Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School ---------------------

1
Stephen J. GeraceElementary School--------------
-------

• 6th Quarter Report
• 2007-2008
• Together We Can

2
Data AnalysisKey Learnings
3
Does a correlation exist between NJASK 4 Reading
Clusters and SRI of Advanced Proficient Students?

• NJASK 4
• 5 out of 62 students performed in the Advanced
  Proficient Range 8.1 of the fourth grade
  population

• SRI-November 07 Test
• Grade 4
• 14 out of 66 students performed in the Advanced
  Proficient Range 21 of the fourth grade
  population- a 6 increase from September 07
  testing

4
Data Summary Highlights of the 2007 Grade 4
Language Arts Literacy Assessment and SRI Key
Learning Results(Continued)

• Cluster areas examined in this section Working
  with Text and Analyzing Text.
• The total number of students achieved -
• 5.4/7.0 points in Working with Text
• 7.8/16.0 in Analyzing Text
• Of the 5 students who achieved in the advanced
  proficient range-
• Analyzing Text scores indicted
  that students had a weakness in this area.
• Working Text indicated that they had a strength.
  
• The data incorporated in the state reports
  displays reading and writing to achieve a
  particular range.
• SRI results indicate that 56 students achieved
  Advanced Proficient 25 Up 33 from
  Quarter 5
• 109 students achieved Proficient 48
  
  Up 5 from Quarter 5
• 40 students achieved Basic18
  
  Down 17 from Quarter 5
• 20 students achieved Below Basic9
  
  Down 35 from Quarter 5

5
Why arent students performing higher on the
NJASK 4 in the Advanced Proficient Range?

• Need to account for open ended responses
• SRI assesses reading comprehension only
• NJASK assesses reading in response to text
• Students need to monitor their thinking-
• Stop-Think-Respond

6
Key Learnings I(What actions have been taken
during the Sixth Quarter Driven By Fifth Quarter
Results)

• Systematic Writing Program filled gaps in our
  instruction (See slide 18).
• Students at SJG are poised for success. This is
  proven by the increased benchmark scores from
  quarter two to quarter six (see slide 24) .
• SJG staff has internal expertise that is being
  maximized.
• Teachers are teaching teachers peer and share.
• If you examine NJASK performance over a two year
  period, students at SJG are demonstrating a
  consistent progress to advanced proficiency.
  (See slides 12-14)
• Benchmark Reporting by teacher was reexamined for
  internal purposes. Reporting by grade level
  reflects a more accurate comparison from Quarter
  2 Reporting to Quarter 6.
• Analyzing benchmark advanced proficiency numbers,
  WE ARE MOVING towards the SJG goal of 123.2
  (aggregate score).
• ALL IN ONE FRIDAYS assist with students
  transferring what they have learned in writers
  workshop to NJASK.
• SJG Teachers have a pay it forward mentality.
  Clear understanding of our mission and vision
  Not being afraid of taking risks because they
  are TEACHING WITH THE END IN MIND and focusing
  on the ESSENTIALS.

7
Key Learning II

• Based on Quarter 5- Quarter 6 analysis, Grade 4
  students are continuing to improve in both
  reading and math. (See slide )
• Q2 to Q6 and Q5 to Q6 are clearly demonstrating a
  decrease in the number of students falling in the
  below basic category. (See slide )
• Based on Quarter 5 analysis, students in grade
  three are participating in a leveled math pilot
  program. Why? The need to differentiate at this
  level requires instruction to be narrowed towards
  students individual learnings.
• Content Guided Reading in grades 3 4 as a
  result of Quarter 5 analysis data and NJASK 2007
  results. SRI scores indicate the need for more
  emphasis on guided reading when placed in
  conversation with analyzing text and working with
  text weaknesses.
• Pacing Calendar developed by MLSP, Reading
  Specialist and grade level teachers to assist
  with content and applications geared towards
  NJASK in grades 3 4. Why? Working with the
  end in mindteaching for understanding and with a
  clear focus on the essentials.

