The Lawrence School
BIT Presentation
September 22, 2006
Team LINE:
Lawrence Initiative—
No Excuses
1
A little BIT that tells a lot
about Lawrence…
2
Building Instructional Team
• Enza Macri
Principal
• Amy Rumberger
LA Consultant
• Eve Fiorica
Internal Literacy Facilitator
• Kristen Bradley
External Literacy Facilitator
• Katie Seifert
Special Education Teacher
• Susan Malecky
Speech/Language
Pathologist
• Lisbeth Scianna
DEAL Teacher
• Sue Imai
Kindergarten Teacher
• Sue Shippee Lopez
Grade 1 Teacher
• Karen Share
Grade 2 Teacher
• Carrie Nelson
Grade 3 Teacher
• Erin DeToro
Grade 4 Teacher
• Nancy Santostefano
Grade 5 Teacher
• Marisa Frisk
ESL Teacher
3
The Lawrence School Mission Statement
The Lawrence School is a partnership of
diverse learners, educators, families and
community members that instill an abiding
love of learning, a passion to promote high
achievement of academic skills and
emotional self-awareness necessary to
become respectful contributors to the
community.
4
The Lawrence School
at a glance… 2005/2006
A Multicultural
Community:
Diverse Needs:
• 30% Eligible for
Free/Reduced Meals
• 15% Special Education
• 9% ESL
144 Female
204 Male
338 Total Students
Total Retentions:
2005-06: 1 (K)
2004-05: 12 (K-1)
•
•
•
•
•
Asian American
Black
Hispanic
White
American Indian
14%
24%
14%
47%
2 students
97% Participation in
Parent/Teacher Conferences
5
The Lawrence School
Population
Regular
Education
ESL
9%
6%
10%
75%
Special
Education
DEAL
6
Dominant Languages
ESL Students
Number of Students
Language
16
Spanish
2
Cambodian
2
Polish
2
Bengali
1
Chinese
1
Hindi
3
Pushto
3
Filipino
4
Turkish
1
Burmese
1
Twi
7
Attendance
2004-2005
Number and Percent of Students
Exceeding 10 Absences
2005-2006
Number and Percent of Students
Exceeding 10 Absences
Gr. K
26
46%
Gr. K
28
40%
Gr. 1
26
43%
Gr. 1
23
40%
Gr. 2
5
13%
Gr. 2
30
44%
Gr. 3
19
31%
Gr. 3
13
30%
Gr. 4
15
32%
Gr. 4
21
30%
Gr. 5
16
32%
Gr. 5
14
29%
TOTAL
107
37%
TOTAL
129
37%
STAFF ATTENDANCE: Average days absent: 7 days
Two maternity leaves
One extended medical leave – school year 2005/2006
8
Student Mobility 2005-2006
Total Percent Change
Grade
K
1
2
3
4
5
School
04/05
35%
43%
66%
40%
36%
32%
42%
05/06
31%
47%
31%
33%
41%
36%
37%
9
The Lawrence School
Positive Behavioral Supports
•Foster behavioral expectations based
on mutual respect
•Continue implementation of
Second Step Social Skills program
•Utilize student behavioral
conduct reports and reflections
sheets
•Showcase student achievement
through bulletin board recognition
•Promote student achievement at
school-wide assemblies
• Provide extra rewards for students
“caught being good”
•Present students with awards on a
monthly basis at school assemblies
Decrease in Behavioral Referrals
and Suspensions from September
2005 through June 2006
Decreased
Conduct
Decreased
Reports
Suspensions
40%
66%
10
The Lawrence School
Four Step Process
2005-2006
Grade
Level
Number of
Students in
Four Step
Process
Number of
Students
Dismissed
Number of
Students
Referred to
Special
Education
Number of
Students
Identified as
Special
Education
K
10
4
1
1
1
6
5
1
1
2
12
5
1
0
3
2
1
2
0
4
6
5
1
1
5
3
1
0
0
Total
39
21
6
3
11
Grade Level
Assessments
12
Kindergarten through Fifth Grade
Assessments
Standardized Assessments
•Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
3rd Edition (K)
•Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (K-3)
•TerraNova (1-3)
•Connecticut Mastery Tests (3-5)
•Blue Ribbon Assessments (5)
