Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 1
School Improvement Plan (Assessment 7)
Elizabeth D. Redd Elementary
1. Longitudinal Achievement Trends
Accreditation Results for All Students
During the 2011-2014 school
English
Math
History
Science
years Elizabeth D. Redd
1yr / 3yr
1yr / 3yr
1yr / 3yr
1yr / 3yr
Elementary met accreditation 2011-12
91 / 83
95 / 87
91 / 82
89 / 85
benchmarks
in
English, 2012-13
88 / 87
57 / 79
89 / 84
83 / 88
History and Science. In 201355 / 77
51 / 68
76 / 85
58 / 76
2013-14
14 the school received a 68 of
Benchmark
75
70
70
70
the required score of 70 in
Mathematics, failing to meet the accreditation benchmark. Mathematic scores have steadily
decreased over the years while History scores have shown a small degree of improvement.
English and Science scores showed a similar trend marking slight improvement in 2012-13 then
decreasing in 2013-14 with English receiving a 77 of the required 75. Although English and
Science were below benchmarks in 2013-14 the goal was met through an average of the scores
for all three years. History was the only subject to meet benchmarks for all years.
Percentage Passed
Accreditation Results for All Students
90
85
80
75
70
65
Year
English
Mathematics
History
Science
Overall English Performance
In 2010-11 the subgroups clustered
White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
with passing rates between 88-93%. 2010-11 <
90
88
93 90 87
In 2011-12 the subgroups stratified 2011-12 <
86
100
70 88 94
with the Hispanic and LEP 2012-13 <
48
50
30 47 42
subgroups showing improvement
before decreasing in 2012-13; Black and Economically Disadvantage assuming similar trends
with a slight decrease in 2011-12 and a significant decrease in 2012-13; and Student with
Disabilities marked a significant decrease in 2011-12 and 2012-13. The white subgroup
population was below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 2
Percentage Passed
Overall English Performance
70
20
Black
Year
Hispanic
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
Limited English Proficient
Overall Mathematics Performance
The performance of all subgroups
White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
steadily decreased over the three 2010-11 <
96
89
93 94 93
years. In 2010-11 all subgroups 2011-12 <
51
86
37 58 65
were clustered with passing rates 2012-13 <
41
63
19 44 43
between 89-96%. In 2011-12 rates
stratified with a 49 point gap between the highest achieving subgroup, Hispanics, and the lowest
achieving subgroup Students with Disabilities; in 2011-12 the Limited English Speaking,
Economically Disadvantaged and Black subgroups demonstrated a similar downward trend with
a gap of 7 between each subgroup then they clustered again in 2012-13. The white subgroup
population was below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Percentage Passed
Overall Math Performance
100
70
40
10
Black
Year
Hispanic
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
Limited English Proficient
3rd Grade Reading
In 2010-11 all
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
groups
were 2010-11 83
71
<
77
<
<
78 <
slightly cluster with 2011-12 94
90
<
90
<
92 91 <
passing
rates
45
<
58
<
<
55 <
2012-13 69
between 71-83%.
