2009-10 Building Continuous Improvement Plan
Wyandot Run Elementary School

Building Strengths

(August)

• Met AYP for all subgroups in reading and math.
• Increase in Performance Index to 107.0 (Ranking – top 2.6% in the state or 20th out of 778 elementary schools).
• Increased the number of students scoring accelerated or advanced in all subjects and grades.
• Met Ohio Achievement Test benchmarks for all subjects and grades.
• WRES scored at or above the district mean for every Ohio Achievement Test in reading, math, writing, science, and social studies in all grades.
• Using the Developmental Reading Assessment, 88% of second graders were at or above grade level in reading by the end of the 08-09 school year.

Building Areas for Improvement

(August)

• Decreased the number of 5th grade students meeting their projected performance level in math.
• 73.9% of IEP subgroup was proficient in math.
• In grades K-2, based on Developmental Reading Assessment comprehension data and teacher observation, students need to better comprehend non-fiction text.

Focus

(August)

• To clearly articulate quality learning targets that directly align curriculum to assessment and instruction.

Actions

(September)

Mid Year Check

(January)

All teachers will focus on the following curriculum processes:

1. Analyze curriculum maps to be clear and confident about map standards.
2. Research and explore curriculum map indicators to obtain deep content knowledge.
3. Unpack the curriculum to identify clear learning targets or the scaffolding to the learning targets.
4. Clearly define what mastery of the learning targets looks like when achieved.
5. Will know where students are in relation to the specified learning targets at any time.

As the instructional leaders, we will:

1. Make daily decisions aligned with the building and district focus.
2. Conduct building walk-throughs for the purpose of collecting evidence of progress on the curriculum focus.
3. Conduct evaluations of staff members with an emphasis on the curriculum processes.
4. Create professional development opportunities during late starts, curriculum days, etc. to support building CIP.
5. Collect feedback from staff on progress of the building CIP action steps.

• During Curriculum Day on August 25 and September 21, the Late Start on October 8, and during grade level planning time, teachers used the maps to unpack the curriculum and create quality learning targets. They scaffold the learning and have crafted learning targets in “student friendly” language. Teachers created common assessments in order to determine if students have mastered the learning targets. After each unit is created as described above, grade level teams teach the unit and then meet to evaluate the quality of the learning targets, scaffolding and assessments and then make necessary changes. Teachers regularly utilize formative assessments and adjust instruction in order to meet the needs of their students. This quality unit planning cycle is a continual, ongoing process utilized by teams in planning instruction.
• As the instructional leaders at WRES, we provide the direction for our staff and embed the building and district focus in everything that we do—daily conversations, professional development, and with staff and building level written communication
• During the first semester, we conducted 377 walk-throughs. This data indicated that the teacher communicated the learning target 51.5% of the time. During the times that a learning target was present, students were able to articulate the target 93% of the time.
• We worked collaboratively with the building leadership team to plan and facilitate Curriculum Day (9-21) and Late Starts (11-10, 1-28 and 3-4).
• During the Late Start on 11-10, teachers were introduced to Regie Routman in Residence Materials to reinforce how the reading/writing connection can accelerate and improve teaching and learning. During the Late Start on 1-28, we focused on formative assessment techniques and questioning. During the Late Start on 3-4 teachers will learn how to give effective feedback in order to improve student achievement.
• We offered Formative Assessment training this past fall and now all staff members have been trained. We are continually embedding these techniques in our day-to-day conversations as well as during staff professional development times.
• We shared individual student data with teachers concerning each student’s previous year’s testing data. They used this data, along with their observations and teacher created assessments to create their action plans
• Each teacher met with principals to share action plans and discuss the individual needs of their students during January and February.
• We met with the fifth grade team and intervention teachers (1-22) to examine last year’s math projection data and student survey data to evaluate the effectiveness of math instruction and to make changes as needed.

Results we expect

(September)

Mid Year Check

(January)

• An increase in the percentage of staff using classroom learning targets explicitly in their instruction based on the month to month principal walkthroughs.
• WRES will increase the proficiency passage rate for the IEP subgroup in Math.
• WRES will have more 5th grade students meeting or exceeding their projection in Math.

• During the first semester, the walkthrough data indicated that the teacher communicated the learning target 51.5% of the time. During the times that a learning target was present, students were able to articulate the target 93% of the time.
• While doing classroom observations and walk-throughs during math instruction, there is evidence of teachers using formative assessments and differentiating instruction to meet each student’s needs.

Link to District CIP

(What district benchmark results will get better because we improve our results?)

• Focus Area: To clearly articulate quality learning targets that directly align curriculum to assessment and instruction.
• Benchmark 1: Percentage of students achieving at or above their projected performance level.
• Benchmark 3: Meet state and national standards