•LAS Links (K-5)
Additional Assessments
•Kindergarten Check List (K)
•Concepts About Print (K)
•DIAL-3 (K)
•Developmental Reading
Assessment (K-3)
•Running Records (K-5)
•Portfolio Assessment (K-5)
•Writing Prompts (K-5)
•District Spelling Assessments (1-5)
•Houghton Mifflin Assessments (K-5)
•McGraw Hill Math Assessments (1-5)
13
English Language Proficiency
Assessment
14
English Language Learners
English Language Proficiency Assessment
Overall Proficiency
2005-2006
10 0
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
K i n d e r g a r t e n t h r o u g h Gr a d e F i v e S t u d e n t s
15
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
PPVT-III
16
Kindergarten
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 2005-2006
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fall
Winter
Spring
Extremely Low
Moderate
Low Average
Moderate Low
Moderate High
Extreme High
17
DIBELS
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
18
Kindergarten
DIBELS 2005-2006
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Fall
At Risk
Winte r
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
F al l
At Ri sk
W i nt er
S ome Ri sk
S p r i ng
Low Ri
19sk
Kindergarten
DIBELS 2005-2006
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Spring
Some Risk
Low Risk
Fall
Winter
Spring
At Risk Some Risk Low Risk
20
First Grade
DIBELS 2005-2006
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
Fall
Deficit
Winter
Emerging
Spring
Established
21
First Grade
DIBELS 2005-2006
Nonsense Word Fluency
Oral Reading Fluency
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
Fall
Deficit
Winter
Emerging
Spring
Established
22
Second Grade
DIBELS 2005-2006
Nonsense Word Fluency
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oral Reading Fluency
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
23
Third Grade
DIBELS 2005-2006
Oral Reading Fluency
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fall
At Risk
Winter
Some Risk
Spring
Low Risk
24
TerraNova
25
First Grade
TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AT:
BU:
EEM:
IRS:
MW:
OC:
WC:
WM:
OC
BU
AT
2005
WM
2006
Analyze Text
Basic
Understanding
Evaluate and
Extend Meaning
Identify Reading
Strategies
Multimeaning
Words
Oral
Comprehension
Words in Context
Word Meaning
WC
26
Second Grade
TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
100
AT:
BU:
80
EEM:
60
IRS:
MW:
40
OC:
20
WC:
WM:
Analyze Text
Basic
Understanding
Evaluate and
Extend Meaning
Identify Reading
Strategies
Multimeaning
Words
Oral
Comprehension
Words in Context
Word Meaning
0
BU
AT
EEM
IRS
WM
MW
WC
2005 2006
27
Third Grade
TerraNova Assessment 2005-2006
Percentage of Objectives Mastered
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AT:
BU:
EEM:
IRS:
MW:
OC:
WC:
WM:
BU
AT
EEM
2005
IRS
WM
2006
MW
Analyze Text
Basic
Understanding
Evaluate and
Extend Meaning
Identify Reading
Strategies
Multimeaning
Words
Oral
Comprehension
Words in Context
Word Meaning
WC
28
Houghton Mifflin Assessments
29
Houghton Mifflin Theme
Assessments
Kindergarten through Grade Five Average Scores
2005-2006
Grade
Level
K
Integrated
Theme Test
Theme
Skills Test
77
82
1
85
91
2
79
74
3
74
70
4
80
81
5
68
80
30
Connecticut Mastery Tests
31
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Reading
32
Connecticut Mastery Test
Total Reading
2005-2006
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B e lo w
B a s ic
B a s ic
Grade 3
P ro f ic ie nt
Grade 4
Go al
Grade 5
A dv a nc e d
