Math Goal Plan

Goal (includes measurement and target date): By May of 2010, students will score at or above proficient on the reading of the CSAP by grade level according to the following percentages:

3rd Grade Math - 1% Unsatisfactory           0% Unsatisfactory
                           15% Part. Prof.                                 12% Part. Prof.
                           45% Prof.                                         48% Prof.
                           39% Advanced                                 40% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 2% Unsatisfactory            0% Unsatisfactory
                           16% Part. Prof.                                 12% Part. Prof.
                           38% Prof.                                         41% Prof.
                           45% Advanced                                 47% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 9% Unsatisfactory            6% Unsatisfactory
                           24% Part. Prof.                                 20% Part. Prof.
                           43% Prof.                                         47% Prof.
                           24% Advanced                                 27% Advanced

These gains represent a 3-4% incremental increase in each category, from U to PP, from PP to P and from P to Adv at each grade level.

Rationale:  LEE staff, Accountability Committee, including parent accountability representatives, agree on a continued course of action for improvement.  Our data show that a significant number of students are “threshold” scorers and come very close to reaching a higher category of achievement, but somehow fall short.  We are choosing to focus on these borderline students again this year, in hopes of improving student achievement throughout the school.  We are also working toward every student making at least a year’s worth of growth.  This will be measured by Aimsweb, Orchard k-5 and CSAP 4-5.

How will you measure incremental progress towards your goal?

• Aimsweb benchmark testing four times a year
• CSAP writing scores from March testing window
• Classroom data based on common assessments
• Teacher goal plans

Due Date: September 18, 2009

*************************************************************************************

Outcome Evaluation Form Math

Long Term Goal:  Continue to work together in PLC teams to differentiate, form and utilize tier 1, Rt1 interventions, that address standards and improve on the quality of interventions to improve student achievement.

Prior Year’s Goal:
The focus on the Math Goal will be to identify potential band jumpers, and provide them with support to move to the next level.  We are also working toward showing a years worth of growth for all students in reading as determined by basic skills tests (1st grade) and Orchard testing (1st – 5th grades) and CSAP (4-5).

Prior Year’s Data:
3rd Grade Math - 5% Unsatisfactory          1% Unsatisfactory
                            8% Part. Prof.                                 15% Part. Prof.
                           34% Prof.                                         45% Prof.
                           52% Advanced                                 39% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 4% Unsatisfactory            0% Unsatisfactory
                           16% Part. Prof.                                 16% Part. Prof.
                           49% Prof.                                         38% Prof.
                           31% Advanced                                 45% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 1% Unsatisfactory            9% Unsatisfactory
                           21% Part. Prof.                                 24% Part. Prof.
                           39% Prof.                                         43% Prof.
                           38% Advanced                                 24% Advanced

If goal was met, what activities were particularly useful?  If not, what were the major problems?  LEE was not able to eliminate the unsatisfactory scores, though we reduced the % of students scoring U in 3rd and 4th grades and remained low in 5th.  This aspect of our goal was still he helpful as the teaching staff focused on interventions for struggling students.

In terms of growth, our school wide growth percentile was 39% of students making year’s worth of growth in CSAP on Math.  One interesting note here, is the grouping effect we have seen over two years in our fifth grade.  We found that by offering an advanced math group, we left other classes without challenge models and our scores in 5th grade have dipped.  This is evidenced when we broke down the score to 4th grade (66% made a year’s growth) and 5th (28% made a year’s growth).  This is slightly lower than the 50th percentile the state sets as utilizing Mastering Math facts to improve computation, and Orchard and Aimsweb benchmarking as a progress monitoring tools.  We will be working this year on building common assessments and designing interventions during the PLC time.