8
Achievement Goals

• Objective 1 In the 2007 -2008 School Year NJASK
  3 Language Arts/Mathematics aggregate test scores
  for Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School will
  improve as shown below. All scores are part of
  the Pequannock Township Elementary Schools Five
  Year Plan for improvement.
• Baseline 2006-2007 Target
  Increase 2007-2008
• Grade 3 44.5 8.2
• Achieve Aggregate Score of 53.7
• Objective 2 In the 2007-2008 School Year NJASK
  4 Language Arts/Mathematics aggregate test scores
  for Stephen J. Gerace Elementary School will
  improve as shown below. All scores are part of
  the Pequannock Township Elementary Schools Five
  Year Plan for improvement.
• Baseline 2006-07 Target
  Increase 2007-08
• Grade 4 61.3 8.2
• Achieve Aggregate Score of 69.5
• SJG Target total aggregate score for grades 3
  4 123.2

9
Stephen J Gerace 2007 NJASK Results
10
NJASK 4 Year to Year Comparison
11
NJASK 3 Year to Year Comparison
12
Grade 3 vs. Grade 4 Cohort Comparison
13
Instructional Practices Inventory(IPI)
14
Instructional Practices Inventory(IPI)
15
Key Accomplishments I

• Building Teams implemented during Quarter Sixth
  to develop quality school portfolios.
• Faculty Meetings provide time for professional
  development and conversations relating to best
  practices for teaching.
• Continued emphasis on active learning protocols
  in school. Examples include more
  experimentation during science class, cooperative
  learning models inviting students as the center
  of the teaching learning process.
• Organized school around professional learning
  communities. Bi-Monthly Meetings aligned with our
  nations best practices for teaching and
  succeeding.
• Using the Writing Workshop Model, teachers are
  continuing to prepare students for picture and
  poetry prompts. Expanded Writing by
  Incorporating Writers Workshop-approximately 1200
  minutes a month of just the writers workshop.
• Reading Specialist and MLSP continue to assist
  with Data Analysis weekly.
• Collaboration with Director of Special Services
  on special education student progress
  development of action plan.
• Execute Watch and Concerns list protocols Each
  teacher met with building principal to analyze
  and review their STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PROFILE
  BINDERS which details each students progress on
  multiple assessments. The SAP sets target goal
  for advanced proficiency and creates action plans
  for concern level students.
• MLSP and Reading Specialist attend monthly HSA
  meetings to provided parent training and
  information sessions on writers workshop,
  reading and math skills.

16
Key Accomplishments II

• NJASK Newsletter created by building principal
  and distributed in January and February
• Grade Level Teachers meet weekly to cooperatively
  plan for the next weeks lessons (Horizontal
  articulation)
• Vertical articulation occurred in some
  professional development workshops this year-
  MORE is a must
• MLSP and Reading Specialist provide vertical
  articulation grades K-5.
• Active Learning/Rigor and Relevance-IPI model
  clearly recognizes teachers at SJG are targeting
  their learning to meet individual students
  success as demonstrated by the IPI Graph- 28
  of students are involved in student engaged
  instruction. This will help with achievement
  profiles by recognizing learning styles when
  placed in conversation with performance
  indicators.
• Study Island being used by all special education
  students in grades 3-5 (26 students). Pre-Test
  will be evaluated and become part of the Student
  Achievement Profile
• DRA Training and Implementation (K-1)
• SJG Principal, MLSP and Reading Specialist have
  taken the lead on Data Driven Instruction
  Initiation Teams.
• Guided reading groups in kindergarten led by
  Reading Specialist and Classroom Teachers
• Quarter 6 IPI Results Indicate an increase in
  student led instruction by 7 when compared to
  Quarter 5. This demonstrates more active
  learning transferring to engagement.