33
Connecticut Mastery Test
Degrees of Reading Power
2005-2006
Grade
Level
Grade 3
Lawrence Middletown
Average
Average
Unit Score Unit Score
45.5
45.4
State
Goal
47
Grade 4
56.4
58.2
54
Grade 5
60.1
59.2
58
34
Connecticut Mastery Test
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Reading Comprehension
Content Strands
2005-2006
For mi ng a
Ge n e r a l
D e v e l opi ng
M a k i ng
I nt e r pr e t a t i on R e a de r / Te x t
U n d e r st a n d i n g
Grade 3
C onne c t i ons
Grade 4
Ex a m i n g t h e
C ont e nt a nd
S t r uc t ur e
Grade 5
35
Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and
2006 CMT Scores in Reading
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Blue Ribbon
2006 CMT
Forming a
General
Understanding
Developing an
Interpretation
Making
Reader/Text
Connections
Examine the
Content and
Structure
DRP
36
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Writing
37
Connecticut Mastery Test
Total Writing
2005-2006
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B e lo w
B a s ic
B a s ic
Grade 3
P ro f ic ie nt
Grade 4
Go al
Grade 5
A dv a nc e d
38
Connecticut Mastery Test
Direct Assessment of Writing
2005-2006
Grade
Level
Lawrence Middletown
State
Goal
Average
Holistic Score
Average
Holistic Score
Grade 3
7.9
7.6
8
Grade 4
8.6
8.8
8
Grade 5
8.1
7.6
8
39
Connecticut Mastery Test
Editing and Revising
2005-2006
Percent Mastered by Content Strand
Grade
Level
Lawrence Lawrence Middletown Middletown
Composing/ Editing Composing/
Editing
Revising
Revising
State
Goal
Grade
3
19%
73%
25%
69%
12/16
Grade
4
47%
63%
50%
67%
12/16
Grade
5
53%
51%
55%
55%
14/16
40
Grade 5 Comparison on Blue Ribbon and
2006 CMT Scores in Editing and Revising
100
90
80
70
60
Blue Ribbon
2006 CMT
50
40
30
20
10
0
Composing/Revising
Editing
41
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Math
42
Connecticut Mastery Test
Mathematics
2005-2006
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B e lo w
B a s ic
B a s ic
Grade 3
P ro f ic ie nt
Grade 4
Go al
Grade 5
A dv a nc e d
43
Challenges in Math
Grade 3
Strand 10
Numerical Estimation
Strategies
62%
Strand 15
Approximating
Measures
41%
Strand 25
Mathematical
Applications
27%
44
Challenges in Math
Grade 4
Strand 3
Strand 11
Equivalent Fractions,
Decimals and
Percents
Estimating Solutions
to Problems
33%
36%
Strand 16
Customary and Metric 31%
Measures
Strand 25
Mathematical
Applications
38%
45
Challenges in Math
Grade 5
Strand 3
Equivalent Fractions,
Decimals and Percents
55%
Strand 17
Geometric Shapes and
Properties
53%
Strand 24
Algebraic Concepts
40%
46
Grade 5 Comparison of Blue Ribbon and
2006 CMT Scores in Math
Numerical and
Proportional
reasoning
Geometry and
Measurment
90
80
70
60
50
Probability and
Statistics
40
30
Algebraic
Functions
20
10
0
Blue Ribbon
2006 CMTs
Integrated
Understanding
s
47
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Subgroups:
Reading
48
CMT Reading Performance for
ELL Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
0%
11%
0%
43.4%
4
0%
0%
0%
16.7%
5
0%
12.5%
0%
0%
49
CMT Reading Performance for
Special Education Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
0%
3.8%
0%
7.7%
4
10%
8.2%
0%
12.2%
5
0%
6.8%
0%
8.5%
50
CMT Reading Performance for
Hispanic Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
40%
17.4%
20%
21.7%
4
14%
17.4%
21.4%
39.1%
5
0%
11.8%
25%
27.5%
51
CMT Reading Performance for
Black Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
50%
18.3%
12.5%
29.2%
4
8.3%
