WELCOME!!!
LONSDALE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
OPEN HOUSE 2013
Currently, Lonsdale
Elementary School is
classified as a school in
the “Typical” Range
Schools in this
range scored
within a point
range of 50-70
OUR GOAL IS TO
BE A COMMENDED
SCHOOL!!!
Educator Evaluation System
School Classification Breakdown
SCHOOL
Title
I
Targets
Passed
Classification
Total
Points
/100
Points From
% PROF
/30
SUBGROUP
GAPS
/30
PROG TO
2017
TARGET
/5
% IN
DISTINCTI
ON
/10
STUDENT
GROWTH
/25
Central
Elementary
12/12
Typical
55.50
18.00
21.00
3.00
3.50
10.00
Lincoln
Middle
School
9/14
Typical
53.0
0
15.00
16.50
3.00
3.50
15.00
Lincoln
High School
13/13
Typical
64.67
16.00
18.00
8.00
3.00
NA
Lonsdale
Elementary
9/12
Typical
56.5
0
17.00
19.50
2.00
3.00
15.00
12/12
Typical
61.17
16.00
19.50
6.00
3.00
16.67
12/14
Typical
51.67
17.00
18.00
2.00
3.00
11.67
Northern
Elementary
Saylesville
Elementary
Y
HS
GRADUATION
/20
HS SCALED SCORE
CHANGE
/5
16.67
3.00
RIDE Systems
under RTTT
Teacher
Leadership
•EPSS (Educator Performance
Support System)
All Teachers
•Data Team Work
•Susan Mischler, Colleen
Boisvert, Tracy Hastings,
Jeannine Magliocco
•ELA Curriculum Alignment to
the Common Core
•Barbara Berleth, Kimberly
Cole, Debra Lyons, Dana Miga,
Susan Mischler
•SS Curriculum Alignment to
the Common Core
•Diane Avery
Educator Evaluation System

Research has shown that one of the most important school-based factors influencing a
student’s achievement is the quality of his or her teacher (RIDE website, 2012).

Continuous feedback aligned with teacher standards

Teacher Professional Growth Plans and Student Learning Objectives will drive the work
teachers do (data and needs based)

The online EPSS (Educator Performance Support System) will capture all critical
information associated with teacher and administrator evaluations and streamline the
process for both educators and evaluators. The EPSS will provide access to all forms,
components, and scoring features required for implementation, as well as guidance to
support the evaluation process (RIDE website, 2012).
Percentage of Lonsdale Students Achieving Proficiency
or Above Over the Past 5 Years
90
80
70
2008-2009
60
2009-2010
50
2010-2011
40
2011-2012
30
2012-2013
20
10
0
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Longitudinal Reading Proficiency by Grade
Reading Proficiency:
2010-2011
 Lonsdale School
2011-2012
2012-2013
85 %
86%
73%
 Beginning of Grade 3 86 %
85%
88%
83%
65%
*74%
83%
 Beginning of Grade 4
91 %
 Beginning of Grade 5 81 %
Longitudinal Mathematics Proficiency by Grade
Math Proficiency:
2010-2011
2011-2012
75 %
82%
66%
Beginning of Grade 3 68 %
82%
56%
Beginning of Grade 4 87 %
83%
83%
Beginning of Grade 5 71 %
83%
*63%
Lonsdale School
2012-2013
Longitudinal Writing Proficiency—Grade 5
Writing Proficiency:
2010-2011
Lonsdale School
(grade 5)
61%
2011-2012
62%
Lincoln Elementary Schools
Writing Scores
2011-2012
Central
Lonsdale
Northern
Saylesville
68%
62%
61%
69%
2012-2013
86%
74%
63%
71%
2012-2013
74%
Reading Proficiency Across Elementary Schools in Lincoln
Percentage Of Students Proficient Or
Proficient With Distinction
Grade
Central
3
74%
4
86%
5
86%
6 (Teaching Year)
85%
Lonsdale Northern Saylesville
65%
74%
83%
88%
71%
72%
75%
89%
71%
75%
85%
82%
Percentage Of Students Substantially
Below Proficiency
Grade
Central
Lonsdale Northern Saylesville
3
4
5
6
12%
2%
6%
3%
13%
2%
5%
0%
7%
8%
8%
3%
9
10%
8%
7%
Mathematics Proficiency Across Elementary Schools in
Lincoln
Percentage Of Students Proficient Or Proficient With Distinction
Grade
3
4
5
6
Central
71%
80%
85%
80%
Lonsdale
56%
83%
63%
81%
Northern
74%
73%
69%
74%
Saylesville
77%
65%
74%
85%
Percentage Of Students Substantially Below Proficiency
Grade
3
4
5
6
Central
13%
8%
9%
10%
Lonsdale
21%
6%
12%
13%
Northern
7%
14%
15%
14%
Saylesville
7%
15%
14%
19%
Lonsdale Elementary Subgroups
(IEP and SES (Supplemental Education Services))
IEP
Grade
 3
 4
 5
Number of Students
8
1
3
Reading Proficiency
25%
N/A
N/A
Math Proficiency
N/A
N/A
33%
SES
Grade
Number of Students
 3
31
15
15
 4
 5
Reading Proficiency
42%
67%
73%
Math Proficiency
38%
73%
47%
Timeline of Action
February 8, 2013
2012 NECAP
Results released
Results
communicated
To faculty
Implementation
Principal
performs
preliminary
analysis
March 21
SIT meets and
develops action
plans
February 25
through March 12
Item Analysis with
Grade level teams
begins during
common planning
time
March 13
Grade level team
meeting—grade level
teams meet to
brainstorm interventions
based on item analysis
results and begin
implementation
Grade 3 Findings from Item Analysis
 Reading Findings





