Springfield Public Schools Springfield, USA Evaluation Report First Street Elementary School2009-2010 School Improvement Plan - Goal 3 May 4, 2010 Report prepared by Susan Ferdon Faculty Member, First Street Elementary SchoolGraduate Student, Master of Educational Technology Program Boise State University Report Submitted to First Street School Improvement Planning Team
AcknowledgementsEvaluation is a task best completed with program developers, program staff, and theevaluator working in harmony. My experiences as I worked with First Street’s SIP Teamcould not have been more positive. Their input, assistance and support have beeninvaluable. I would like to thank Janet Lange (principal) for permitting me to apply myburgeoning evaluative skills to a program at First Street. I am grateful to be able to usewhat I am learning in my graduate coursework on program evaluation in a manner thatcan potentially benefit our school. I would also like to thank the SIP Team for their time,effort, and contributions to this process. Additional meetings, communication andplanning with their grade level teams, assistance in gathering work samples, andfollowing-up with teammates as questions arose, are just a few of the things they havedone that have aided in the planning and evaluation processes. Thanks also go to theoffice staff for assistance ordering and labeling work samples and copying documentsand reports to be distributed to SIP Team members and building staff. Finally, specialthanks go to my personal assistant, Kate. Her help with numerous tasks have allowedme to make efficient use of my time as I worked on this project. I
IntroductionThe program being evaluated is First Street’s School Improvement Plan, Goal 3, for2009-2010 (Appendix A). Required by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) forschools in academic status, the submission of a School Improvement Plan is optionalbut recommended, for schools that are not (http://www.isbe.net/sos/htmls/school.htm).In Springfield schools, School Improvement Plans provide structure for continuousimprovement of instruction. SIP Goal 3 is an outgrowth of a 2008-2009 goal whichfocused on improving teacher feedback and students’ ability to correctly interpretteacher feedback. It was found that “while 88.6% of First Street students, includingkindergarten students, met the goal of correctly interpreting their teachers’ feedback ona specific writing assignment, more instruction and practice is needed in order forstudents to understand the link between feedback and subsequent learning andimprovement” (SIP Goal 3, p. 3).For 2009-2010, the goal was expanded to include student-generated learning goals andsubsequent reflection on those goals. The objective for SIP Goal 3 is that “all studentswill learn how to reflect after receiving specific and timely feedback from their teachers;and all students will learn how to use these personal reflections to generate their ownspecific learning goal(s) for their next assignment. When subsequent assignments areassessed, it will be noted that students tied their improvement to their goal based onprior feedback” (SIP Plan, p. 3).The SIP Team identified Reader Response (RR) writing assignments, administeredthree times during the year, as the data collection tool. Following each of the first twoiterations of the cycle, data were analyzed and recommendations made to the SIPTeam regarding improvements to this process. Though the primary focus of thisevaluation was ultimately narrowed to student goal attainment, a wider view of Goal 3components is also presented.Evaluation Timeline: March 8th Evaluator meets with First Street principal to discuss the three SIP goals and select one to focus on for this evaluation. March 11th SIP sub-committee meets for preliminary planning. March 15th Analysis of February work samples begins. April 7th Presentation of initial findings/recommendations to SIP Team. April SIP Team brings recommendations to grade level teams, new work samples are submitted, and data are analyzed. April 27th Presentation of findings and final recommendations to SIP sub-committee. May 4th Presentation of checklists and updated guidelines to faculty. 1
This evaluation and related reports serve several purposes: 1) To determine howcomprehensively SIP Goal 3 has been addressed thus far, 2) To documentrecommendations made regarding administration of Goal 3 assessments, 3) To shareFebruary and March Reader Response information and data, and 4) To provide detailedprogram information which may be used by First Street’s incoming principal for fall 2010reporting and goal-setting.Program DescriptionThe SIP Team selected Reader Response writing assignments, with work samplessubmitted in February, March, and May, as a means of collecting data. The Teamdeveloped a framework for the process that would be followed and establishedguidelines for the generation of related documents. Grade level teams used thatinformation to create grade-specific forms used by teachers and students in grades K -5 for the Feedback/Goal/Reflection cycle (Appendix E).For each set of writing assignments, students read a story or article and wrote aresponse to a prompt. Teachers provided feedback and used district-approved rubricsto score responses. Student then reflected on feedback and identified a goal. Next,students read a second story or article and, with their goal in mind, wrote a response toanother prompt. The teacher graded the second response and students reflected on theachievement of their goal. While the process followed was the same for all grade levels,procedures varied from one grade level to another due to the developmental nature ofreading and writing skills and the age-range (K-5) of the students who participated inthis program. Whereas kindergarten teachers provided verbal feedback and acted asscribes for goal setting, students were expected to be increasingly independent insuccessive grade levels and over time.At the point that the evaluator entered the process, February work samples had beencollected. In initial meetings with the principal and SIP Team, three evaluation questionswere identified: 1. What modifications can be made to clarify and standardize procedures and processes teachers and students will follow when completing the next two Reader Response writing assignments? 2. What data can be extracted from Reader Response work samples/feedback in order to report on this goal? 3. What additional information/data is needed and how can we collect it? 2