17.5%
25%
23.8%
5
0%
18%
16.7%
15%
52
CMT Reading Performance for
White Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
10%
12%
60%
61.6%
4
16.1%
20.5%
64.5%
43.6%
5
3.8%
18.6%
73.1%
34.9%
53
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Subgroups:
Writing
54
CMT Writing Performance for
ELL Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
0%
20%
50%
40%
4
28.6%
41.7%
0%
16.7%
5
66.7%
22.2%
0%
55.6%
55
CMT Writing Performance for
Special Education Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
0%
16.1%
0%
12.9%
4
0%
8.7%
0%
17.4%
5
28.6%
14.6%
0%
14.6%
56
CMT Writing Performance for
Hispanic Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
20%
33.3%
60%
27.8%
4
21.4%
29.8%
14.3%
46.8%
5
75%
35.6%
0%
33.3%
57
CMT Writing Performance for
Black Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
42.9%
23.3%
57.1%
37.7%
4
16.7%
26.3%
33.3%
41.1%
5
16.7%
22%
50%
59.5%
58
CMT Writing Performance for
White Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
21.1%
16.3%
73.7%
59.2%
4
14.3%
12.4%
83.9%
75.6%
5
25%
18.3%
69.2%
69.5%
59
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Subgroups:
Math
60
CMT Math Performance for
ELL Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
50%
44%
0%
11%
4
14.3%
25%
0%
25%
5
33.3%
50%
33.3%
12.5%
61
CMT Math Performance for
Special Education Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
0%
11.5%
0%
19.2%
4
0%
32.7%
20%
12.2%
5
0%
24.1%
0%
8.6%
62
CMT Math Performance for
Hispanic Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
20%
22.7%
40%
49.6%
4
14.3%
17%
21.4%
46.8%
5
25%
30.8%
25%
28.8%
63
CMT Math Performance for
Black Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
50%
22.8%
12.5%
49.6%
4
8.3%
32.6%
28.4%
33.3%
5
16.7%
23.4%
33.3%
31%
64
CMT Math Performance for
White Students
2006
At/Above
Proficient
Goal
Middletown Lawrence
At/Above
Goal
Middletown
Grade
Level
Proficient
Lawrence
3
20%
23.1%
65%
62%
4
16.1%
24.2%
61.3%
61.1%
5
19.2%
21.8%
65.4%
59.3%
65
Connecticut Mastery Tests
Subgroups:
Students Receiving Free and Reduced
66
Grade 3 Students
Full Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Math:
Below Basic/Basic
At/ Above Goal
Below Basic/Basic
Lawrence
17.8%
53.6%
33.3%
33.3%
Middletown
16.6%
64.2%
42.8%
29.5%
28.6%
50%
44.4%
11.1%
Middletown
24.2%
61.6%
56.9%
26.3%
Lawrence
3.7%
77.8%
12.5%
50%
Middletown
9.2%
70.5%
32.7%
59.2%
Reading: Lawrence
Writing:
Free and Reduced
At/ Above Goal
67
Grade 4 Students
Full Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Math:
Below Basic/Basic
At/Above Goal
Below Basic/Basic
Lawrence
34.7%
49%
46.6%
40.0%
Middletown
16.6%
64.2%
42.8%
29.5%
30.6%
55.1%
60.3%
26.7%
Middletown
24.4%
61.6%
56.9%
26.3%
Lawrence
18.3%
63.3%
53.3%
40%
Middletown
9.2%
70.5%
32.7%
59.2%
Reading: Lawrence
Writing:
Free and Reduced
At/Above Goal
68
Grade 5 Students
Full Price Lunch vs. Free and Reduced
Full Price Lunch
Math:
Reading:
Writing:
Free and Reduced
Below Basic/Basic
At/ Above Goal
Below Basic/Basic
Lawrence
14.7%
64.7%
53.9%
30.8%
Middletown
18.8%
61.7%
40.9%
28.9%
Lawrence
29.4%
67.6%
76.9%
23.1%
Middletown
29.7%
60.5%
60.4%
20.8%
Lawrence
8.8%
73.5%
38.5%
23.1%
Middletown
11.2%
66.2%
24%
32.7%
At/ Above Goal
69
Successes
70
Successes
Implementing Houghton Mifflin
Lawrence
School
implemented
a
research based core program in
kindergarten through fifth grade to deliver
effective instruction in five key areas:
phonemic
awareness,
phonics,
vocabulary, comprehension and fluency.