In 2011-12 all subgroup demonstrated a degree of improvement and clustered with passing rates
between 90-94%. In 2012-13 the subgroups stratified and all areas showed a decrease in passing
rates. The Female subgroup performed 24 points higher than males while the black and
economically disadvantage showed a similar trend throughout the three years. The White,
Hispanic, Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient subgroups populations were
below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 3
Percentage Passed
3rd Grade Reading
100
80
60
40
Year
Female
Male
Black
Economically Disadvantage
3rd Grade Math
The performance of
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
all
subgroups 2010-11 90
93
<
90
<
<
89 <
steadily decreased 2011-12 61
46
<
53
<
33 55 <
over the three 2012-13 32
33
<
27
<
<
28 <
years. In 2010-11
all subgroups were clustered with passing rates between 89-93%; subgroups cluster again in
2012-13 with passing rates between 27-33%. In 2011-2012 the subgroups slightly stratified with
a 15 point difference between the highest achieving subgroup, Female, and lowest achieving
subgroup, Male; the Black and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups demonstrated a similar
trend. The White, Hispanic, Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient subgroups
populations were below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Percentage Passed
3rd Grade Math
100
80
60
40
20
Year
Female
Male
Black
Economically Disadvantage
4th Grade Reading
The performance
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
of all subgroups 2010-11 96
96
<
95
<
100 97 <
steadily decreased
79
<
79
<
36 81 <
2011-12 81
over the three
32
<
43
<
21 50 <
2012-13 58
years. In 2010-11
all subgroups were clustered with passing rates between 95-100%. The subgroups were
clustered again in 2011-12 with passing rates between 79-81% with the exception of the Students
with Disabilities subgroup which scored 43 points lower than the cluster. In 2012-13 scores
stratified with an average of 9 point gap between each group. The White, Hispanic, and Limited
English Proficient subgroups populations were below state definition for personally identifiable
results.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 4
Percentage Passed
4rd Grade Reading
100
70
40
10
Year
Female
Male
Black
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
4th Grade Math
In 2010-11 all
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
subgroups
were 2010-11 100
100
<
100
<
100 100 <
clustered
with 2011-12 50
69
<
55
<
47 59 <
passing rates of 2012-13 76
48
<
63
<
29 67 <
100%. In 2011-12
passing rates in all subgroups lowered and stratified. In 2012-13 the Male and Students with
Disabilities subgroup performed lower; the Female and Black subgroups assumed similar trends
and slightly improved. The Students with Disabilities subgroup was again the lowest achieving
group. The White, Hispanic, and Limited English Proficient subgroups populations were below
state definition for personally identifiable results.
Percentage Passed
4rd Grade Math
100
70
40
10
Year
Female
Male
Black
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
5th Grade Reading
The performance
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
of all subgroups 2010-11 97
100
<
100
<
100 98 <
decreased over the
91
<
89
<
90 92 <
2011-12 88
three years.
In
50
<
42
<
14 36 <
2012-13 37
2010-11
the
subgroups were clustered with passing rates between 97-100%. Passing rates were clustered
again in 2011-12 with passing rates between 88-92%. In 2012-13 the subgroups stratified with a
36 point difference between the highest achieving subgroup, Male, and lowest achieving
subgroup, Students with Disabilities; the Female, Black, and Economically Disadvantaged
subgroups demonstrated a similar trend. The White, Hispanic, and Limited English Proficient
subgroups populations were below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 5
Percentage Passed
5rd Grade Reading
100
80
60
40
20
0
Year
Female
Male
Black
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
5th Grade Math
Female Male White Black Hispanic SD ED LEP
The performance
of all subgroups
100
<
100
<
100 95 <
2010-11 94
decreased over the
53
<
46
<
<
60 <
2011-12 50
three years. In
50
<
33
<
7
36 <
2012-13 30
2010-11 the
subgroups were clustered with passing rates between 94-100%. In 2011-12 the subgroups
stratified with a 14 point difference between the highest achieving subgroup, Economically
Disadvantaged, and lowest achieving subgroup, Black. In 2012-13 the subgroups stratified again
with a 43 point difference between the highest achieving subgroup, Male, and lowest achieving
subgroup, Students with Disabilities. The White, Hispanic, and Limited English Proficient
subgroups populations were below state definition for personally identifiable results.
Percentage Passed
5rd Grade Math
100
80
60
40
20
0
Year
Female
Male
Black
Students w/Disabilities
Economically Disadvantage
2. Strength and Weakness Highlighted in the Data
Strengths
Elizabeth D. Redd Elementary met benchmarks in all subjects (English, Math, History and
Science) in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. The school demonstrated steady
improvement and met benchmarks in History all three years, making History the overall
strongest subject for the school. Although scores declined from previous years, benchmarks
were still met in 2013-14 in English and Science. In 2010-11 the subgroups were clustered in
overall English and Math with passing rates, showing that all students were being educated
equitably and to state standards. In 2011-12, the Black, Hispanic, LEP, and Economically
Disadvantaged subgroups performed well overall in English.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 6
In reading and math the following strengths were observed:
 3rd grade reading scores were high in all subgroups in 2011-12
 4th, 5th grade reading scores were high in all subgroups in 2010-11
 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade math scores were high in all subgroups in 2010-11
Federal Accountability
Reading
Met 3 Year
Students w/ Disabilities,
ELL, Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Black Students
Met 3 year
Hispanic students
TS-too small
All students met federal accountability for reading and math
Math
Did not meet 3 year
Met 3 Year
TS-too small
School Safety
2010-2011
2011-2012
16
13
Offense Category
2012-2013
Offenses against
13
Students
Other offenses
21
89
49
against persons
Disorderly or
92
78
79
disruptive
behavior offenses
Although ‘Other offenses against persons’ increased significantly in 2011-2012 overall
behavioral problems decreased.