Evaluation MethodsParticipantsIt was initially expected that all students and classroom teachers would participate: 73 -kindergarteners, 81 - 1st graders, 82 - 2nd graders, 104 - 3rd graders, 81 - 4th graders, 98- 5th graders, and 23 teachers. It was found that student participation was notcompatible with the Read 180 program, a replacement program that coincides withclassroom Language Arts instruction. 2009 Data SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE LEP (Limited English 1.50% 0.70% 8% Proficient) Low Income 0.80% 0.30% 42.90% Parental 100% 100% 96.70% Involvement Attendance 96% 95.90% 93.70% Mobility 3.70% 1.90% 13.50%Table 1: First Street Educational Environment Figure 1: First Street DemographicsSource: Interactive Illinois Report Card Source: Illinois Interactive Report Card - ProfileProceduresPhase I • A discrepancy model was used to identify potential gaps between stated objectives and current practice. SIP Goal 3 (Appendix A) and the fall 2009 Board of Education Presentation (Appendix B) were used to establish objectives and evidence was collected through observation and informal interviews. • February work samples had already been submitted: initial writing assignment, teacher feedback, rubric scores, and information related to goal attainment. o Teacher feedback was examined and trends were noted. o Student goals were examined for quantity, measurability, and to determine what feedback was used in the goal selection process. o Student achievement was examined with individual student scores entered into spreadsheets and mean, median, mode and standard deviation calculated for each classroom of students. o Goal attainment was examined via student and teacher reporting and that information was compared against rubric scores when possible. • Preliminary findings were reported to the SIP Team on April 7th, along with recommendations for the next Feedback/Goal/Reflection cycle (Appendix C). 3
Phase II • Based upon April 7th recommendations, some changes were made in the Feedback/Goal/Reflection process, resulting in greater standardization of processes and practices within each grade level. • Work samples from the second iteration of the Feedback/Goal/Reflection cycle were examined. o Student goals were examined, as above, but only for measurability. Problematic goals were noted. o Student achievement and goal attainment data collected and entered into spreadsheets. • Findings were reported to the SIP subcommittee (Appendix D) with further recommendations for the final Feedback/Goal/Reflection cycle.Data SourcesCopies of documents* may be found in the Appendices. SIP Goal 3* Document submitted to ISBE includes objectives, strategies, activities and monitoring process identified to meet the stated goal. BOE Presentation* PowerPoint presentation to the School Board includes intended processes and tasks related to SIP Goal 3. Reader Responses Student work samples; typically the writing prompt is included. Teacher feedback is frequently written directly on student work. Rubrics* Grade-specific, district-approved. Teacher feedback is frequently written in white space on this form. Feedback/Goal- Grade-specific forms used for students to re-state teacher feedback and Setting Forms* identify a goal. Some forms include subsequent reflection and space to indicate whether or not goal was met.ResultsObjectives and ActivitiesA discrepancy model was used to note differences between objectives stated in SIPGoal 3, the School Board presentation, and related activities that took place. Additionaldetails were presented to the SIP Team on April 7th (Appendix C). The focus of thisevaluation is on part A, Student Strategies and Activities. Parts C, D and E, ProfessionalDevelopment, Parent Involvement, and Monitoring, are not addressed. 4
Objective: All students will learn how to reflect after receiving specific and timely feedback from their teachers; and all students will learn how to use these personal reflections to generate their own specific learning goal(s) for their next assignment. When subsequent assignments are assessed, it will be noted that students tied their improvement to their goal based on prior feedback. Strategies and Activities: SIP Goal 3 1. All students will take time to reflect on their teachers’ feedback and will briefly summarize the main idea of the feedback. ✔ 2. Using this reflection statement, students will generate learning goals … ✔ 3. Students will generate specific action plans for goal accomplishment … NA 4. Students will generate a plan for self-assessment. NA 5. Students will confer with teachers, demonstrating their understanding of the feedback and need for improvement. ✔ 6. Students will use a reflection and goal setting planner. ✔ Students will: BOE Presentation • continue to work on using feedback effectively by using their reflection planners with greater frequency for subsequent assignments. ND • practice using feedback on writing assignments across the curriculum. ND To accomplish this: • teachers will continue to increase and strengthen the specificity of feedback they give to students. NA • students will need to refer to prior feedback before beginning work on subsequent assignments. ✔ • students and teachers will need to assess whether the need, the feedback, the goal and subsequent improvement are aligned. ✔ Table 2: Discrepancies KEY: ✔ = Evidence supports that this objective/strategy/activity was adequately addressed. NA = Evidence supports that this objective/strategy/activity was not addressed. ND = No data was collected.Within stated program objectives, four components emerged as topics of interest:teacher feedback, student goals, student achievement, and goal attainment. For the firstreport to the SIP Team, information had been gathered for each of these four topics.Following the second report, the focus was on goal attainment. 5
Teacher FeedbackContent of written feedback for the first RR in February was examined. Trends werenoted in relation to patterns, detail, and quantity. It was determined that future focuswould not include feedback, so March information was not collected. Teacher Overview of Feedback Provided to Students in February Same feedback across the board. 1st: "Use more of the question in your answer," and/or 1 "Why did Celina feel ___." 2nd: "Remember to use an example to support your answer." Feedback frequently re-states the rubric and includes a question related to prompt - “How 2 do you know …?” 1st feedback: "You did a good/great job … Next time …" 2nd feedback: "Next time …" 3 Each time comment duplicated rubric info. Positive statement then "remember to …" 2nd time: Positive statement/goal achieved 4 followed by "keep trying to…" or "lets keep working on..." 5 When feedback on rubric page is the same, comments on student work differs. Teacher feedback on student pages differs from rubric - adds text as examples plus editing 6 marks. 7 Feedback frequently limited; typically spelling and punctuation. 8 Starts with positives and goes into detail regarding areas of improvement. 