71
Documented Success
Implementing Houghton Mifflin
• Created consistency among teachers and grade levels
• Increased TerraNova results from 2005 to 2006 in grades one though
three
• Increased DIBELS results from 2005 to 2006 in Kindergarten through
grade three
Grade
LNF
PSF
NWF
ORF
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
K
72
89
61
92
60
85
1
51
81
80
94
60
30
2
3
Spring
2005
Spring
2006
80
69
83
46
59
59
40
62
72
Expected Further Growth
Implementing Houghton Mifflin
• Scores will continue to increase
• Administer all required Houghton Mifflin
theme assessments
• Complete all themes
73
Successes
Interventions
• Use benchmark assessments to assess all Kindergarten through
grade three students
• Conduct Intervention Meetings
– ELF, ILF and classroom teacher meet every eight weeks
– Create measurable objectives for Tier Two and Three students
– Develop instructional strategies to achieve goals
– Administer progress monitoring assessments during eight week
cycle to guide and adjust instruction
– Meet again in eight weeks to analyze progress and revise goals
and instructional strategies
– Continue cycle throughout school year
• Reading First Literacy Tutor provides additional interventions
74
Documented Success
Interventions
Percentage of Students Meeting Intervention Goal
Kindergarten
75
Grade One
89
Grade Two
41
Grade Three
45
Total
63
75
Expected Further Growth
Interventions
• Extend Intervention Meetings to grades
four and five
• Include Special Education Teacher and
Speech and Language Pathologist in
Intervention Meetings
• Use analysis of DRA scores to include
comprehension goals
76
Successes
Writing Prompts
Lawrence School students in grades three
through five received writing instruction
through Houghton Mifflin and Empowering
Writers; through the use of these programs
students’ holistic score average range has
been 7.9 – 8.6.
77
Documented Success
Writing Prompts
Grade
Level
Average
Holistic
Score
State
Goal
Grade 3
7.9
8
Grade 4
8.6
8
Grade 5
8.1
8
78
Expected Further Growth
Writing Prompts
• Empowering Writers will be implemented
in grade two and will continue to be
incorporated in grades three through five
• Holistically scored prompts will be given
four times a year
• Incorporate a multi-sensory approach to
teaching writing
• Increase the amount of opportunities for
students to respond to text in writing
79
Successes
Phonemic Awareness
Students’ success with phonemic
awareness is directly related to their
ability to read and spell; teachers
have explicitly and systematically
taught phonemic awareness skills in
Kindergarten through first grade
resulting in growth in this area.
80
Successes
Phonemic Awareness
DIBELS
Grade
Level
20042005
20052006
Percent
Growth
Kindergarten
61
92
31
First Grade
80
94
14
Percent of Established Students on the DIBELS
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Assessment
81
Expected Further Growth
Phonemic Awareness
• Continue further growth so that all
Kindergarten students meet the
established benchmark by spring
• Progress Monitor all students not meeting
benchmark goals
82
Successes
Professional Development
Literacy Coaches and Language Arts
Consultant provided professional
development to improve student
achievement and create a
professional learning community.