Weaknesses
Due to declining scores Redd Elementary had to use the 3 year average to meet federal
accountability requirements in reading. The school has been accredited with a warning due to
not meeting federal accountability in Math for Students w/ Disabilities, ELL, and Economically
Disadvantaged Students, although the school did meet standards using the 3 year average for the
Black subgroup. As achievement scores have decreased, subgroups have stratified indicating a
struggle to reach all the subgroup equitably. The accreditation results for all students indicate
that the school scarcely reached the English requirement. In overall English and Math
performance the students with disability subgroup is the lowest performing group in all three
years. In 2012-13 all subgroups performed significantly low in English.
Academic Priorities for Redd Elementary: Mathematics & English
3. A More finely Grained Analysis of Weaknesses
Data was also analyzed by groups of students over time to identify trends in groups or grade
levels. 2013-14 data would confirm any trends that have been found thus far.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 7
Group 1: % of Students Proficient- Progress Tracked from 3rd through 5th Grade (same group
of students)
2010-11 (3rd)
2011-12 (4th)
2012-13 (5th)
Reading
77
80 (+3)
44 (-36)
Math
92
59 (-33)
64 (+5)
Possible
Math: New SOLs tested with Reading: New SOLs with
reasons
increase in rigor and relevance. increase rigor and relevance in
First time teachers and students reading were implemented with
have been exposed to this type of this test. Increase in complexity
assessment.
with vocabulary and higher level
inferring skills. Mandatory
online testing implemented
Based on this group’s performance, a significant drop in both areas was observed when the new
Standards of Learning were implemented. In each subsequent year, the group did show some
growth in the percentage of students proficient, although minimal. Based on this trend, the
expectation would be for continued increases in proficiency; however, there is a need for higher
gains.
Group 2: % of Students Proficient- Progress Tracked from 4th through 5th Grade (same group
of students)
2010-11 (4th)
2011-12 (5th)
Reading
96
90 (-6)
Math
100
52 (-48)
Possible
Math: New SOLs tested
reasons
with increase in rigor and
relevance. First time
teachers and students have
been exposed to this type of
assessment.
Although this is the first year for the new SOLs to be assessed, students proficient dropped
significantly. Although this was the same group of students and the new SOLs in Reading were
not being assessed, there was still a 6% drop in the Reading pass rate.
Group 3: % of Students Proficient- Progress Tracked from 3rd through 4th Grade (same group
of students)
2011-12 (3th)
2012-13 (4th)
Reading
92
45 (-47)
Math
54
63 (+9)
Possible
Math: New SOLs tested
Reading: New SOLs with
reasons
with increase in rigor and
increase rigor and relevance
relevance. First time
in reading were
teachers and students have implemented with this test.
been exposed to this type
Increase in complexity with
of assessment.
vocabulary and higher level
inferring skills. Mandatory
online testing implemented
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 8
There was an increase in the Math pass rates from 3rd to 4th grade of 9 %, slightly higher than
Group 1 (5%). This, along with the data and pass rates prior to the new SOLs being
implemented, demonstrates that the 4th grade level team may be instructionally stronger.
Observations on the team of teachers may help glean information about strategies and
instructional practices that can be utilized for school improvement. Certain teacher leaders may
be found and utilized to provide peer coaching. Cross grade level meetings and planning may be
beneficial to identify key problems of practice and student areas of need that may cross grade
levels in order to determine possible solutions and strategies. This data indicates that both a
school wide plan, especially in reading, may be necessary, while collaborative work and/or grade
level autonomy in creating improvement plans and strategies could be utilized to promote
teacher engagement. This will provide for both a school wide effort and teacher choice.