Due Date:  September 18, 2009

*************************************************************************************

Reading Goal Plan

Goal: By May of 2010, students will score at or above proficient on the reading portion of the CSAP by grade level according to the following percentages:

3rd Grade Math - 1% Unsatisfactory           0% Unsatisfactory
                           21% Part. Prof.                                 16% Part. Prof.
                           64% Prof.                                         69% Prof.
                           12% Advanced                                 15% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 8% Unsatisfactory            5% Unsatisfactory
                           22% Part. Prof.                                 19% Part. Prof.
                           64% Prof.                                         67% Prof.
                             6% Advanced                                   9% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 10% Unsatisfactory          7% Unsatisfactory
                            16% Part. Prof.                                13% Part. Prof.
                            59% Prof.                                        63% Prof.
                            14% Advanced                                17% Advanced

These gains represent a 3-4% incremental increase in each category, from U to PP, from PP to P and from P to Adv at each grade level.

Achievement Gap Goal:  Male students at Longmont Estates are under performing compared to their female counterparts by 14% in 3rd, 15% in 4th grade and by 8% in 5th grade reading.  This is an area of concern.  We will be working on raising scores of our male students this year, by focusing current research on instructional strategies and putting those strategies in place.

Rationale:  LEE staff, Accountability Committee, including parent representatives, agree on a continued course of action for improvement.  Our data show that a significant number of students are “threshold” scorers and come very close to reaching a higher category of achievement, but somehow fall short.  We are choosing to focus on these borderline students again this year, in hopes of improving student achievement throughout the school.  We are also working toward every student making at least a year’s worth of growth.  This will be measured by Aimsweb benchmark assessments, Rigby Reads testing and CSAP 4-5.

How will you measure incremental progress towards your goal?

• CSAP writing scores from March testing window
• Aimsweb benchmark assessments 4 times a year
• Classroom data based on common Rigby assessments
• Teacher goal plans
• Lexia practice

Due Date: September 18, 2009

*************************************************************************************

Outcome Evaluation Form Reading

Long Term Goal:  Continue to work together in PLC teams to differentiate, form and utilize tier 1, Rt1 interventions, that address standards and improve on the quality of interventions to improve student achievement.

Prior Year’s Goal:
The focus on the Reading Goal will be to identify potential band jumpers, and provide them with support to make the jump into the next band.  We are also working toward showing a years worth of growth for all students in reading as determined by IRS tests (1st grade) and SRI testing (2nd – 5th grades) and Orchard (grades 1-5) and CSAP (4-5).

Prior Year’s Data:
3rd Grade Math - 7% Unsatisfactory           1% Unsatisfactory
                           10% Part. Prof.                                 21% Part. Prof.
                           77% Prof.                                         64% Prof.
                             7% Advanced                                 12% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 7% Unsatisfactory            8% Unsatisfactory
                           19% Part. Prof.                                 22% Part. Prof.
                           72% Prof.                                         64% Prof.
                             2% Advanced                                   6% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 4% Unsatisfactory          10% Unsatisfactory
                           14% Part. Prof.                                 16% Part. Prof.
                           67% Prof.                                         59% Prof.
                           14% Advanced                                 14% Advanced

If goal was met, what activities were particularly useful?  If not, what were the major problems?  While we failed to reach our goal of 0% unsatisfactory, the goal did help teachers to focus their efforts on identifying struggling students in reading through our PLC work.  We did initiate a reading intervention programs for students struggling with the Rigby Theme tests and that become built into our master schedule.

LEE scores did not change in a pronounced way last year.  What was remarkable was the degree to which girls out performed boys at every level.  Girls were 14% higher in 3rd grade, 15% higher in 4th grade and 8% higher in 5th grade.  We will be researching best practice for instruction through a book study and seeking to implement instructional strategies that will help our boys succeed.  We will continue using Literacy testing data, Aimsweb benchmark testing and SRI to assess progress throughout the year, and we have also added Rigby Reads, Orchard and Lexia as other data points.