83
Successes
Professional Development
District Professional Development
Days
• Systematic and Explicit Instruction
• Differentiating Instruction
• Phonics, Comprehension and
• Intervention
• Differentiating Phonics Instruction
Grade Level Meetings
• Data Analysis
• Consultancy Protocol
• Phonics Instruction
• Text Appropriation
• Bloom’s Taxonomy
• Differentiating Instruction
• CMT Preparation
• Fluency
• Phonemic Awareness
Book Clubs
• Work Stations/Centers
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension
• Phonics
• ELL
Coaching and Modeling Instruction
• Provided support for all
Professional Development goals
• Four-Step Process
Literacy Team Meetings
• Materials
• School-wide literacy initiatives
• Analysis of data
84
Expected Further Growth
Professional Development
• Continue to build a professional learning
environment through data teams, round
table discussions, book clubs, articles and
on going professional development
• Refine goals based on analysis of school
data
85
Challenges
86
Challenges
Goal One:
Improving Students’ Reading
Comprehension
Students in grades one through five will
improve reading comprehension scores,
specifically Making Reader/Text Connections
and Examining the Content Structure, by 1015% based on TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and
87
CMT (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.
Challenges
Special Education Goal:
Improving Reading Comprehension
After receiving specialized instruction, the
students will demonstrate their
comprehension of Strand 1 in order to
increase scores by 10%.
88
Instructional Strategies
Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intervention Meetings will include comprehension goals for Tier Two and
Three students not meeting benchmarks
Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’
independent use of comprehension strategies
Provide explicit instruction in Making Reader/Text Connections and
Examining the Content and Structure
Disseminate the alignment of Houghton Mifflin targeted skills with CMT
strands
Improve students’ written response to text through frequent use of teacher
modeling, rubrics and conferencing
Increase students’ opportunities for responding to text in writing
Increase amount of independent reading at students’ levels
Continue support for comprehension instruction through modeling and
coaching by literacy coaches and Language Arts Consultant
Utilize techniques from Strategies That Work by Stephanie Harvey and
Anne Goudvis and Mosaic of Thought by Ellin Oliver Keene and Susan
Zimmermann (previously read during Lawrence School book club)
Create and implement a scope and sequence for in-depth teaching of
comprehension strategies throughout the year in grade three; if results are
successful, this strategy will be extended throughout Kindergarten through 89
fifth grade
Additional Instructional Strategies
Improving Reading Comprehension for
Special Education Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consult between general education teachers, special education and pupil personnel staff to
support differentiated instruction and programming
Provide test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in
alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures
Continue test preparation in test taking strategies
Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing environments
and sessions
Increase student background knowledge to aid in comprehension of materials that are presented
(fiction and nonfiction)
Utilize levels of questioning to aid in the increase in students’ level of comprehension and
application
Conduct comprehension mini lessons that incorporate various reading strategies that are explicitly
taught using multiple intelligences
Build vocabulary of tier two words and multi-meaning words
Continue use of explicit small group instruction to improve students’ independent use of
comprehension strategies
Implement SLAM strategy when writing a response to text
Provide direct instruction in strategies including highlighting text, finding key information,
supporting ideas for using the text to support a response either written or oral
Instruct in the use of graphic organizers to aid in comprehension of materials
Provide direct instruction of comprehension strategies at students’ reading level
Continue direct and multi-sensory instruction in decoding of text
Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
90
Assessments
Improving Students’ Reading
Comprehension
•
•
•
•
DRA
Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
TerraNova
CMT
91
Challenges
Goal Two:
Improving Students’ Vocabulary
Knowledge
Kindergarten through Fifth grade students’
vocabulary scores will increase by 10-15% as
measured by Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
(Kindergarten), TerraNova (Grades 1-3) and
92
CMT’s (Grades 3-5) by May 2007.
Instructional Strategies
Improving Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge
• Implement explicit vocabulary instruction of two to three tier
two words per week based on text selection from Houghton
Mifflin
• Support additional vocabulary instruction in Kindergarten
through consultation with Speech and Language
Pathologist
• Create vocabulary word walls
• Engage in daily oral language exercises
• Increase the amount of independent reading at students’
reading levels
• Continue support for vocabulary instruction through
modeling and coaching by Literacy Coaches and Language
Arts Consultant
• Revisit Isabel Beck’s Bringing Words to Life to enhance
93
teaching strategies
Assessments
Improving Students’ Vocabulary
Knowledge
•
•
•
•
•
Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
TerraNova
Daily work samples
Informal classroom assessments
94
Challenges
Goal Three:
Improving Students’ Reading Fluency
Students in second and third grade will
improve fluency scores by 10-15% as
measured by DIBELS Oral Reading
Fluency by May 2007.
