School Improvement Plan (SIP) Analysis EL5703 American College of Education 2024 Updated, Exams of School management&administration

Download School Improvement Plan (SIP) Analysis EL5703 American College of Education 2024 Updated and more Exams School management&administration in PDF only on Docsity!

School Improvement Plan (SIP) Analysis Amy Dherit American College of Education EL Dr. Jacqueline O’Mara May 31, 2021 Introduction

Analyzing data and the systems in place in a school is an ongoing necessity to continually meet the needs of the diverse learners that make up a student body. It is important for a school to have a mission, vision, and goals that identify and drive how a school addresses specific needs and guide the strategies to enable the school to meet the goals. Therefore, a school needs to create an Improvement plan. It is a challenge that needs leadership who is able to get everyone on board to achieve the school's goals. Improvement plans require a lot of communication, teamwork, and a solid action plan (Isernhagen, 2012). The following analysis is based on the strengths and weaknesses of the school Improvement plan for Shafer Elementary School. Shafer Elementary School’s report card data indicated the school did not meet AYP for the third year in a row. After analyzing the data, the School Improvement Team for Schafer Elementary School needed to identify the problem and develop a plan to improve to a level of satisfactory for the state. Title: School Improvement Plan Report for Shafer Elementary School

School Name and District: Schafer Elementary School

Grades Served: Grades 3-

Vision, Mission, and Goals:

Does the school have a shared vision, mission, and goals? Unclear State the school’s shared vision and mission statements. Schafer Elementary School’s Mission, Vision, and Goals are not clearly defined in the SIP. Based on what is included in the SIP, the school did have a goal of all students reaching 70% in both math and reading, to provide intervention ISAT to communicate with parents in conferences or through telephone calls (SIP, 2009, p.4). The data provided in the report card and the school came under a

The ISAT assessment scores in reading for 2009, as listed on the school’s report card shows weaknesses in multiple grades and within the specific subgroup of low income students. The 3rd grade level students as a whole showed weaknesses in all four standards for reading and reading extended responses. 4th grade students also showed a decline in score having dropped 19% from the previous year. All three grades, 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students identified as low income showed significant deficiency on the ISAT reading, with both 3rd and 5th grades declining 3 consecutive years. The Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in 5th grade dropped 21% in reading from 2008 to 2009. Does the SIP clearly identify the areas of weakness reflected in local, district, state, or national assessments or other data? Yes

Objectives:

Are the objectives stated in the SIP directly related to low achievement? Yes Provide an objective indicating low achievement. ● Reading Comprehension for low income students ○ While our current achievement in reading for the low income subgroup is 57% meeting/exceeding for ISAT, this subgroup will make AYP of at least 77.5% in 2010 and 85% in 2011. ● Vocabulary Achievement for Economically Disadvantaged Students ○ We will use MAP vocabulary testing and common assessments to determine student growth in vocabulary. ● Social Emotional Learning for Economically Disadvantaged Students ○ Using the social emotional learning standards, we will increase student engagement in the learning process to increase students' reading achievement. Has the SIP team considered how broad or narrow weaknesses are? Yes Are the objectives measurable? Yes Does each area of weakness involve many students or a few?

The areas of weaknesses involve a subgroup of students identified as low income or economically disadvantaged. This subgroup makes up 42.6% of the student population at Schafer Elementary. Therefore, the objectives target nearly 43% of the school population.

Key Factors:

What does the school think is causing each weakness? According to Schafer Elementary’s Improvement Plan, the contributors to the areas of weakness associated with students from low income families could possibly include that the students come to school and are not ready to learn, being unprepared and unable to focus on learning, or 65% of the low income students are considered limited English proficient, thus accounting for the struggle with vocabulary development. Other factors that were addressed inclus\ded the lack of access to interventions and reading curriculum along with interventions were not consistently carried out. (SIP, 2009, p.21) What factors have contributed to each area of weakness? Of these factors, has the school prioritized ones that can be influenced or controlled? 43% of the school’s student body is identified as being students living in poverty. 65% of those students identified as living in poverty are also from homes with limited English proficiency. Since more than half of the students living in poverty struggle with English proficiency, vocabulary development was targeted as a weakness that should be addressed. (SIP, 2009, p.21) Do these key factors indicate what the school thinks has caused or contributed to low student achievement? According to Snow et al., factors seemed to correspond to the identified weaknesses based on knowledge derived from numerous studies identifying that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds come from families that often have little with less education (Snow et al., 2013). Children from low income families are also known to have limited health care and suffer from proper nutrition. Students from limited English proficient families often use their parents native language at home