In order to gain a better understanding of the factors that may be influencing student
achievement, more information would need to be gathered in the planning process. The number
of teachers on improvement plans can indicate if ineffective teaching methods are contributing to
the decline. Reviewing content curriculum to confirm its alignment to state standards would be
beneficial to determine if curriculum revision or development is needed. This information
coupled with state assessment results can help frame the improvement plan and increase its
effectiveness.
4. Plan for improving student success, learning and achievement
Plan for Improving Student Success
Goal # 1 Increase Student Achievement in Reading/English
Objectives:
3rd Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 57% in 2012-213 to 80%.
4th Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 41% in 2012-213 to 75%.
5th Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 36% in 2012-213 to 75%.
Goal # 2 Increase Student Achievement in Mathematics
with a focus on Students w/ Disabilities, ELL, Economically Disadvantaged Students
Objectives:
3rd Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 30% in 2012-213 to 70%.
4th Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 57% in 2012-213 to 75%.
5th Grade - Increase % of students scoring proficient from an average of 31% in 2012-213 to 70%.
Scientifically Based Research Strategies: Data Driven Decision Making- is the process of
gathering student data (academic performance, attendance, demographics, etc) to adjust teaching
styles and curriculum to gain measurable improvements. This process helps identify struggling
students/subgroup for earlier intervention procedures. Active Learning- are strategies that use in
low-risk activities to encourage participation by all students. This ensures students are
interacting with the curriculum -- reading, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating class content.
Performance Measures: Students: formative and summative assessments, academic
performance, attendance; increased participation in after-school tutoring opportunities;
participation at parent information sessions. Teachers/Staff: informal and formal observations;
review of lesson plans; meeting agendas; professional development activities; participation in
professional learning communities.
The objectives are aggressive to raise proficiency rates to meet state standards. Benchmarks will
be needed to outline the percentage of increase required for each quarter to meet the annual
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 9
objective. Each grade level, by subject, would need to evaluate specific student needs to
determine how teachers would implement the above-mentioned strategies and supports in their
classroom. As a school the following activities were identified to improve academic
performance:
Activity
New-revised Math/English core curriculum
Website/ newsletter with student/parent
resources
Positive Behavior Intervention Support
System
Intervention/ enrichment block
Parent meetings
Reason
the align curriculum with standards,
encourage effective instruction at all levels
for all groups
provide additional resources to continue
independent learning
create a responsive environment
meet the needs of special
education/ELLs/other identified groups
without interrupting key instruction time
increase communication between home &
school to continue learning at home
5. Timeline for Implementing the Improvement Plan
Implementation Timeline
Activity
Resources
Person(s)
Involved
Design new-revised
assessment data of
Coaches, lead
math/reading core curriculum the areas of
teacher,
along with benchmarks.
weakness for each
administrative
Design a positive behavior
subject, curriculum
representative
support system
developer, feedback
from stakeholders
Design a Positive Behavior
research, an
Principal, school
Intervention Support
assessment of school based team
System
needs
District content trainers will
Training materials,
principal,
facilitate training during the
training room
teachers, and the
summer to familiarize
new coaches
principal, teachers, and the
math/reading coaches with the
new-revised core
Coaches will work with
lesson plans,
Coaches,
teachers and paraprofessionals scheduled
teachers,
weekly in the classroom on
uninterrupted time
specialists and
the new-revised math/reading for collaboration
paraprofessionals
core. (i.e. model lessons,
interventions, etc.)
Implement core classroom
course materials
Coaches,
math/reading instruction
(books, visual aide,
teachers, and
Cost
Date
20,000
MayJune
11,000
July
23,000
June-July
$11,000
Aug-Dec
Staff
salary
AugMay
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 10
using the new core
Develop support content for
school website which
includes: student, parent
resources and “at home”
activities
Adjust school calendar to
include
intervention/enrichment block
to decrease pull out of
students during key
instruction times
Ensure school website
includes: student, parent
resources and “at home”
activities
Implement
intervention/enrichment block
to decrease pull out of
students during key
instruction times
Implement the Positive
Behavior Intervention Support
System
Host a Family Literacy Night
to discuss reading strategies
used in the classroom and
strategies that can be used at
home.