95
Instructional Strategies
Improving Students’ Reading Fluency
• Implement self-evaluation strategies through the use of a
newly created, building developed fluency rubric
• Implement fluency centers where students record and
evaluate their reading progress
• Administer progress monitoring assessments to Tier Two
and Three students
• Enhance models of fluent reading through use of read
alouds, partner reading, echo reading and choral reading
• Utilize Reader’s Theatre to reinforce reading fluency
• Continue use of explicit, small group instruction to
strengthen phonics skills
• Continue professional development on differentiating
phonics instruction
• Continue support for fluency and phonics instruction
through modeling and coaching by literacy coaches and96
Language Arts Consultant
Assessments
Improving Students’ Reading Fluency
• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress
Monitoring
• Quick Phonics Screener (Reading First
Initiative)
• Fluency Rubrics (Reading First Initiative)
97
Challenges
Goal Four:
Improving Students’ Editing and
Revising Skills
Students in grades three through five will
improve Composing and Revising and
Editing scores by 10-15% as measured by
CMT and district writing assessments by
May 2007.
98
Challenges
Special Education Goal:
Improving Editing and Revising Skills
After receiving specialized instruction, the
students will demonstrate their ability to
compose, revise and edit a written work
in order to increase CMT scores by 10%.
99
Instructional Strategies
Improving Students’ Editing and Revising Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide direct instruction in Editing and Revising skills based on test
objectives found in CMT Language Arts Handbook
Utilize mini-lessons found in CMT Language Arts Handbook
Embed CMT language into lessons
Implement district designed sentence combining lessons
Use student work on overheads to revise as a whole group; create center
lessons that reinforce skills
Provide direct instruction of Daily Oral Language program and Empowering
Writers in grades two through five
Continue use of Houghton Mifflin editing and revising lessons
Utilize examples of student prompts, teacher models, self reflection
techniques and writing conferences
Provide writing experiences that are contextualized writing tasks
Use multiple intelligences to support instruction of all learners
Model revision and editing techniques using student work samples
Provide additional opportunities for reinforcement through center activities
and overheads
100
Additional Instructional Strategies
Improving Writing Instruction for
Special Education Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Daily practice in editing and revising of written work, utilizing skills
emphasized in lessons.
Explicit instruction in grammatical structure.
Explicit instruction in orthographic rules and the identification of spelling
errors.
Review of specific vocabulary that will be utilized on the CMT.
Explicit instruction in sequencing of written work.
Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous
basis in alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing
procedures.
Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.
Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within
testing environments and sessions.
Consultation between general education teachers and special education
and pupil personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and
programming.
Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
101
Assessments
Improving Students’ Editing and
Revising Skills
•
•
•
•
Monthly writing prompts
Reading journals
Writing journals
Houghton Mifflin theme assessments
102
Challenges
Goal Five:
Improving Students’
Mathematical Skills
Students in grades three through five will
improve math scores (grade three: Strands
10,15,25; grade four: Strands 3, 11, 16, 25;
grade five: 3, 17, 24) as measured by CMT
by May 2007.
103
Challenges
Special Education Goal:
Improving Estimation
After receiving specialized instruction, the
students will demonstrate their ability to
apply numerical estimation strategies to
solve a problem in order to increase
scores by 10%.