Academic Vocabulary
Analysis and interpretation
weak
Reading the questions
Inference of Idiomatic
Expression
Developing constructive
responses using details from the
passage
 Math Findings







Completion of items
Fractions (equal parts of a
whole)
Using key words to choose
operation (“How many more…?”)
Equivalence
Line plots vs. graphs—how to
read
Area of a shape using
manipulatives
Depth of Knowledge—multistep difficult problems
Grade 4 Findings from Item Analysis
 Reading Findings





Homophones
Analysis and Interpretation
Response to Informational
Text
Prefixes
Poem comparison
 Math Findings





Place value
Mathematics Vocabulary
Fluency with
subtraction,
multiplication
Equivalence
Depth of Knowledge—
multi-step word problems
Grade 5 Findings from Item Analysis
 Reading Findings
 Math Findings






Constructed responses—
supporting with evidence from the
text
Vocabulary—using context to
determine meanings of unknown
words
Fact vs. Opinion
Understanding the prompt for a
constructed response.
Analysis and Interpretation





Following directions
Fractions---reducing to lowest
terms
Algebraic expressions
(relationships between the
operations)
Equivalence
Key words to help create
algebraic expressions
Fractions—reducing to lowest
terms
Additional
ACTIONS the
school will take
ACTION PLANS--Developed in both Reading
and Math


Face to Face meetings

with parents of students
who achieved 1’s or 2’s

Ramp up program

Summer--the start of
NECAP

Highlights in “SPOTS”

and on listserv for parent
intervention

PLC s to focus on these

areas of need (Text
Complexity is the next
topic)

Reward students for hard
work and effort during
testing






Use Envisions program more regularly to expose students to problems with
higher depth of knowledge (“quick checks’)
Academic and test words “word walls”—highlight them in directions
Key words “word walls” and consistency of its use during instruction
Continue with Student Learning Objectives in Math---Fluency focus
More consistent focus on equivalence—work at a more concrete level to
scaffold for the abstract balancing of equations
Provide more consistent opportunities to solve problems at higher levels that
are “like” problems that were solved during instruction
Explicitly embed those skills that were deficient into math instruction or
morning work (for example, counting and making change in grade 2)
Continue practicing responses to literary and informational text with the
TEEC format—write the acronym on their written work
Provide more opportunities for students to compare two texts (such as
poems)
More explicit work with morphemic parts of words (prefix, suffix—meaning)
Build stamina for reading lengthier passages
Consistently require students to read the questions before reading a passage.
Explicitly teach inference of idiomatic expressions
Reading and writing about various text structures such as fact vs. opinion
and cause/effect to embed understanding of these important comprehension
Students will take released items from the test in June.
Students will practice with multiple choice tests in June and in September.
Science NECAP
Proficiency
Levels
oStudents in grade 4
take Science NECAP
in the Spring of their
fourth grade year
oStudents are tested
for their
understanding of
Grade Span
Expectations
oScience NECAP will
be taken until the
spring of 2016
Science Initiatives in Place in Response to
NECAP Data
 Scientist Notebook
 Revised Scope and Sequence ~includes Kit-based Inquiry Science
 Common Inquiry tasks being implemented at grade 4
 Study Island
 TEEC Writing
 Consultant and Professional Development
 Increased district and school-based support in Science
 Action plan to be developed in Science
Time and people….
 Grade Level and Faculty meeting times devoted to topics focused on
teaching and learning (e.g., intervention block planning, Looking at
Student Work, data analysis)
 Common Planning Time (3x/week)
 School Improvement Team
 Lonsdale Parents and Teachers
 PBIS (1x/month)
 PLC (1x/month during faculty meeting)
 Intervention Blocks~built into
Master schedule (common preps and
Intervention blocks)
 September Ramp-up—9/4—9/20
 Face to Face meetings with Parents
PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention
Supports)
PPaws and Path to a Reward
•Principal’s Award
•Keys to Kindness
•Paw Raffle
•Student Leadership—PBIS Leadership Team and 5th grade
Leadership Team (Service, Fun, and Spirit)
•Community Meetings
Parents—Important Partners in a Child’s
Education
When parents get connected to the school, children
do
better. Research shows children whose parents are
involved get better grades, do better on tests, and
have fewer discipline problems at school by more
than 50 percent
Parent Outreach
•Face to face meetings with parents
•Listserv
•Lonsdale Spots
•Website
•SIT
•LPT
•Volunteers (BCI check required)
Earn Your Parent Paw!
On our way
from
Typical…..
…to
Commended!