Right click here to print this page.
McDavid-Jones CIP Summary 2
6/19/2012

Strategies Observed:

EB:   X

WT:   X

Total Teachers:   48

Members of Review Team:

 

Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, Reading Coach, Media Specialists, Technology rep, Math Lead Teacher, Special Education teacher, Counselor, parents, and representatives from each grade level.

 

Strengths:

 

Action Step 1 for Reading:   39/45 or 86.6% of our teachers were observed using direct, explicit instruction during a walk-through. This was a decrease from Summary 1. Results may be attributed to the fact that the step did not apply to the activity the class was involved in at the time of the walk-through.

Action Step 2 in Reading: There were no PST meetings in progress at the time of the walk-through; however, documentation in the evidence box and in the RtI binders for each grade level shows that PST meetings are ongoing.

Action Step 1 in Math: The evidence box shows that 100% of our teachers are using data analysis to determine areas of need and guide instruction for their students.

Action Steps 2.1 and 2.2 in Math: Intervention classes and extended day tutoring services are being offered to students who are non-proficient on the Math formative tests (EQTs).

 

Areas Needing Improvement:

 

Action Step 3 in Reading: 40/47 or 85.1% of the teachers observed were fully implementing the use of Accelerated Reader/Renaissance Learning as an action step for reading. This is an increase from 67% in Review 1. Our goal is still 100%.

Action Step 4 in Reading:   40/48 or 83.3% of the teachers observed were fully implementing the use of tiered instruction as an action step for reading. This is an increase from 67% in review 1. We will continue to work toward our goal of 100%.

 

Summary of Progress in Benchmarks:

 

3 out of 4 Math benchmarks have been fully met with 100% of K-5 and Special Ed teachers using data analysis. 100% of students who are at-risk are being offered intervention classes and extended day services. Collaboration between regular classroom teachers and resource teachers is being implemented and has increased to 93.7%. We increased to 85% implementation on the reading benchmark of using Accelerated Reader (Action Steps 3), while AS 1.1 was 86.6% (direct, explicit instruction). AS 1.2 documentation shows that 100% of our teachers are participating in PST meetings.

 

Next Steps:

 

Find ways to increase implementation on the action steps for reading that were not being fully implemented (Direct, explicit instruction, use of Accelerated Reader/Renaissance Learning, and collaboration between regular classroom teachers and resource teachers.

 

Amendments to Plan:

Our plan is to make amendments to our math evidence as none of the action steps contain observable evidence. All action steps for the math strategies are based on documentation in the evidence box. We will also plan walk-throughs at alternate times to allow team members to observe a different subject in progress..

 

 

Strategies Observed:

EB:   X

WT:   X

Total Teachers:   48

Members of Review Team:

 

Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, Reading Coach, Media Specialists, Technology rep, Math Lead Teacher, Special Education teacher, Counselor, parents, and representatives from each grade level.

 

Strengths:

 

Action Step 1 for Reading:   39/45 or 86.6% of our teachers were observed using direct, explicit instruction during a walk-through. This was a decrease from Summary 1. Results may be attributed to the fact that the step did not apply to the activity the class was involved in at the time of the walk-through.

Action Step 2 in Reading: There were no PST meetings in progress at the time of the walk-through; however, documentation in the evidence box and in the RtI binders for each grade level shows that PST meetings are ongoing.

Action Step 1 in Math: The evidence box shows that 100% of our teachers are using data analysis to determine areas of need and guide instruction for their students.

Action Steps 2.1 and 2.2 in Math: Intervention classes and extended day tutoring services are being offered to students who are non-proficient on the Math formative tests (EQTs).

 

Areas Needing Improvement:

 

Action Step 3 in Reading: 40/47 or 85.1% of the teachers observed were fully implementing the use of Accelerated Reader/Renaissance Learning as an action step for reading. This is an increase from 67% in Review 1. Our goal is still 100%.

Action Step 4 in Reading:   40/48 or 83.3% of the teachers observed were fully implementing the use of tiered instruction as an action step for reading. This is an increase from 67% in review 1. We will continue to work toward our goal of 100%.

 

Summary of Progress in Benchmarks:

 

3 out of 4 Math benchmarks have been fully met with 100% of K-5 and Special Ed teachers using data analysis. 100% of students who are at-risk are being offered intervention classes and extended day services. Collaboration between regular classroom teachers and resource teachers is being implemented and has increased to 93.7%. We increased to 85% implementation on the reading benchmark of using Accelerated Reader (Action Steps 3), while AS 1.1 was 86.6% (direct, explicit instruction). AS 1.2 documentation shows that 100% of our teachers are participating in PST meetings.

 

Next Steps:

 

Find ways to increase implementation on the action steps for reading that were not being fully implemented (Direct, explicit instruction, use of Accelerated Reader/Renaissance Learning, and collaboration between regular classroom teachers and resource teachers.

 

Amendments to Plan:

Our plan is to make amendments to our math evidence as none of the action steps contain observable evidence. All action steps for the math strategies are based on documentation in the evidence box. We will also plan walk-throughs at alternate times to allow team members to observe a different subject in progress..