104
CMT Strands to Target
Grade Three
Strand 10
Numerical Estimation Strategies
62%
Strand 15
Approximating Measures
41%
Strand 25
Mathematical Applications
27%
Grade Four
Strand 3
Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents
33%
Strand 11
Estimating Solutions to Problems
36%
Strand 16
Customary and Metric Measures
31%
Strand 25
Mathematical Applications
38%
Grade Five
Strand 3
Equivalent Fractions, Decimals, and Percents
55%
Strand 17
Geometric Shapes and Properties
53%
105
Strand 24
Algebraic Concepts
40%
Instructional Strategies
Improving Students’ Math Instruction
•
•
•
•
•
Differentiate instruction based on assessment data
Provide direct instruction in multi-step problems
Develop a common math vocabulary across grade levels
Incorporate use of manipulatives
Implement math journals to increase opportunities for
students to justify and explain answers
• Provide direct instruction on justifying and explaining
answers
• Provide direct instruction in deleting extraneous
information from problems
• Administer and analyze all McGraw Hill assessments
106
Additional Instructional Strategies
Improving Math Instruction for
Special Education Students
•
•
•
•
Hands on real world application relating to estimation.
Explicit instruction in the vocabulary used on the CMT that relates to estimation.
Daily practice in estimating.
Explicit instruction on the:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Justification of an estimation.
Use a number line to estimate
Rounding of numbers to aid in estimation.
Strategies needed to solve estimation problems
Consultation between general education teachers and special education and pupil
personnel staff to support differentiated instruction and programming.
Test preparation with materials that are similar in format on a continuous basis in
alternative locations to aid in transition and familiarity of testing procedures.
Prepare students for the reduction and elimination of teacher support within testing
environments and sessions.
Test preparation in test taking strategies and problem solving.
Continue to develop multi-tier lessons
107
Assessments
Improving Students’ Math Instruction
•
•
•
•
•
•
McGraw Hill math assessments
Math journal
District assessments
District CMT binder assessments
Daily work samples
Teacher observations
108
Challenges
Goal Six
Address Needs of:
English Language Learners
Increase the scores of students who receive ESL services
by 5-10% as measured by English Language Proficiency
Assessment, DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district
assessments by May 2007
109
Instructional Strategies
Address Needs of:
English Language Learners
• Provide explicit instruction in language acquisition skills
• Provide hands-on real world application to enhance
instruction
• Utilize technology to foster language growth and
development through the Rosetta Stone program
• Continue to implement non-verbal communication skills
• Consult with classroom teacher to support ELL students’
• Provide opportunities to practice pragmatic language
and cultural relevant experiences
• Continue to foster parent involvement
110
• Utilize Multiple Intelligences to reach ELL students
Assessments
Address Needs of:
English Language Learners
• English Language Proficiency Assessment
• DIBELS, TerraNova, DRA, CMT, Blue
Ribbon
• District assessments
• Portfolio review
• Anecdotal notes
111
Challenges
Goal Seven
Address Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic Status
Minority Populations
• Increase the scores of students who receive free and
reduced lunch by 10-15% as measured by DIBELS, CMT,
TerraNova and district assessments by May 2007
• Increase scores of minority students by 10-15% as
measured by DIBELS, CMT, TerraNova and district
assessments by May 2007
112
Instructional Strategies
Address Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic Status
Minority Populations
• Offer multiple parent workshops which include free babysitting to
encourage all parents to attend
• Pilot Parent Involvement Initiative based on Wesley School’s model
• Provide parents with multiple opportunities for reading at home with
their children: nightly on-level reading, books on tape with cassette
players, home-school connection literacy activities
• Implement PTA parent email list; identify parents who do and do not
have email access
• Promote web-based parent support page
• Provide bussing for evening school activities
113
Assessments
Address Needs of:
Students of Low Socioeconomic Status
Minority Populations
• Parent attendance and involvement in
activities
• Parent feedback evaluations
• Student assessments: DIBELS, CMT,
TerraNova, DRA, running records,
journals, daily work samples
114
“Children are likely to live up to
what you believe of them.”
---Lady Bird Johnson
“It is the supreme art of the teacher
to awaken joy in creative expression
and knowledge.”
---Albert Einstein
115
The end of the L.I.N.E.
116
Descargar

Slide 1