After school tutoring groups
will be set up based on the
need of the students.
Host a pre-assessment
meeting with parent to discuss
strategies used in the
classroom and strategies that
can be used at home.
Create a monthly newsletter
that will include: academic
tips, current events, school
calendar, and school news.
assessments etc.),
lesson plans
research materials
paraprofessionals
IT teacher,
content teacher,
administrator
Staff
salary
Aug
school master
schedule
administrator
Staff
salary
Aug
website, website
content
IT teacher
Staff
salary
Sept
school master
schedule
students, teachers,
administrator
Staff
salary
Sept
the plan, staff
support, consistent
execution
transportation,
daycare, materials
(brochures, fliers,
samples strategies),
refreshments
teacher volunteers,
sign up system,
curriculum
transportation,
daycare, materials
(brochures, fliers,
samples strategies),
refreshments
word processing
program, email
distribution list,
mailing list for
parents w/out
computer access,
printer, paper,
stamps, envelops
Principal, school
based team
Staff
salary
AugMay
Classroom
teachers, students,
parents
$4,000
Sept
Classroom
teachers, students
$10,000
SeptMay
Principal,
Guidance
Counselor 3rd, 5th
grade teachers
$4,000
Jan, Apr
Secretaries and
paraprofessionals
No cost
Monthly
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 11
Organize team for plan
review/ revision and build
assessment literacy
staff members,
scheduling, buy-in
Benchmark and Plan
evaluation (review of test
scores, curriculum
implementation, plan
effectiveness)
assessment criteria,
staff to conduct
evaluation
Collect data, update/revise
plan for coming year
assessments, staff
Principals,
No cost
coaches, lead ESL
specialist, lead
special education
teacher,
assessment
administrator,
lead content
teachers
Principals,
No cost
coaches, lead ESL
specialist, lead
special education
teacher,
assessment
administrator,
lead content
teachers
Principals,
No cost
coaches, lead ESL
specialist, lead
special education
teacher,
assessment
administrator,
lead content
teachers
May
Oct, Jan,
Apr
June
6. Strategies to Facilitate School And Faculty Engagement
In order to promote teacher “buy-in”, they must be part of the SIP plan process. Working
collaboratively as a faculty and in grade level teams is key to successfully implementing a plan.
When teachers are part of the problem solving process, they are more likely to implement the
strategies and follow through.
This proposal implements both school and district based decisions through implementing a new
curriculum and collaboration with teachers through the process discussed below. A unified
school based curriculum was needed; however, grade level teams would be part of the decision
making process when deciding what to implement during the Enrichment/Intervention block,
along with deciding on the strategies and timeline. While the written plan already states the
decided upon strategy, this is the recommended process to facilitate school and faculty
engagement.
1) Create an SIP team to review and discuss the data. Allow teachers to volunteer or attend the
SIP meetings; however, each grade level must have at least one representative. Decide on draft
goals for SIP (long term proficiency and improvement goals). Disseminate draft goals and create
survey for faculty feedback. Meet again as an SIP team to finalize goals.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 12
2) Assemble faculty in a pre-school meeting where the analyzed data and long term goals are
shared. Teachers will work in grade level groups to brainstorm problems of practice that are
contributing to the issues with student growth and proficiency. They will brainstorm ideas and
write them on chart paper. Teachers then break into cross-curricular teams: K&1, 2&3, 4&5 to
bring new ideas. Teachers will then move back to grade level teams and rate their top three
problems of practice. This will be presented to the staff and recorded. It would expected for
there to be similarities between problems, especially with between the primary and secondary
levels. Staff will be asked to consider possible solutions or strategies to share a few days later.
3) At a separate meeting, the same approach will be utilized, except the staff will now brainstorm
for possible solutions to solve the finalized problem of practice for each grade level in reading
and math. A district specialist in reading and math will also provide a brief presentation on some
possible solutions based on the identified problems of practice. The top ideas will be sent out to
the staff.
4) Grade level teams will meet to decide on their strategy they choose to implement. If a grade
level asks for guidance, administration may assist or set up a time for the district specialist to
come meet with individual teams. Each team will create an impact-feasibility chart for their
possible solutions in order to help them choose a strategy. This will be submitted to
administration via Google Drive. Administration will sit in on the final meeting order to ensure
that the strategy is feasible, consensus is reached, and to help arrange for support and common
planning time for the team. This will be completed by September 15th.
