective questions about the findings of fact and recommendations for action.


BACKGROUND INFORMATION FORM (BIF)

R. T. Molina School 2005-2006 2008-2009 2009-2010 Principal/Lead Person – Years in Building

John A. Donohue 4 years



Number of Vice Principals in Building 1 1 1 Grade Levels in Building Pre-K-5 Pre-K-5 PreK-6 Number of Teachers in Building 55 61 61

Number of Teachers meeting NCLB HQT

48 60 59

Number of Teachers with Emergency Certification and Subject Area

7 Alternate Route Provisional Sp.Ed and Bilingual

Teacher Mobility Rate NA 6% 0 Teacher Attendance Rate NA 98.3 97.0% Total Number of Classrooms 42 37 38 Total Number of Students in Building NA 564 553 Percent Special Education Students 18% 19% 9.5% Percent Special Education Students in Inclusive Classrooms

NA

2.8%

25.0%

Number of Special Education Self-Contained Classrooms

10

10

5

Number of Inclusive Classrooms and Grade Levels

6

One each grade level

Every grade level

Percent LEP NA 16.8% 76 Number of Bilingual Classrooms NA 6 6 Number of Students Receiving Bilingual Services

NA

15.2% (860

70

Number of Students Receiving ESL Services

11%

16.8% (95)

70

Student Attendance NA 93.6% 93.8% Student Mobility NA 16.8% 38% Student Suspensions

NA 2005-2006

7 2008-2009

2 2009-2010

Subgroups Missing AYP: All subgroups All subgroups All subgroups AYP Content Areas Missed (Math or LAL)

LAL and Math

LAL and Math

LAL and Math

Number of Students Receiving Supplemental Services (SES)

None

72

84

NCLB Committee Meets Monthly NA The principal was told

by Camden District that Abbott Districts do not exist and SLC

was not necessary.

Teacher Leadership Team

NCLB Committee has required representation

No

Yes


TEAM POSITION

NAME

AFFILIATION

EXTERNAL TEAM Team Leader

Donato Stelluto

Educational Consultant

Principal

Walter Spector Herb Johnson


Language Arts Literacy Specialist

Lynn Gallagher


Mathematics Specialist

Nancy Prynoski


Special Education Specialist

Anthony Errichetto


English Language Learning Specialist

Linda Dold Collins


DOE Liaison

No person identified

NJ Department of Education

INTERNAL TEAM

District Liaison

Andrea Kirwin

Asst. Superintendent

Principal

John Donahue

Language Arts Literacy Specialist

Jean D’Autrechy

LAL Coach

Mathematics Specialist

Danielle Phillips

Math Coach

Special Education Specialist

Ms. Goldstein

SE Teacher

English Language Learning Specialist

Rachel Poller

ESL/Bilingual Teacher


ACTION STEP 1

CAPA COLLABORATIVE BENCHMARK ASSESSMENT ACTION STEPS

TO IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT STANDARD(S): 7 INDICATOR(S): 7.1 – 7.4 CONTENT AREA: Leadership SUBTEAM: Dan Stelluto, John Donahue Briefly Describe the Action Step—What needs to be done?: • Design, empower, and implement a School Improvement Team to manage the school improvement efforts of Molina Elementary School

What is the Rationale for Selection of this particular Action Step—Root Causes: • Currently there is a need for a clear or focused vehicle for a managed effort to effect key instructional improvements.

What AYP data support selection of the Action Step? • To avoid any decline in AYP or safe harbor status

What is the measurable goal (% or number) related to this Action Step? • AYP or safe harbor or greater on all subgroups (10% improvement for subgroups) • A functioning ODLT - Evidence of meetings will be agendas, sign-in sheets, and minutes What is the name of the research-based strategy(ies) or best practice(s) to be implemented that will achieve the desired goal? • Schmoker, Results Now; Fullan on building leadership capacity and Turnaround Leadership; Thomas Armstrong, The Best Schools; Marzano, What Works in

Schools; Ivey & Fisher, Creating Literacy-Rich School for Adolescents List other strategies already implemented in the school and/or district that directly contribute to accomplishment of this Action Step: • Subcommittees (Instruction and Professional Development) in the development stage

List other schools/classrooms (within or outside the district) where this strategy is successfully implemented and achieving the desired results. Is it possible to visit the school or classroom to see the strategy in action? • Deptford: Monongahela MS; Williamstown MS (Chuck Folker); Keansburg HS; Woodlynne Elementary What are the possible costs for implementing the strategy(ies)? • Some PD and release time may be needed.


DELIVERY: How are we going to get there? Detail the specific tasks to be completed in order to implement successfully each of the research-based or promising strategies you

selected. Use additional rows as needed. As a result of the selection of the action steps, the Title 1 School Improvement Plan should be revised.

Specific Actions necessary to implement the selected

Research-Based Strategy Specific actions to improve educational practices

By when?

Start /End Date

By whom?

Persons Involved (‘+’ denotes lead person)

With what?

Resources required and funding source(s)

What evidence? How will we know the strategies are working? How do we track our progress?

1 Reorganize to include additional representation from all school populations and empower the Organization and Development Leadership Team (ODLT) to manage school improvement: • Based on data collected from

assessments and CAPA and Restructuring Plan recommendations, along with current school goals, the team will develop a mission and vision statement and a committee structure that will guide school improvement.

• Using current data sources (Learnia,

DRA) the data team will conduct data analysis that informs instructional improvement. Utilize ODLT and content area coaches to provide PD on using data to inform instruction.

• Update Title I Unified Plan 2010-11 to

include CAPA recommendations. • Implement CAPA recommendations

for LAL, math, and special education.

In place by March 2, 2010 March 8, 2010 March 24, 2010 Ongoing June, 2010 Timeline to be established by April 12, 2010

+Principal with current members of the ODLT +Principal with Team (ODLT) +Team chair Principal Team members +Team chair Principal Team members +Team chair Principal Team members +Principal

Assessment data CAPA Reports Restructuring Plan District data support - Irene Sullivant

Title I Plan, CAPA Report Time as needed, Part G funds, Title I

Team is in place and functioning Minutes of meetings Agenda Sign-in sheets ODLT Mission/Vision Statement completed and communicated to all stakeholders PD is provided Data documents made available to staff and used Revised Title I Plan inclusive of CAPA recommendations and school goals Implementation timeline


• Monitor progress of school improvement and Title I Plan

• Revision of school PD plan to reflect

needs assessment and Restructuring, Title I, and CAPA recommendations (To meet state requirements)

Monthly Meetings for ODLT April 12, 2010

Vice principal Team chair Team members +PD team chair Committee members

Walkthrough Form PD Plan Restructuring Plan Title I Plan CAPA recommendations Needs assessment results

Weekly targeted walkthroughs conducted by principal and VP Meeting minutes and agenda Revised PD plan developed

MOLINA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - New Jersey€¦ · New Jersey Department of Education Molina Elementary...

Documents

Transcript of MOLINA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - New Jersey€¦ · New Jersey Department of Education Molina Elementary...