9 Feedback limited and brief, underlined words on the rubric. Spelling, grammar and word choice feedback on student page. Comments (organization, 10 content) on rubric page. Something positive included on each. st Aside from two “answer the question” comments, there is no teacher feedback on 1 11 response. Rubric score for all; different rubrics were used each time. Feedback is evenly split between spelling/punctuation and content. Comments are most 12 often directives or questions. No feedback on student work or score sheet. Rubric score for all, occasional editing marks 13 (paragraph, capital) for some. Detailed written feedback does not duplicate rubric. Mix of positive comments and 14 suggestions for improvement. 15 Feedback typically one sentence plus rubric score, with nothing written on student page. 16 (no work samples submitted in February) 17 Feedback is most often a one-sentence directive and editing marks. 18 Detailed written feedback on student work plus editing marks. 19 Detailed written feedback on student work plus editing marks. st 20 Written feedback on 1 , responses not graded (no rubric). Most have a sentence or two of written feedback on student page. Some are rubric number 21 score only. Table 3: Summary of teacher feedback 6
Student GoalsFeedback/Goal-Setting forms were the source of student goal data. The number ofgoals each student generated (how many students wrote one goal, how many wrotetwo, etc.) was counted as were the number of troublesome goals generated (non-goals,not measurable). Goals deemed “inappropriate” by schools standards also were notedand examples are included below. The recommendation was made to limit students toone goal for May because most students with multiple goals met some goals but notothers, resulting in “not met” categorization.Number of Goals: One Two Three Goal Goals Goals K 49.2% 38.5% 12.3% 1 97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 2 68.4% 30.3% 1.3% 3 64.3% 28.6% 7.1% 4 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 5 56.3% 36.6% 7.0% Table 4: Number of Goals by Grade Figure 2: Number of Goals, K-5Source of Goals:Teacher feedback and student goals were compared to ascertain sources used togenerate goals. Most often, goals were based on comments. For students in 1st and 2ndgrade, goals were typically copied word-for-word from whatever the teacher wrote onthe page. While this was most common in the primary grades, it was common practiceat all grade levels. “Neither” was listed when it was not apparent where the goal camefrom. Kindergarten feedback was verbal so it is not included. Comment Rubric Both Neither 1 94.8% 1.3% 0.0% 3.9% 2 73.7% 9.2% 14.5% 2.6% 3 34.9% 38.4% 7.0% 19.8% 4 42.6% 8.5% 31.9% 17.0% 5 58.0% 10.1% 18.8% 13.0%Table 5: Source of Goals by Grade Figure 3: Source of Goals, K-5 7
Troublesome Goals:In February work samples, 10% of student goals (34 of 346) were found to betroublesome. In the initial report, that information was shared and SIP Team membersreported back to grade level teams. In March work samples, that number was reducedto 4% (17 of 441). e Quantity Comments K 0 1 1 Most of these “goals” are actually strategies; some cannot be measured (“I will re- 2 13 read my sentences”). Many of these “goals” are also strategies. Some are what is considered an 3 24 inappropriate goal at First Street (e.g., “get at least 8 points” “Use the writing I’m supposed to use”). 4 8 Seven are strategies and one (“make my Reading Response better”) is not. Three are strategies and two (“do what I did on this assignment and keep it up” and 5 5 “do everything my teacher told me to do”) are not. Table 6: Troublesome Student-Generated GoalsStudent AchievementRubric scores were used to track individual student achievement with mean, median,mode and standard deviation calculated for each classroom. Grading practices mayvary between teachers and comparison between groups of students was not desired, soteachers receive student-specific information (Appendix F) and achievement data isreported more generally to others.In most classrooms, the first February Reader Response (RR) had the lowest mean andgreatest standard deviation. From the first RR to the second RR, 14 of 17 classroomsshowed an increase in mean score – higher achievement. 12 of 17 showed a decreasein standard deviation – scores are more “clumped” toward the middle. From the secondRR in February to the first RR in March, nine of 17 classrooms showed a slightregression in mean score (lower achievement) and 11 of 17 classrooms showed anincrease in standard deviation (more highs and lows). In 17 of 21 classrooms, thehighest mean score was on the second RR in March. On the whole, studentachievement improved over time with fewer outliers and greater consistency amongstudent scores. 8
!Goal AttainmentGoal attainment was examined via student and teacher reporting and information wascompared against rubric scores when possible. FEBRUARY MARCH Goal Not Goal Not Met Met Met Met K 57.7% 42.3% 1 54.9% 45.1% 65.3% 34.7% 2 61.1% 38.9% 69.6% 30.4% 3 84.3% 15.7% 89.3% 10.7% 4 70.0% 30.0% 81.4% 18.6% 5 82.9% 17.1% 85.3% 14.7%Table 7: Goal Attainment by Grade Figure 4: Goal Attainment, K-5DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to provide the First Street SIP Team withrecommendations regarding the refinement of student activities and data collection forSIP Goal 3. Examining processes and content allowed for mid-course corrections that,in turn, provided the SIP Team with increasingly consistent and usable data. Analysis ofFebruary work samples showed that there were some disparities within and betweengrade levels in terms of procedures that were being followed and data that werecollected. Some differences between grade levels were suitable and expected, likeadditional conferencing and teacher involvement needed in kindergarten, but otherswere not: • In K – 2nd grade, there was one week, at most, between the two RRs. In 3rd and 4th grades that span could be as much as several months. Too many other variables would affect the comparison of rubric scores from the first RR to the second, so a guideline was put into place limiting the interval between RR1 and RR2. • In 4th grade, there was no place on the form to indicate if the teacher thought the goal was met and that form was also used by some 5th grade teachers. • 5th grade required more of an overhaul – some work was scored with a rubric and some was not. Some teachers used the 3rd grade form and others used the 4th grade form and different information was collected on each. Sometimes comments were very brief and there wasn’t anything we could measure. For one classroom, RR2 was a revision of RR1 – students used teacher feedback to edit the same piece of writing – and everyone else had two separate writing pieces. A large packet was submitted, of which just a few pages related to the RRs.! 9!
