What were the Identified What strategies/action steps MYR Results: What was the What Data Supports that we Level of Implementation? Weaknesses in the were written to target these have been effective in Did we meet benchmarks? Assessment? weaknesses? increasing student achievement? G 1. Goal: Increase Reading AS 1: Direct, Explicit Instruction/Cycle Full Partial No Yes Somewhat No Achievement: of Instruction By the end of the 2011-12 school year, Description: Implement direct, explicit 4/6 classes were engaged and ARMT data will be analyzed when received. actively teaching. Cycle of we will increase the number of students instruction through whole and small Instruction was being meeting proficiency standards in groups for all students daily, focusing on implemented. This review reading for grades 3-5 on spring 2011 targeted reading skills. consisted of a random sample of 6 ARMT from: classes. AS2: Vocabulary Development 3rd grade - 88% to 92% Description: All K-5 and Sped teachers In 2/6 classes, Cycle of Instruction will increase vocabulary development was not evident. These teachers 4th grade - 87% to 91% by incorporating essential vocabulary in will be conferenced with all content areas daily. individually. Administrator does 5th grade 94% to 95% not feel this is indicative of daily AS3: Student Intervention classroom procedures. Description: All K-5 and Sped students Special Education: 43% to 92% - 3rd identified at-risk using the grade, 36% to 91% - 4th grade, and matrix will receive Tier II and 60% to 92% - 5th grade Tier III instruction daily. Tier III students will be pulled out on a daily basis for intervention by the Reading Coach and/or special education teachers. By the end of the 2011-12 school Description of Strategy: K-5 and special Yes No Somewhat Full Partial No education teachers will collaborate year, we will increase the
What were the Identified Weaknesses in the Assessment? What strategies/action steps were written to target these weaknesses? MYR Results: What was the Level of Implementation? Did we meet benchmarks? What Data Supports that we have been effective in increasing student achievement? G 1. Goal: Increase Reading Achievement: By the end of the 2011-12 school year, we will increase the number of students meeting proficiency standards in reading for grades 3-5 on spring 2011 ARMT from: 3rd grade - 88% to 92% 4th grade - 87% to 91% 5th grade 94% to 95% Special Education: 43% to 92% - 3rd grade, 36% to 91% - 4th grade, and 60% to 92% - 5th grade AS 1: Direct, Explicit Instruction/Cycle of Instruction Description: Implement direct, explicit instruction through whole and small groups for all students daily, focusing on targeted reading skills. AS2: Vocabulary Development Description: All K-5 and Sped teachers will increase vocabulary development by incorporating essential vocabulary in all content areas daily. AS3: Student Intervention Description: All K-5 and Sped students identified at-risk using the matrix will receive Tier II and Tier III instruction daily. Tier III students will be pulled out on a daily basis for intervention by the Reading Coach and/or special education teachers. Full Partial No Yes Somewhat No 4/6 classes were engaged and actively teaching. Cycle of Instruction was being implemented. This review consisted of a random sample of 6 classes. In 2/6 classes, Cycle of Instruction was not evident. These teachers will be conferenced with individually. Administrator does not feel this is indicative of daily classroom procedures. ARMT data will be analyzed when received. By the end of the 2011-12 school year, we will increase the Description of Strategy: K-5 and special education teachers will collaborate Full Partial No Yes Somewhat No
CIP%20Team%20Reflection%20Tool.docx