17
Key Accomplishments Writing Advanced Proficient
Performance Descriptor ( NJDOE )
18
Key Accomplishments Reading Advanced Proficient
Performance Descriptor ( NJDOE )
19
Key AccomplishmentsMathematics Advanced
Proficient Performance Descriptor ( NJDOE )
20
Student Achievement Qtr 5 vs. Qtr 6 SRI
ResultsGrades 2 5 Summary
21
Student Achievement Fifth Quarter - SRI Results
22
What does the data show?SRI

• SRI Sixth Quarter results demonstrate the
  following All Grade levels have shown an
  increase in students performing at a proficient
  or better level
• 69 of Grade Two is proficient or better.
• 21 increase from Q5-Q6
• 56 of Grade Three is proficient or better.
• 1 increase from Q5-Q6
• 79 of Grade Four is proficient or better.
• 11 increase from Q5-Q6
• 88 of Grade Five is proficient or better.
• 5 increase from Q5-Q6
• This demonstrates a clear increase (totaling 38)
  across the board from Quarter 5- Quarter 6

23
Student Achievement 2nd Qtr vs. 6th Qtr
BenchmarkSummary Results
24
Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr
Benchmark Results
25
What does the 5th Qtr Benchmarking show?

• In Grade 3, 68 are proficient or better in
  Language Arts and 75 are proficient or better in
  math
• In Grade 4, 66 are proficient or better in
  Language Arts and 73 are proficient or better in
  math
• In Grade 5, 79 are proficient or better in
  Language Arts and 86 are proficient or better in
  math

26
Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr Grade
DistributionSummary Results
27
Student Achievement 1st Qtr vs. 5th Qtr Grade
Distribution Results
28
What does the 6th Qtr Grade Distribution show?

• There now is more of an alignment between
  classroom grades and Student Performance
  Indicators such as Benchmarking, SRI, and NJASK
  scores.

29
2007-2008 Actions

• Lexile ranges will continue to be narrowed based
  on SRI results.
• MLSP and Reading Specialist are continuing to
  revisit our watch and concern lists daily.
• PLC meetings will continue to be utilized to
  review data, analyze student actions and plan
  accordingly
• Professional development offerings highly
  recommended for all staff specifically on the
  Writing Workshop model
• MLSP and Reading Specialist will meet each week
  with building principal to review data, action
  plans, and Quality School Portfolios (QSP).
• We will continue to build on the data by
  targeting questions on the benchmarking tests
  that indicate weaknesses. The results are used
  to collaborate with classroom teachers for lesson
  co-teaching and planning.
• Continued review of all the data, Benchmarking,
  SRI and grade distribution being placed in
  conversation with advanced proficient
  performance. Is there a trend or correlation?
• NJ ASK Scores will improve- We will continue to
  analyze this thoroughly for the question to be
  answered (see slide 11)
• Quality School Portfolios will be created during
  building team meetings
• Collaboration with all constituents-Watch and
  Concern list review

30
Quality School Portfolios

• Student Grades
• Grade Distributions
• Progress Report Indicators
• SRI
• Benchmarking
• NJASK 3, 4, 5
• Action Plans

31
What Actions Have Been Taken During the Sixth
Quarter driven by Fifth Quarter
Results(Executive Summary)

• Watch and Concerns lists updated, revisited
  weekly
• Lesson plans prepared for staff by MLSP and
  Reading Specialist to assist with recognition of
  best practices for teaching
• Data driven instruction leads to better
  preparedness and recognition of students
  strengths and weaknesses
• PLC meetings continuing
• Individual teacher meetings with building
  principal to discuss all students and their
  progress-development towards Quality School
  Portfolios
• Building Team Meetings to discuss Benchmark
  results. Question addressed regarding use of
  benchmark for comparative purposes.
• Question posed Why do the three elementary
  schools scores differ so? --- TQM Teams
  continue to evaluate this question
• Quality School Portfolios were developed once
  again to analyze strengths and weaknesses.
• IMPLEMENTATION OF WRITERS WORKSHOP K-5
• Creation of NJASK Pacing Calendar by MLSP,
  Reading Specialist and Classroom Teachers