!Routines needed to more firmly established to allow for greater consistency within eachgrade level and make sure that each was aligned with what others were doing, asappropriate.Recommendations related to standardization, made following the February RRs, wereput into place for March RRs. For the March work samples, all teachers scored studentwork with a rubric and the same forms were now being used across each grade level.Two concerns remained however, and they related to goal attainment and feedback.The primary piece of data that the SIP Team will report to the School Board is goalattainment but only the forms used by 3rd and 5th grades had a place for students andteachers to indicate if the goal was met. The form used by 4th grade had a place forstudents to indicate if the goal was met, but there was no way to determine if theteacher was in agreement. Forms used by kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades did notinclude a place to report goal attainment. The other concern was the amount of writtenfeedback. Goal 3 states that students will use teacher feedback to generate a goal andsome teachers did not provide feedback – just a rubric score or perhaps words circledon the rubric. A checklist (Appendix E) for the May collection was created, then sharedwith the staff and discussed at the May 4th faculty meeting, as a means of addressingthese inconsistencies as well as some smaller details.Following the April 7th report, the SIP Team decided to focus primarily on student goalattainment and continuing to refine the RR process. Discussion of other information thathad been collected is included below. Presenting a discussion of these more generalthemes is provided here as a means of assisting the SIP Team and First Street’s newprincipal in the identification of future goals.Objectives and ActivitiesSIP Goal 3 states that students will generate specific action plans for goal attainment aswell as a plan for self-assessment but both were absent from this process. Teachersmay well have done those things, but it was not an intentional part of program planning.Being more deliberate about including that step may prove beneficial should thisfeedback goal be extended.Teacher FeedbackAs was noted in the results section, teacher feedback was sometimes a restatement ofwhat was on the rubric. While this is not always desired, there are times when it is.Younger and less experienced writers may benefit from this additional emphasis.Seeing and hearing information multiple times, and in different ways, will help drivethose points home. Further, if the teacher comments on the sole item that studentsdidn’t get points for, and many students need work on that same area, one wouldexpect duplications.Wording in SIP Goal 3 and the Board presentation said that teachers would continue toincrease and strengthen the specificity of feedback, but content of teacher feedback! 10!
!was not addressed in program activities. The book that First Street faculty read anddiscussed in 2008-2009, How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students, written bySusan M. Brookhart and published by the Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, lists specific criteria for rating feedback on elementary writingassignments (pages 79-82). This would be a fine resource to utilize again, should theSIP Team choose to address strength and specificity of teacher feedback.Student GoalsTypically, students created appropriate goals that were based on teacher feedback andrevisions. However, most often those goals were a word-for-word restatement ofteacher feedback. For our younger students this is quite appropriate, but for olderstudents it may not be. If content of student goals were to be addressed in future SIPgoals, looking more closely at student ability to summarize or restate feedback may beappropriate for older students.Inter-rater ReliabilityAs in any educational research, one must expect less-than-ideal research situations.Differences in teacher expectations and grading practices mean that rubric scoresshould be taken with a grain of salt. In some cases differences were more extreme thanone might expect. Student scores were sometimes quite different even though thecontent of their responses was quite similar. For example, students in some classes gotcredit for citing sources when a text-specific example was mentioned, but others gotcredit only if a direct quote is used. Should the SIP Team choose to focus on inter-raterreliability in the future, the following topics may be a good place to start: • Spelling: How many mistakes can students make and still get the points? There was quite a difference of teacher opinion beginning in second grade. Where some teachers awarded points only for error-free work, others give full credit when there are several errors. Some teachers award partial credit and for others, it is all or nothing. • Citations: How much text can students “borrow” before you call it plagiarism or caution them about copying too much? There was a great deal of difference in terms of what was expected and what was allowed. A useful tool for the comparison of text is Quick Diff (http://www.quickdiff.com/index.php). Analysis of one work sample, which received full credit and positive feedback regarding details, showed that seven of the student’s ten sentences were identical to story text. • Concluding Sentence: What constitutes an acceptable concluding sentence? Where some teachers gave credit only for a re-statement of the topic sentence, others accepted any sentence that did not introduce new details. • Goal Attainment: Questions arose as to the criteria that must be met for a teacher to assign the “goal met” distinction. For some teachers, progress toward the goal or partially met goals (student had two goals and met one of them) were enough and for others it was not.! 11!
!Additional Observations • Student Participation: There were several factors that influenced the number of students who submitted work samples. Some teachers had absent students make up the assignment and others did not. Further, the March submission was the week before Spring Break and there was higher-than-normal absenteeism. The percentage of students who submitted work samples averaged 96% for kindergarten, 96% for 1st grade, 91% for 2nd grade, 84% for 3rd grade, 90% for 4th grade, and 78% for 5th grade. Also, with Read 180 students (students below grade level in 3rd – 5th grades) and some younger special education students not participating, we must view results with the understanding that not all achievement levels are equally represented in the data. • Timing: With March submission due the last day before Spring Break, most classes had two or three fewer students complete the task. Now that the process has been refined, data collection could be more spread out. With many other district assessments in May, it would be easier on classroom teachers if the third/final submission fell earlier in the year. • Documents: SIP Team members had the forms for their grade level on their own computer and were responsible for disseminating documents to grade level peers. The original documents have been revised and it is suggested that they be accessible to all through the district’s new Collaborative Portal. • Inter-rater reliability is a universal concern and would be a formidable goal in and of its self.Though it may seem like there were more problems than solutions, the ability to focuson finer points is a tribute to tremendous amount that has already been accomplished.When the initial Reader Responses were completed in February grade-specificprocedures were still in the development stages. While some of the procedural changeswere somewhat extensive, they made it possible to collect useful and usableinformation for a goal that had been somewhat nebulous in the early planning stages.Data from the May Reading Response are looked forward to in anticipation!! 12!
