State of the District and Schools Report

1
State of the District and Schools Report

• OCTOBER 2009

2
Agenda

• District compared to state
• A look at individual schools successes and
  challenges
• How are we addressing our challenges?
• District at a glance

3
Chicopee in Relation to State AYP2009

• Observation/Talking Points
• State hit its target only at Grade 8 and 10
• As an urban district we are making progress in
  CPI and proficiency.

4
District-Wide Summary Growth Toward Target
Aggregate and Subgroups
Observation Our students are making gains. As
the number of years between current year and 2014
shrinks, Gain Targets increase.
5
Chicopee in Relation to State AYP - 2009

• Observation/Talking Points
• State, as well as District, struggles toward
  proficiency.
• Highest percentage of proficiency at Grade 10
• State - 22 increase in students scoring
  proficient or higher from Grade 3 to 10
• CPS - 23 increase in students scoring proficient
  or higher from Grade 3 to 10
• State -15 increase in students scoring
  proficient or higher from Grade 3 to 10
• CPS 9 increase in students scoring proficient
  or higher from Grade 3 to 10

6
Part 2 Individual School Data

• Background Information
• We are in year 1 of Cycle VI so targets of 90.2
  in ELA and 84.3 in Math have been established.
• In order to have a change in NCLB Accountability
  Status a school must earn a Yes for 2 years.
  It also takes 2 years for an Accountability
  Status to change levels i.e. No Status to
  Improvement Year 1. The progression after that
  is yearly. Improvement Year 1, Improvement Year
  2, Corrective Action, Restructuring Year 1,
  Restructuring Year 2.
• Our goal is to explore the data used to assign
  the individual schools NCLB Accountability
  Status and provide insight as to root causes,
  concerns and or steps in progress to address or
  explain situations.
• This is not a comprehensive look at each school
  but an overview of data with the purpose of
  providing transparency about what is happening in
  the schools.

7
Lets celebrate these successes- Bowe School

• Achieved 2 Yes in ELA
• Gained points across ELA aggregate and subgroups
  including 7.6 points for Special Education.
• Focus on time on task, small group instruction,
  centers and structured curricula times in both
  ELA and Math.
• Math subgroups mixed results Special Education
  (11.7), White (5.3), met Gain Target, however,
  Low Income (3.9) and Hispanic (3.2), while
  improved, did not meet Gain Target.
• Continue to work on raising CPI from 67.9 in ELA
  and 58.2 in Math to State Performance Levels.
• Prioritize learning walks / walk-throughs for
  accountability.

8
Successes Bowie

• Continued No Status in ELA and Math
• High CPI scores in both ELA (84.8) and Math
  (78.8)
• Met Gain Target in all but ELA White subgroup
  (85.8 or -1.3)
• Grades 1-5 10 week computer summer review in
  Math Reading
• Additional classroom time directed toward open
  response questions

9
Successes Lambert-Lavoie

• Improvement in ELA both Yes school
  maintained no status with CPI of 81.3.
• Math CPI increased in aggregate and subgroups but
  not sufficient to reach Gain Target. (Aggregate
  .6, Low Income 2.0, White 2.1)
• More time on task, with heightened
  accountability.
• Prioritize classroom learning walks/walk-throughs.

10
Successes Litwin

• All Yes on ELA (72.7) and Math (68.7) Adequate
  Yearly Progress.
• Average gains of 5.9 in all groups in ELA and 7.2
  in all groups in Math.
• Special notice to 8.1 gain in ELA Hispanic and
  9.6 in Math White subgroup
• Continued focus on raising CPI from 72.7 in ELA
  and 68.7 in Math to State Performance Targets
• Prioritize classroom walk-throughs/ learning
  walks, and increase learning centers
• Continued focus on time on task, accountability
  and curriculum

11
Successes Selser

• Achieved Yes in ELA (76.8) and Math (75.5)
  across all groups
• Average point gain of 10.15 points across all
  groups in ELA with largest gain in Low Income
  subgroup of 12.2
• Average point gain of 17.7 across all groups in
  Math with largest gain of 19.4 in Hispanic
  subgroup
• Prioritized classroom walk-throughs/learning
  walks, monthly grade level data meetings,
  template for lesson plans and more emphasis on
  MCAS practice
• Redistributed staff to capitalize on teaching
  strengths
• Instituted Study Island and Accelerated Reader
  Programs

12
Successes Fairview M.S.

• All Yes on ELA (84.1) and Math (69.3) Adequate
  Yearly Progress.
• Restructuring Year 2 subgroups for both ELA and
  Math
• ELA subgroups of Special Needs (4.7), Low Income
  (4.2), Hispanic (.9), White (2.9). These gains
  met Gain Target established by the state.
• Math subgroups of Special Needs (7.8), Low
  Income (7.3), Hispanic (9.4), White (6.2).
  These gains met Gain Target established by the
  state.