Due Date:  September 18, 2009

*************************************************************************************

Writing Goal Plan

Goal: By May of 2010, students will score at or above proficient on the writing portion of the CSAP by grade level according to the following percentages:

3rd Grade Math - 1% Unsatisfactory           0% Unsatisfactory
                           43% Part. Prof.                                 38% Part. Prof.
                           43% Prof.                                         46% Prof.
                           12% Advanced                                 16% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 3% Unsatisfactory            0% Unsatisfactory
                           36% Part. Prof.                                 33% Part. Prof.
                           42% Prof.                                         45% Prof.
                           19% Advanced                                 22% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 4% Unsatisfactory            6% Unsatisfactory
                           24% Part. Prof.                                 21% Part. Prof.
                           57% Prof.                                         60% Prof.
                           15% Advanced                                 18% Advanced

These gains represent a 3-4% incremental increase in each category, from U to PP, from PP to P and from P to Adv at each grade level.

Achievement Gap goal:  Male students at Longmont Estates are under performing compared to their female counterparts by 10% in 3rd and 5th grade and by 18% in 4th grade writing.  This is an area of concern.  We will be working on raising scores of our male students this year, by focusing current research on instructional strategies and putting those strategies in place.

Rationale:  LEE staff, Building Accountability Committee, including parent representatives, agree on a continued course of action for improvement.  Our data show that a significant number of students are “threshold” scorers and come very close to reaching a higher category of achievement, but somehow fall short.  We are choosing to focus on these borderline students again this year, in hopes of improving student achievement throughout the school.  We are also working toward every student performing on grade level on Aimsweb benchmark assessments.  Other performance will be measured by Lucy Calkins units of study k-5 and CSAP 4-5.

How will you measure incremental progress towards your goal?

• Aimsweb benchmark testing
• CSAP writing scores from March testing window
• Classroom data based on common assessments for Lucy Calkins
• Teacher goal plans

Due Date: September 18, 2009

*************************************************************************************

Outcome Evaluation Form Writing

Long Term Goal:  Continue to work together in PLC teams to differentiate, form and utilize tier 1, Rt1 interventions, that address standards and improve on the quality of interventions to improve student achievement.

Prior Year’s Goal:
The focus on the Writing Goal will be to identify potential band jumpers, and provide them with support to make the jump into the next band.  We are also working toward showing a years worth of growth for all students in reading as determined by writing samples in all grades k-5 and CSAP (4-5).

Prior Year’s Data:
3rd Grade Math - 2% Unsatisfactory            1% Unsatisfactory
                           34% Part. Prof.                                 43% Part. Prof.
                           51% Prof.                                         43% Prof.
                           13% Advanced                                 12% Advanced

4th Grade Math - 5% Unsatisfactory            3% Unsatisfactory
                           33% Part. Prof.                                 36% Part. Prof.
                           52% Prof.                                         42% Prof.
                           10% Advanced                                 19% Advanced

5th Grade Math - 0% Unsatisfactory            4% Unsatisfactory
                           30% Part. Prof.                                 24% Part. Prof.
                           55% Prof.                                         57% Prof.
                           14% Advanced                                 15% Advanced

If goal was met, what activities were particularly useful?  If not, what were the major problems?  LEE came closest to achieving our moving band jumpers in the area of writing.  For three years, we have been working as a building to improve our writing scores.  We have developed a common language around writing, common exit and entry levels for students across grade levels, and been conducting vertical articulation between the grades.  Both the 4th and the 5th grade were able to reduce the number PP students and increase the number of P students, as a cohort.

LEE scores show growth above the state median of 50th percentile, at the 57th percentile.  Boys writing lagged behind the girls significantly (52nd percentile compared to 66th).  We will continue with classroom interventions and differentiation in writing.  We will continue to evaluate writing samples to assess progress and we have added Lucy Calkins Units of Study school-wide that we hope will impact learning in the classroom.  We will also begin looking at instructional strategies to engage boys more effectively in writing through a book study and PLC collaboration.

Due Date:  September 18, 2009