Appendices • Appendix A: School Improvement Plan, Goal 3 (4 pages) • Appendix B: Board of Education Report (2 pages) • Appendix C: April 7th Report to SIP Team (7 pages) • Appendix D: April 27th Report to SIP Team (4 pages) • Appendix E: Checklists and Revised Forms (8 pages) • Appendix F: Sample Teacher Report (2 pages) • Appendix G: Invoice
Appendix A: Kipling 2009 - 2010 School Improvement Plan, Goal 3 School Improvement Plan 2009-2010 Goal Three/KiplingDISTRICT AND SCHOOL INFORMATION ! ! RCDT Code Number ________________________ School Name: KIPLING ELEMENTARY District Name: Deerfield Public Schools District 109 Principal: Judith A. Lindgren District Address:700 Kipling Place School Address: 700 Kipling Place City/State/Zip: Deerfield, IL 60015 City/State/Zip: Deerfield, IL 60015 Contact Person: Telephone: 847 948-5151 Ext. 1102 Email: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org ORIGINAL SUBMISSION__X___ AMENDED SUBMISSION _____ Is this for a Title I school? Yes______ No __X___ May ISBE use this SIP as a model? Yes__X___ No _____I. BOARD APPROVAL AND ASSURANCES A. DATE APPROVED by Local Board ____________ (month/day/year) B. ASSURANCES 1. Strategies and activities have been founded in scientifically based research as required by, Section 1116(b)(3)(A)(i) and as defined in NCLB, Section 9101(37). 2. Technical assistance provided by the district serving the school is founded on scientifically based research (NCLB, Section 1116(b)(4)(C)) as defined in NCLB, Section 9101(37). 3. The plan includes strategies and activities that support the implementation of the Illinois Learning Standards and reflect the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the Illinois Learning Standards. 4. The school will spend at least 10 percent of the funds made available under Section 1113 of NCLB, for the purpose of providing teachers and the principal high-quality professional development. (Title I schools only.) ____________________________________________Signature of LEA SuperintendentOctober 2009
2I. PLAN DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW, AND IMPLEMENTATION A. School Support Team ! Kindergarten—Danna Friedlander First—Michelle Comitor Second—Meghan Trauten Third—Benjamin Lombardi Fourth—Jeanne Sayner Fifth—Moe Kaulentis PST—Jen Grady Literacy—Taryn Hartman Math—Nicole Tye TAP—Lynn Surico Parent Reps—Elaine Jacoby Administration—Judi Lindgren and Nancy Burnett B. Description of Parent Notification (Title I schools only) C. Description of Stakeholder Involvement D. Description of the Peer Review Process E. Description of the Teacher Mentoring Process F. Description of the District’s Responsibilities G. Description of the State’s ResponsibilitiesIII. DATA AND ANALYSIS A. Data Collection and Information 1. School Assessment and AYP Data 2. Other Data (optional) (e.g., information and data about the attributes and challenges of the school and community that have affected student learning; local assessment data; educator qualifications and professional growth and development data; and parent involvement data)October 2009
3 B. Data Analysis While 88.6% of Kipling students, including kindergarten students, met the goal of correctly interpreting their teachers’ feedback on a specific writing assignment, more instruction and practice is needed in order for students to understand the link between feedback and subsequent learning and improvement.IV. ACTION PLAN OBJECTIVES FOR CONTINUOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS (COPY AS NEEDED) A. OBJECTIVEAll students will learn how to reflect after receiving specific and timely feedback from their teachers; and all students will learn how touse these personal reflections to generate their own specific learning goal(s) for their next assignment. When subsequent assignments areassessed, it will be noted that students tied their improvement to their goal based on prior feedback. B. Student Strategies and Activities for this Objective TIMELINE BUDGETAll students will take time to reflect on their teachers’ feedback and will briefly summarize the main idea of 2009-2010the feedback. Using this reflection statement, students will generate learning goals, specific action plans forgoal accomplishment and a plan for self assessment. Students will confer with teachers, demonstrating theirunderstanding of the feedback and need for