13
Successes Fairview M.S.

• Continue focus on accountability, time on task
• Prioritize classroom and cross-grading
  walk-throughs / learning walks.
• New ELA (Glencoe) and Math (Holt) core programs
  with differentiated instruction and anchor
  activities to meet needs of diverse learners.
• Key III (comprehension-based) Program instituted
  to provide continuity in the content areas of
  Science Social Studies
• Redefined role of guidance counselors

14
Lets examine these challenges - Barry School

• Struggled with performance target across all
  groups in ELA (79.3) and Math (79.6)
• In ELA, subgroups impacted scores ELL(-4.1),
  Special Education (-12.6), and Low Income (-5.5)
• In Math, subgroups impacted scores ELL(-8.8),
  Special Education (-15.3) and Low Income (-9.6)
• Highest CPI Math in district.
• New half time ELL teacher to address high number
  of ELL students. Meet state required
  instructional minutes.
• New after school focus to improve subgroup
  participation.
• Prioritize learning walks/walk-throughs.
• Continue to use grade-level data meetings to
  drive instruction and identify student needs.
• Restructure MCAS test taking sessions
• Professional Learning Communities

15
Challenges Belcher

• 1st year with AYP status
• Looked at grade 3 4 students at Litwin who were
  at Belcher School in grades 1 2 to create this
  baseline.

16
Challenges Stefanik

• Struggled with performance target in both ELA
  (80.5) and Math (68.7).
• Lost CPI points across all areas. Performance
  Rating in ELA remains high (80.5).
• New Reading Coach to refocus on time on task,
  accountability and increase in writing block.
• Prioritize classroom walk-throughs/learning
  walks.
• Loss of veteran leaders in key areas Reading
  and ELL to district positions.
• Grade level data meetings with administrator for
  early identification of student needs.
• Heightened accountability across school.

17
Challenges - Streiber

• Maintained No Status for Accountability Status
• Achieved No in ELA subgroups and all Math
  groups (75.2) for AYP
• Focus on Low Income subgroup in ELA (-3.6) and
  Math (-13.3) to determine cause and indicators
  for improvement
• No warning signal to closely examine.
  Accountability/Analyze Data
• Symphony Math- before school program 4x per week
  targeted grades 1-4 subgroups
• Achieved Yes in ELA (82.1) in aggregate
• Walk-throughs/ Learning walks and grade level
  meetings
• Time on Task - Logs

18
Challenges Bellamy M.S.

• Restructuring Year 2 subgroups for both ELA
  (79.7) and Math (61.6)
• ELA subgroups of LEP (2.2), Special Education
  (.1), Low Income (1.5), Hispanic (2.9) and
  White (1.5) made gains but not sufficient for
  Gain Target.
• Math subgroups of LEP(-9.1), Special Education
  (.1), Low Income (2.7), Hispanic (-.6) and
  White (.9) showed high need in LEP with small
  gains in other subgroups.

19
Challenges Bellamy M.S.

• New model for LEP instruction to focus more on
  content teacher instruction with ELL support.
• New ELA (Glencoe) and Math (Holt) core programs
  with differentiated instruction and anchor
  activities to meet needs of diverse learners.
• KEY III (comprehension-based) Program instituted
  to provide continuity in the content areas of
  Science and Social Studies.
• Closely monitoring assessment results to provide
  re-teaching and academic support
• Prioritize cross grade classroom walk-throughs/
  learning walks
• Teachers required to observe each other for
  non-evaluatory sharing of best practices.

20
Challenges C.C.H.S.

• Improvement Year 2 subgroups in ELA (86.9) with
  Restructuring Year 1 subgroups in Math (75.2)
• Met Gain Target in ELA (3.6) for Aggregate
• Mixed subgroup results in ELA Special Education
  (-4.4), Low Income (5.1), Hispanic (3.0),
  White (2.8)
• Met Gain Target in Math (2.0) for Aggregate
• Mixed subgroup results in ELA Low Income
  (4.4), Hispanic (15.4), White (-1.7)
• LEP insufficient numbers for subgroups but model
  of instruction is content instructors with ELL
  support.

21
Challenges C.C.H.S.

• Focus on classroom cross-grade learning walks/
  walk-throughs by administration.
• Continued emphasis on data analysis to drive
  instruction.
• Striving Readers Research Study for Reading
  Comprehension all teachers have been trained
• E.P.P. in place to aid in meeting graduation
  requirements.