parent conferences and other school meetings. However, the inclusion of this statement seems to also portray that little effort is made to bridge the gap to offer more inviting and beneficial resources to support parental involvement. Does this plan have a chance of successfully improving student achievement? Provided the school adheres to the next steps for improvement as indicated in the plan, there is reasonable opportunity for students to grow academically. Schafer Elementary School states that students will be assessed by assessment tools that are already in place at the school to determine appropriate levels, so that struggling students will receive the proper invention (SIP, 2009, p.30). The school’s plan also states that vocabulary development will be a focus of all grades, with grades K through 2nd grade prioritizing strengthening of vocabulary skills, however specific strategies were not identified in the scholl’s Action Plan (SIP, 2009, p.21). Students from low economic households will receive direct instructional strategies from the “reading specialists and Special Education teachers, and/or the ELL teachers” (SIP, 2009, p.30). Although the Improvement Plan specifically listed instructional strategies being directed towards all students who were on the verge of meeting and exceeding the standards by using a specific five point scale to identify the students within the that margin of being on the verge, the action plan did not include this specific target group. Assurance was also stated that there would be accountability towards “Houghton Mifflin Reading Series being taught regularly (SIP, 2009, p.21). The action plan did declare that students would be required to read at home and record their reading. The SIP noted that teachers will administer the Houghton Mifflin Reading, combined with “the Illinois Assessment Frameworks with guidance from the Reading Specialists to ensure that all students have access to the core curriculum to improve their reading comprehension. Last of all, a conclusion was made that the school will work to refine the RTI process (SIP, 2009, p.24). Teamwork is a major component of school success. Is there evidence of teamwork in the SIP? The SIP specified that professional development would be provided for teachers to increase awareness on instructional strategies and activities to support the needs of the students. Additional

support for teachers will include providing teachers with training that increases their awareness and sensitivity for students from households identified as low income. The SIP identified an excellent plan in regards to the school’s Reading Specialists working with teachers in a collaborative effort for teachers to receive coaching from the Reading Specialists. This type of collaboration will increase needed communication amongst all involved. The SIP was constructed as a team effort that included the school’s Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Specialist, ELL Interventionist, Special Education Teacher, combination of core and exploratory teachers, a parent, and Differentiation and Writing Coach (SIP, 2009, p.40). The team worked together to create a plan for all stakeholders to the betterment in students’ academic growth and closing the achievement gap. How well did the school establish a critical relationship among its problem areas or weaknesses, the presumed causes of these weaknesses, and the plan for improved student achievement? Schafer Elementary analyzed the Illinois Report Card to distinguish two subgroups, LEP and low income scores, to have been consistently low in reading over several years (SIP, 2009, p.16). The SIP team also recognized that more than half of the students identified as low income also were English Language Learners. Understanding the barriers that both subgroups struggled with, the team was able to identify areas of weaknesses and the underlying reasons for the weaknesses. The team put together a plan that will provide the extra needed support for students and teachers to work towards closing the achievement gap for these young stakeholders. How is technology integrated into the plan? ● MAP and AIMSWEB benchmark testing ● Surveys ● Study Island Program ● Professional Development for Teachers in Technology Instruction How is technology used to prepare, implement, and collect/analyze data used in the plan?District provides ● Services and resources for each year’s building goals including help with collecting and analyzing data ● Staff will continue to collect and analyze student data from AimsWEB, MAP, common assessments, and guided reading assessments to assess student progress and the effectiveness of our strategies and activities.

Reference Gassenheimer, C. (2019, August 29). "Stunningly Powerful" School Improvement Begins by Sharpening Our Focus. A+ Alabama Best Practices Center. https://aplusala.org/best-practices-center/ 2019/08/29/stunningly-powerful-school-improvement-begins-by-sharpening-our-focus/. Hirsh, S. (2006). Consider These Critical Questions to Strengthen Your School Improvement Plan. Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 59-60. Retrieved from https://go.openathens.net/redirecto r/ace. edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/211508694?accountid= I. (2009). Schafer Elementary School School Improvement Plan [PDF]. Northern Illinois University. Office of State Support, US Dept of Education (2016). U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oss/technicalassistance/evidencebasedpracticesschl.pdf. Schmoker, M. (2011). Planning for Failure? Or for School Success? http://mikeschmoker.com/planning-for- failure.html. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, S. (2013, November 7). Socioeconomics and Reading Difficulties. ReadingRockets.org. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/socioeconomics-and-reading-difficulties.