improvement. Students will use a reflection and goal settingplanner. C. Professional Development Strategies and Activities for this ObjectiveTime will be provided during faculty meetings for learning about the relationship of teacher feedback, timefor student reflection and how this relates to students being self-directed in their learning. Time will be givento grade level teams to plan strategies for reflection and student goal setting. At follow-up faculty sessions,teachers will review the practices that were deemed effective and discuss strategies for improving studentcommitment to their goal progress. D. Parent Involvement Strategies and Activities for this ObjectiveParents will be informed about their child’s progress at each report card period, at the parent teacherconference, and at other times of the year whenever there is a need. Specific information will be given abouttheir child’s goal attainment. Parents may be asked to follow up with home support. E. 1. Process for Monitoring the Effectiveness of the Strategies and Activities for this ObjectiveOctober 2009
4Teachers will meet with each student to review their goal progress. 2.Person(s) Overseeing the Strategies and Activities for this ObjectiveThe principal, each homeroom and specials teacher and various members of the staff will be involved as appropriate for strategizing. V. SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING PLAN A school which has failed to make AYP for a fifth annual calculation is required to develop a restructuring plan that must be implemented during the next year if the school fails to make AYP for the sixth annual calculation. Description of the School’s Plan for Restructuring – Does not apply.October 2009
!"#"$%& A Review of 2008-2009 andAn Introduction to 2009-2010 Percent of Students Who Met SIP Goal #3 Met Goal Did Not Meet Goal $&
!"#"$%&!! …continue to work on using feedback effectively by using their reflection planners with greater frequency for subsequent assignments.!! …practice using feedback on writing assignments across the curriculum.!! …teachers will continue to increase and strengthen the specificity of feedback they give to students.!! …students will need to refer to prior feedback before beginning work on subsequent assignments.!! …students and teachers will need to assess whether the need, the feedback, the goal and subsequent improvement are aligned. &
!"#$%&()!"#$*+,)-(. • !"#$%"& o (%#)*#&)+,-.,""/0#$1/2/3)4/"5)43")+$&"#)"#6+#78 o (%#)9#3)%"$+5)"5)+,-.,""/0#$18:;*"772568<45$)4#)2+58(%#)9#3 6++/8(%#)3%+47/0"2-*&+="/8>+9+,)"5/2/?9&2)")%"3#-")%2568@ o A2/,""/0#$1/2,,"&:B4#5)2).C3*"$2,2$2).CDEF@0")9""53)4/"5)392)% 7+9"&E%26%"&3$+&"38 o A2/,""/0#$1,+&)%239&2)256#33265-"5)/2,,"&,&+-9%#)23).*2$#7,+&-"8?, 3+C%+98:-+&"/")#27325$"3)4/"5)39+47/43"2),+&6+#7F3"))256C7"33/")#27 /4")+)2-"$+53))3@ • ;)4/"5)G+#7 o (%#)*#&)+,)"#$%"&,""/0#$1/2/3)4/"5)43")+$&"#)"#6+#78 o H5"6+#7+&-+&")%#5+5"8 o ?3)%"6+#7-"#34&"#07"8 o ?3)%"6+#7#)#5#**&+*&2#)"/2,,2$47).7"="78 o I5.)"#$%"&+="&326%)+&$+5,"&"5$256,+&6+#73"7"$)2+5+&3)&#)"62"3)+-"") )%"6+#78 o (+47/#723)256+,3)4/"5)6+#73*&+=2/"43",4725,+&-#)2+58 • ;)4/"5)I$%2"="-"5) o >+9/+"33)4/"5)#$%2"="-"5)$+-*#&"+="&)2-":J"0EK#&$%EK#.@8 o J+&)%+3"$7#33&++-392)%6&"#)"&%26%"&3$+&"3C/2/)%")"#$%"&/+ 3+-")%256)%#)9#3/2,,"&"5))%#5+)%"&$7#33&++-3+&#&"3+-"3$+&"3 25,7#)"/8 o A2,,"&"5$"325)"#$%"&3L6&#/256*&#$)2$"3-#1"$+-*#&23+5/2,,2$47)M 45&"72#0272).+,&40&2$3$+&"3N o ?3?5)"&F&#)"&&"72#0272).)抨*+33207"8;#-*7"*#*"&3C6&#/"3"*#&#)"7. )%"5$+-*#&"#5//23$433NI5$%+&*#*"&38 • G+#7I))#25-"5) o A2/3)4/"5)-""))%"6+#78 o >+9/+"36+#7#))#25-"5)$+-*#&"#$&+33)%"6&#/"7"="78 o >+9/+"36+#7#))#25-"5)$+-*#&"0")9""56&#/"7"="738 o >+9/+"36+#7#))#25-"5)$+-*#&"+="&)2-":J"0EK#&$%EK#.@8 o J+&)%+3"$7#33&++-392)%6&"#)"&6+#7#))#25-"5)C9%#)/2/)%")"#$%"&/+ )%#)9#3/2,,"&"5))%#5+)%"&$7#33&++-38/)$&#&(0$12. • I$&+33)%"6&#/"7"="7 o ?,432563#-"3)+&.43"3#-"*&+-*) o O3)MP&/6&#/"3Q452,+&-3$+&2565""/"/R2,432563#-"3)+&.C43"3#-" *&+-*):DC!CF@N o S3256DC!CF-#.$7"#&4*25$+5323)"5$2"325)"&-3+,%+96++/2)%#3)+0")+ 6"))%"*+25):/2,,"&"5$"3-+3)7.253*"77256#5/$+5$74/2563"5)"5$"3@ • <&+6&"332+5,&+-+5"6&#/"7"="7)+)%"5"T) o (%#)#&")"#$%"&"T*"$)#)2+53#)"#$%6&#/"7"="78>+9-4$%)2-"233*"5)8 K252F7"33+538G&+4**&#$)2$"8