22
Challenges C.H.S.

• Improvement Year 2 subgroups in ELA (85.2) with
  Improvement Year 2 subgroups in Math (74.7).
• Met Gain Target in ELA (3.2) for Aggregate as
  well as subgroups Low Income (7.2), Hispanic
  (5.7), White (1.8)
• Did not meet AYP in ELA subgroups because of
  participation nos for Low Income and Hispanic
• Did not meet Gain Target in Math (-1.0) Aggregate
  as well as subgroups Low Income (.3 gain too
  small), White (-3.0)
• Met Gain Target in Math subgroup Hispanic (8.1)

23
Challenges C.H.S.

• LEP insufficient numbers for subgroup but model
  of instruction is content instructors with ELL
  support
• Focus on classroom learning walks/walk-throughs
  by administration and department supervisors
• Continued emphasis on data analysis to drive
  instruction
• Striving Readers Research Study for Reading
  Comprehension all teachers are trained
• EPP in place to aid in meeting graduation
  requirements

24
So, what are we doing?

• Across our district we are striving to
  capitalize on what works with students and
  institutionalizing good teaching strategies. As
  you have seen elementary and secondary levels
  are sharing best practices and programs so our
  schools are more alike, but NOT mirror images.
  The next few slides will summarize whats going
  on in the schools by level elementary and
  secondary. We intend to answer the question of
  what are schools using, doing, and how are they
  addressing the MCAS scores of all our students.

25
Elementary Schools

• Addressing subgroups / struggling students
  currently in use
• ERI Grades K-1 Phonics approach learning to
  read
• Language for Learning Grades K-5 Focus on ELL
  students early acquisition of language
• Project Read - Grades 1-3 Phonetic program to
  learn to read
• Read Naturally Grades K-5 Program providing
  fluency practice with some comprehension checks
  as well.
• Elements of Comprehension or Vocabulary Grades
  2-5 Program used to increase competency in
  comprehension
• First Thousand Words Grades K-5
  Computer-based program in classrooms to provide
  vocabulary practice. Implemented for ELL
  students but meaningful for all students needing
  vocabulary practice.

26
Elementary - continued

• Lexia Grades K-5 phonics computer based
  program designed for independent work in
  classrooms
• Leap Pads, Leap Frogs Grades K-5 handheld
  electronics devices used to provide practice for
  acquisition of reading skills.
• LindaMood Bell Grades K-5 specialized reading
  (and math) program for extremely needy special
  education students.
• Process Writing Grades K-5 process of
  learning to write has been structured through
  professional development, common language and
  classroom posters.

27
What hasnt worked?

• Bold Print Comprehension program not showing
  data to support further use. Pilot at Stefanik
• Saxon Math Program to address math skills
  piloted for 2 years at Stefanik data did not
  support continued use.
• Read 180 90-minute intensive reading program
  being used more often as an intervention rather
  than stand-alone program. It allows more student
  access. Self-contained programs continue to use
  the 90-minute reading support program as designed.

28
Whats new 2009-2010?

• Math Elevations Grades 3-5 Elementary math
  intervention program being piloted at Barry,
  Selser and Stefanik
• Key III Grades 3-5 -Keys to Literacy program
  that provides teachers with best practices and/or
  good teaching strategies to address
  comprehension. Barry School is a research site.
  All grade 5 classroom teachers are receiving
  training this year.

29
Secondary Schools - How are we addressing
subgroups and struggling students

• Read Naturally/Rev It Up Grades 6 8
  Currently at Fairview being used during ELA block
• Step Up to Writing Grades 6 8 Currently at
  Bellamy being used to implement writing across
  the content areas
• Striving Readers Grades 9 -12 Research
  Project providing interventions to identified
  students Extreme Reading and Read 180 for
  Interventions
• Key III Grades 6 8 Comprehension based
  program teaching teachers good teaching
  practices in teaching comprehension skills.
  Focus on content areas of social studies and
  science.
• MCAS tutoring Grades 9 12 Pull-out small
  group instruction in fall and spring to prepare
  for MCAS retest
• MCAS prep classes Grades 9 12 (for credit)
  ELA and Math classes designed to assist students
  in passing the MCAS

30
Whats not working or changed?

• Galileo Grades 6-8 Currently used at Fairview
  and Bellamy as an assessment program for Math
  benchmarking. We plan to discontinue use next
  year. The CORE Math program will be used for
  this function.
• Read 180 Grades 68 Now used as an
  intervention only for some ELA students at middle
  school.

31
Whats new in 2009-2010?

• New CORE programs at Fairview and Bellamy
• Houghton Mifflin for Grade 6 ELA
• Glencoe for ELA Grades 7 and 8
• Holt for Math Grades 6 9
• Process Writing Grades 6 8 Benchmark pieces
  done three times per year and scored with
  district rubrics. Winter benchmark scored by
  district and part of student records.
• EPP Educational Proficiency Plan Grades 10
  12 These plans are done for students scoring 220
  but under 240. Puts focus on ELA and Math
  skills.
• Focus on Transitions The district is creating a
  swap between teachers at transition years.
  Pre-K/K this fall and grades 5/6 in the Spring.

32
District-Wide CPI Cycle VI 2009
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Questions?