5) On the first scheduled half-day in September, grade level teams will be given the entire time
to discuss their strategy and plan for implementation and follow-up. They will fill in an action
plan form that summarizes the strategy, timeline for implementation, responsibilities, and a
vision of what implementation will look like in the classroom. They will also submit a proposal
for resource and time needs. They will receive coverage for any training and for scheduled peer
observations for learning and to ensure implementation. Grade level teams will also be given
two extra half-day planning times this year to review the plan and data and make any
adjustments.
6) A survey will also be sent to teachers to determine their level of comfort with the new
strategies and to ask them what they need to support them. Staff development sessions can be
geared toward groups of teachers with common needs, not necessarily by grade level. For
example, provide a staff development that addresses four common themes or areas of growth
found from the data and survey. Teachers will choose based on their individual growth needs.
By having grade level teams work collaboratively to come up with the solutions and plan of
action, they will be more accountable to implement and follow through with the plan. Support
for the teachers will need to be ongoing, with follow through by administration, the SIP team,
and the district.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 13
7. Strategies to facilitate external community engagement
Ensuring full stakeholder support is pivotal to the success of a school improvement plan. A
critical piece of the stakeholder support system is the local community. By sharing in the plan
and becoming actively involved, community members share ownership of their local school.
The plan calls for involving parents and supporting students through newsletters, a website,
parent meetings, and after school support. In order to help implement these actions and reach
student improvement goals, the following strategies would be utilized to engage the community
in helping to support our students and school. The first step would be to have a staff based team
come together to work on community engagement. The team will approach various
organizations (VCU, State Commission Office, Bank of America, etc) to discuss how
volunteering at Redd Elementary will improve student achievement and empower the students.
The volunteers would mentor a student and engage the students in reading and math activities
provided by the teachers.
Community Engagement
Strategy
Get Pre-service teachers from VCU to do
interventions (weekly)
Pre-service teachers from VCU that will tutor
students in reading and math intervention.
More programs for ESL population
(Cultural diversity)---Mainly for the
Hispanic community. (weekly or monthly)
Start a Spanish club with a translator. Parents
and students can come to the club to improve
reading and math skills.
Have professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc.)
or corporations in Richmond volunteer to
be a mentor to a student. (weekly)
Professionals will volunteer and mentor a
student using enrichment activities to support
rigor in the classroom.
Have black male role models come to the
school to conduct a boys’ mentoring
program. (Mt. Gilead International
Ministries) (Monthly)
Micah/Church Volunteers (weekly)
Churches will mentor boys that have
behavioral problems. They will empower them
to become successful young men.
Community in Schools (on site)
A program that supports the students with
counseling services, school supplies, and other
items. This program also makes the
connection between home and school to get
parents involved in school and home.
Volunteers come to the school to support the
teachers and assist in small groups helping
students as needed.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 14
8. Proposal for Evaluation
Types of Assessments
Term
Time Frame
Short Term
Ongoing
throughout year
Medium- Term
Long Term
Once per nine
weeks (3)
End of year
Assessments Used
Classwork, homework,
pre/posttests, quizzes,
journals, observations,
student conferencing
District Benchmarks,
PALS
Standards of Learning
State Tests, District Tests
Reading and Math Progress Assessment Plan
Data Measurement
Who is
Schedule for
Type
Task
Responsible
Gathering
Short
term
Classwork/
homework
assessing
reading and
math growth
Classroom
Teachers
Once per week,
entered on
Excel sheet in
Google Drive
Short
term
Teacher
quizzes and
tests for
reading and
math growth
and
proficiency
Classroom
Teachers
Short
term
Student
journals for
reading and
math
Classroom
Teachers
Pre and Post
Tests and
weekly quizzes
will be created
by grade level
teams. Scores
entered onto
Excel sheet in
Google Drive
Students will
journal their
demonstrating
their
understanding
of reading and
math skills
People
Teachers, Administration,
Interventionists
Teachers, Administration,
Interventionists
Teachers, Administration,
Interventionists
Schedule for
Interpreting/
Sharing
Teachers share
findings at
grade level
meetings
1/month
Teachers share
findings at
grade level
meetings
1/month
Teachers
choose 5
samples to
share at grade
level meetings
1/month
Goals
Assess student
improvement.