Appendix D: April 27th Report to SIP Team !"#$%&&()*+,-./0.(1)$#/.))()*$2$!0&34$51&4$ 61./$789&&:$;<<=>;<?<$ @A9(/$;B:$;<?<$ ! "#$%$!"$!&%$! • C10)D4$E)&$.)D$7F1$1G$C&.D()*$C&4A1)4&$.9&$H1IA/&&J$ • C10)D$E)&$(4$H1IA/&&$.)D$.//$D..$(4$()$4A9&.D48&&4J$C10)D$7F1$(4$H1IA/&&$.)D$ D..$8.4$K&&)$&)&9&D$G19$*9.D&4$L:$;$.)D$MJ$%14$1G$N8$*9.D&$(4$()$OF.(()*$1)$1)&$ 4&P$.)D$"$.I$F19Q()*$1)$R9D$*9.D&$)1FJ$?4$*9.D&$F(//$K&$.G&9$8.$2$.//$D..$&)9S$ F(//$K&$G()(48&D$KS$T9(D.SJ$ $ ()$*+,-.*!+-!&.*/$%!0-123! • U8.$.9&$F&$*1()*$1$9&A19$40D&)4$F81$D(D$)1$8.-&$F19Q$40KI(&DV$!1I&$F&9&$ .K4&)$K0$18&94$OC&4109H&P$D(D)3$D1$(J$%14$H/.44&4$8.D$.//$K0$1)&$19$F1$Q(D4$ H1IA/&&$8&$.4QJ$E8&94$8.D$4&-&9./$F81$D(D$)1$O"$K&/(&-&$8.$1)&$H/.44$8.D$W04$.$ /(/&$1-&9$8./G$8&$H/.44$40KI(PJ$!1I&$&.H8&94$.9&$8.-()*$40D&)4$I.Q&$($0A$(G$ 8&S$F&9&$.K4&):$18&94$.9&$)1J$ $ • @DD9&44()*$)0IK&9$.)D$.AA91A9(.&)&44$1G$*1./4$)1F$F(//$.GG&H$81F$F&//$40D&)4$ F(//$I&&$8&(9$*1./4$()$%.SJ$$ o !$2$4A&H(G(H$O.4Q>9&/.&D$-4J$X"$F(//$*&$.)$@YP$ o %$2$I&.409.K/&$OX4A&//$F19D$F.//$F19D4$H199&H/SY$-4J$X.)4F&9$8&$.)4F&9$ H199&H/SYP$ o @$2$..().K/&$OF(//$-.9S$KS$40D&)P$ o C$2$9&./(4(H$OF(//$-.9S$KS$40D&)P$ o 7$2$(I&/S$OI.S$9&/.&$1$18&9$Z@$F19Q:$A9&-(104/S$0)I&$*1./4:$&I&9*&)$ )&&DP$ $ • U8.$D1$F&$D1$(G$8&$90K9(H$4H19&4$.)D$&.H8&9$H1II&)4$D1)3$40AA19$F8.$(4$ I.9Q&D$()$&9I4$1G$I&&()*$8&$*1./V$T19$I14:$($(4$H/&.9>H0$K0$G19$18&94$(34$)1J$ T19$&[.IA/&:$8&$G19I$04&D$KS$M8$*9.D&$D1&4)3$8.-&$.$A/.H&$G19$&.H8&9$1$I.9Q$ +5$G19$*1./$2$1)/S$40D&)$I.9Q4$(J$51$()D(H.(1)$1G$F8&8&9$19$)1$&.H8&9$.*9&&4J$ T19$.$H10A/&$&.H8&94:$8&(9$H1II&)4$.)D$4H19&4$()D(H.&$*1./$F.4$)1$I&:$K0$ X&4Y$(4$I.9Q&DJ$ $ • U8.$()490H(1)4$D1$F&$F.)$1$*(-&$&.H8&94$K&G19&$G()./$CC$()$%.SV$$ o ].9D$H1AS$1G$*0(D&/()&4V$ ! T&&DK.HQ$2$C0K9(H$G19$K18:$40D&)>4A&H(G(H$F9(&)$G&&DK.HQ$ ! 61./$4&()*$>$%&.409.K/&$*1./4:$H8&HQ$($K&G19&$Q(D4$F9(&$ ! !H19()*$>$"G$I19&$8.)$1)&$*1./$(4$(D&)(G(&D$@ZZ$I04$K&$I&$G19$.$XJY$ ")D(H.&$+5$1)$A.*&J$
Appendix E: Checklists and Revised Forms • Checklist for Kindergarten Reader Responses (1 page) • Checklist for 1st – 5th grade Reader Responses (1 page) • Kindergarten rubric and reporting form (1 page) • 1st grade rubric and reporting form (2 pages) • 2nd grade rubric and reporting form (2 pages) • 3rd/5th grade rubric and reporting form (1 page) • 4th grade rubric and reporting form (2 pages)
SIP Goal 3: Reader Response Work Samples (K)May, 2010 ✔ Checklist Students Write RR1 1 • DATE ON PAGE. • Time between RR1 and RR2 no more than a week or two. Teacher Scores RR1 2 • Use updated forms if applicable (spot for met/did not meet goal). • Score with rubric. Student/Teacher Conference • Provide verbal feedback (SIP Goal says that students are supposed to 3 use your feedback to generate their goal). • Choose one goal (more attainable; more straightforward when determining if goal was met). • Some students may be thinking about more than one thing, but focus is on one primary goal. Students Write RR2 4 • DATE ON PAGE. • Students proofread/edit per your expectations. Teacher Scores RR2 5 • Score with rubric. • Provide written feedback per your standard routine. • CHECK BOX: Goal met? Not met? Submit Documents 6 • Stapled; top-down order: Rubric, RR1, RR2. • Stapled packets in alphabetical order • Give to your grade level SIP rep. • SIP reps, when you have them all, bring them to Judi’s office.
SIP Goal 3: Reader Response Work SamplesMay, 2010 ✔ Checklist Students Write RR1 1 • DATE ON PAGE. • Time between RR1 and RR2 no more than a week or two. Teacher Scores RR1 2 • Use updated forms if applicable (spot for met/did not meet goal). • Score with rubric. • Provide written feedback (SIP Goal says that students are supposed to use your feedback to generate their goal). Students Review Feedback and Write One Goal 3 • Students may be thinking about more than one thing, but focus is on one primary goal. Teacher Reviews Students’ Goals 4 • One goal (more attainable; more straightforward when determining if goal was met). • A goal not a strategy (some kids confuse one for the other). • Have students re-write their goal if needed. Students Write RR2 5 • DATE ON PAGE. • Students proofread/edit per your expectations and for goal attainment. Teacher Scores RR2 6 • Score with rubric. • Provide written feedback per your standard routine. • CHECK BOX: Goal met? Not met? Submit Documents 7 • Stapled with RR1 on top • Stapled packets in alphabetical order • Give to your grade level SIP rep. • SIP reps, when you have them all, bring them to Judi’s office.