All students
should
demonstrate at
least 75%
accuracy on
graded class
and home
work.
All students
score 75% or
better on posttest or
demonstrate a
minimum of
50%
improvement.
Students are
able to
demonstrate
knowledge of
skill. Data to
assist with
teacher
decision
making.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 15
Short
term
Observation
during reading
and math
instruction.
Observation
will assess
teacher
implementatio
n of curriculum
strategies and
student
understanding
of skill
Classroom
Teachers,
Coaches,
Interventionists,
Administration
Medium
Term
Assessing
reading and
math skill
growth and
proficiency
using district
benchmark
assessments,
PALS
Assessment
administrator,
teachers, data
team
Observations
scheduled from
October to May
by
administration
using created
form on iPad,
Teacher peer
observations
conducted 2x
per year.
Teacher
observations
will be brought
to grade level
meetings in
January and
April,
Administration
observations
will be
scheduled 1:1
with teachers
and summaries
will be brought
to grade level
meeting in Jan.
and Apr.
Administer
Data will be
benchmark tests discussed and
to all students in shared during
grade 3-5 per
a separate
the district
team meeting
schedule (end
with
of first 3 nine
administration
weeks).
during the
Administer
months of
PALS to all
November,
students in
February, and
grades K-2.
April.
Teachers will
run item
analysis and
enter student
scores onto
their data
progress record
Assessment
administrator
will receive
scores from
district and
create grade
level analysis to
distribute to
teachers
To ensure new
curriculum and
strategies are
being utilized.
Students are
able to
demonstrate
knowledge of
skill.
Benchmark 1:
55% of students
demonstrate
proficiency on
Reading and
Math.
Benchmark 2:
60% of students
demonstrate
proficiency on
Reading and
Math.
Benchmark 3:
70% of students
demonstrate
proficiency on
Reading and
Math.
Laila Marshall, Octevia Torian, Valeriana Colon 16
Long
Term
Assessing
reading and
math
proficiency
Principals,
coaches, lead
ESL specialist,
lead special
education
teacher,
assessment
administrator,
lead content
teachers
Gather results
Data will be
Reading:
from previous
shared with
3rd: 80%
year SOL
entire faculty
proficiency
testing over
during the first 4th: 75%
summer. Sort
faculty staff
proficiency
and email to all development
5th: 75%
staff. Work
meeting led by proficiency
with data team
the principal in
to discuss
August.
Math:
implications.
3rd: 70%
Administer
current year’s
SOLs in May
and June
Each classroom teacher will keep a uniform data sheet on each student in his or her class. This
data sheet will be created by the SIP team and will be accessed through Google Drive. Data will
be kept over time in order to analyze trends and implement any necessary enrichment or
interventions. The information will be able to be accessed by grade level team members,
interventionists, administration, and parents, with parents only having access to their child’s data.
Data will be shared with only the teacher having editing access. Assessments are used to track
student both student growth or improvement and student proficiency.
9. Alignment with 2010-2015 Richmond Public Schools Strategic Plan:
The concepts detailed in this school improvement plan align with the following RPS action plan:
Action Plan 1.2 Integrated developmentally appropriate, hands-on math activities will be
incorporated into the curriculum that will guarantee mastery of both basic and advanced skills
at all grade levels.
Action Plan 1.6 A continuum of extended school day options for students will be implemented
that will provide opportunities for intervention and enrichment.
Action Plan 2.3 Provide additional and relevant support to increase student performance for
identified AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) subgroups.
Action Plan 2.5 Create Community Learning Centers that will offer and coordinate a variety
of support services and programs for children and families.
Action Plan 6.3 A comprehensive employee training model, aligned with industry standards
and best practices, maximizing employee performance will be established.
Action Plan 6.5 Increase the involvement of parents as partners with the schools to foster
increased student achievement.
Action Plan 6.6 All children will be provided with rigorous academic programs that meet or
exceed local, state and national standards.