Name_____________________ Kindergarten Reading Response Rubric FEB MARCH MAY Answers question in a sentence Uses a capital letter ! Uses a period Stretches words Puts spaces between words Total Goal Met? Y / N Feedback __________________________________FEB Goal ____________________________________ Feedback __________________________________MARCH Goal ____________________________________ Feedback __________________________________MAY Goal ____________________________________
Name ________________________________ Date ___________________ ! Reading Response Rubric ! Second Grade Me My Teacher I restated the question in the topic sentence. I gave 2-3 specific examples from the text. I have a concluding sentence. I answered each question. I checked for capitals, periods and spelling.My Teacher’s Feedback: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________My Goal: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________GOAL MET: Yes No 2/18/10 3/26/10 5/14/10
Name ________________________________ Date ___________________ ! Reading Response Rubric ! Second Grade Me My Teacher I restated the question in the topic sentence. I gave 2-3 specific examples from the text. I have a concluding sentence. I answered each question. I checked for capitals, periods and spelling.My Teacher’s Feedback: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________My Goal: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________GOAL MET: Yes No
February 18 March 26 May 14 Reflection/Goal Planner/Follow-UpName: ___________________________________________Subject: __________________________________________Date: ____________________________________________My teacher gave me feedback on my completed assignment. This is what I think it means:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Now that I understand what or how to improve, my goal for the next assignment is to:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!"#$%&%$($)(*+&#,$&-.//$*#0&.*&/1&2%$(.30&2($-$&."&)%(#(*+4&5&*.#(-$6&#,$&".77.)(*+&6(""$%$*-$0&(*&/1&*$)$0#&2($-$&."&)%(#(*+8& !" ################################################################################################# ###############################################$ %" ################################################################################################# ###############################################$9(6&5&/$$#&#,$&+.:7&5&0$#&".%&/10$7"&.*&/1&/.0#&%$-$*#&:00(+*/$*#;&$ $ <#36$*#& =$:-,$%& o &($ o &($ o )*$ o )*$ $
February 18 March 26 May 14 Reflection/Goal PlannerName: ___________________________________________Subject: __________________________________________Date: ____________________________________________My teacher gave me feedback on my completed assignment. Thisis what I think it means:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Now that I understand what or how to improve, my goal for thenext assignment is to:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
February 18 March 26 May 14 Reflection Follow-UpName: ___________________________________________Subject: __________________________________________Date: ____________________________________________After reviewing the comments on my previous piece of writing, Inoticed the following differences in my newest piece of writing:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Did I meet the goal I set for myself on my most recentassignment? Student Teacher o Yes o Yes o No o NoThis is why I think so:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fun with Data!!!Attached you will find a breakdown of scores for students in your class for SIP Goal 3Reader Responses in February and March. A brief translation for you … Mean We used to call this the average when I was in school Median If you line up all the numbers, from least to greatest, this is the number that is right in the middle. Mode This is the number/score that recurs most frequently – more kids in your class got this score than any other score. Standard Think of a bell curve. Standard deviation divides the curve Deviation vertically. Most kids are in the middle with fewer and fewer as you go outward. The larger the standard deviation, the more spread out your kids’ scores were. The smaller the standard deviation is, the more scores were clumped together – not so many outliers.About student scores: • In most classrooms, the first February Reader Response (RR) had the lowest mean and greatest standard deviation. • From the first RR to the second RR, 14 of 17 classrooms showed an increase in mean score – higher achievement. 12 of 17 showed a decrease in standard deviation – scores are more “clumped” toward the middle. • From the second RR in February to the first RR in March, nine of 17 classrooms showed a slight regression in mean score (lower achievement) and 11 of 17 classrooms showed an increase in standard deviation (more highs and lows). • In 17 of 21 classrooms, the highest mean score was on the second RR in March. On the whole, student achievement improved over time with fewer outliers and greater consistency among student scores.Other Info:The grey box means the student did not do one or both of the Reading Responses. Weare pretending that those children don’t exist – statistically. It doesn’t “count againstyou” since numbers are crunched for only the kids who completed the activity.For the first two submissions, some grade levels used rubric pages that included a spotto indicate whether or not the goal was met. For those who did not, we used our bestjudgment, based on your comments and rubric scores, to determine if goals were met ornot. For this last one, all grade levels/teachers will indicate whether or not the goal wasmet. Don’t worry about Feb/March stats but if you REALLY want to go through old worksamples and determine goal achievement, I will re-enter that data.
Project CostFerdon and Associates, Inc. ----- INVOICE -----May 4, 2010Claudia KesselBusiness Manager, Springfield Public Schools1776 Independence AvenueAnytown, U.S.A.RE: Evaluation ServicesDear Ms.Kessel:First Street School Evaluation Project is now complete. Please remit the following fundsfor evaluation services rendered: $ 8,000 Lead Evaluator, 16 days @$500/day $ 35 Telephone expenses $ 200 Personal Assistant, 10 days @$20/day $ 8,235 TotalPlease make check payable to Susan Ferdon and send to the following address:Susan FerdonMy HouseMy Town, U.S.A.Sincerely,Susan Ferdon, Lead Evaluator555email@example.com