DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS … · 2015-2016 School Year BEDS Code 131500010001 School Name Charles B. Warring Elementary School School Address 283 Mansion

The University of the State of New York

The State Education Department

DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS (DTSDE)

2015-2016 School Year

BEDS Code 131500010001

School Name Charles B. Warring Elementary School

School Address 283 Mansion Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

District Name Poughkeepsie City School District

School Leader Mr. Jason Gerard

Dates of Review May 17, 18, 2016

School Accountability Status

Priority School

Focus School

Type of Review District-led Review

Review Team Name Affiliation/Title

Representative for the District responsible for the quality of the report and the adherence to DTSDE protocols Dr. Debra Jackson

District Employee

District Outside Educational

Expert

Additional members

Special Education School Improvement Specialist (SESIS) Representative

N/A N/A

Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network (RBE-RN) Representative

N/A N/A

Additional Team Members (Add rows as necessary) Ms. Tracy Farrell

Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction, and Grants Management

Dr. Steven Rappleyea Executive Director of Special Education

Ms. Sonia White

Director of Curriculum /Instruction /Evaluation

Mr. Mario Fernandez Director of Elementary Education

Poughkeepsie City School District – Charles B. Warring Elementary School May 2016

2


3

School Information Sheet for Charles B. Warring Elementary School

School Configuration (2015-16 data)

Grade Configuration

K-5 Total Enrollment 385 SIG Recipient YES

Types and Number of English Language Learner Classes (2015-16)

# Transitional Bilingual 39 # Dual Language 28 # Self-Contained English as a Second Language

2

Types and Number of Special Education Classes (2015-16)

# Special Classes 7 # SETSS N/A # Integrated Collaborative Teaching 5

Types and Number of Special Classes (2015-16)

# Visual Arts 1 # Music 0 # Drama 0

# Foreign Language 0 # Dance 0 # CTE 0

School Composition (most recent data)

% Title I Population 100 % Attendance Rate 96.9

% Free Lunch 82.3 % Reduced Lunch 2.0

% Limited English Proficient 17.9 % Students with Disabilities 21.6

Racial/Ethnic Origin (most recent data)

% American Indian or Alaska Native 1.2 % Black or African American 50.7

% Hispanic or Latino 7.8 % Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.5

% White 31.9 % Multi-Racial 7.8

Personnel (most recent data)

Years School leader Assigned to School .25 # of Assistant School leaders 1

% of Teachers with No Valid Teaching Certificate 0 % Teaching Out of Certification 3.3

% Teaching with Fewer Than 3 Years of Experience 3.3 Average Teacher Absences 1.9

Student Performance for Elementary and Middle Schools (2014-15)

ELA Performance at levels 3 & 4 20 Mathematics Performance at levels 3 & 4 15

Science Performance at levels 3 & 4 (4th Grade) 25 Science Performance at levels 3 & 4 (8th Grade) N/A

Student Performance for High Schools (2014-15)

ELA Performance at levels 3 & 4 N/A Mathematics Performance at levels 3 & 4 N/A

Global History Performance at levels 3 & 4 N/A US History Performance at Levels 3&4 N/A

4 Year Graduation Rate N/A 6 Year Graduation Rate N/A

Regents Diploma w/ Advanced Designation N/A % ELA/Math Aspirational Performance Measures N/A

Overall NYSED Accountability Status (2014-15)

Reward N/A Recognition N/A

In Good Standing N/A Local Assistance Plan N/A

Focus District X 2015

Focus School Identified by a Focus District X

Priority School X 2016

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

DID NOT MEET Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in ELA (2013-14)

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 Black or African American 107

Hispanic or Latino 48 Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0

White 15 Multi-Racial 0

Students with Disabilities 34 Limited English Proficient 20

Economically Disadvantaged 164 ALL STUDENTS 192

DID NOT MEET Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in Mathematics (2013-14)






DID NOT MEET Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in Science (2013-14)






Identify the school’s top priorities (no more than 5) based on the school’s comprehensive plans (SCEP, SIG, DIP, etc.):

1. To ensure that the master schedule is created in an equitable manner to facilitate professional development for

instructional staff, student access to Title I services, as well as compliance with NYSED regulations Part 200 & 154. 2. To ensure that there is marked improvement in the students’ academics, attendance, and behaviors. 3. To ensure that there is compliance with PCSD non-negotiable(s) focused on improving instructional planning and

data driven instruction. 4. To vastly improve the parent and community involvement in our school building.


4

Information about the review

The review was co-led by Tracy Farrell, Assistant Superintendent, and Debra Jackson, a district-selected Outside Educational Expert with REACH. The team also included three district leaders: Ms. Sonia White, Dr. Steven Rappleyea, and Mr. Mario Fernandez.

Dr. Debra Jackson was responsible for providing oversight on this review to ensure it aligned to the DTSDE vision and review protocols.

The review team visited a total of 22 classrooms during the two-day review.

Reviewers conducted focus groups with students, staff, and parents

Reviewers examined documents provided by the school including: curriculum maps, lesson plans, schoolwide data, teacher feedback, and student work.

The school leader was appointed in January 2016. In addition to this school leader being appointed recently; the previous school leader had only been in place since July 2015.

The Assistant School Leader supported the building half-time beginning in September 2015. As of February 29, 2016, the Assistant School Leader has been assigned on a full-time basis.

The transformation team consisting of stakeholders from each grade level, special education, school clinical, as well as invites to parents and community members, was newly developed in February 2016.

The school is awaiting the appointment of a teacher assistant to provide coverage to classrooms so that the other teaching assistants can provide coverage in the computer lab to assist with providing support for students on instructional technology implemented in the district (i.e., Imagine Learning).

Tenet 2 - School Leader Practices and Decisions: Visionary leaders create a school community and culture that lead to success, well-being and high academic outcomes for all students via systems of continuous and sustainable school improvement.

# Statement of Practice Stage 4

Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

2.2 The school leader ensures that the school community shares the Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Results-oriented, and Timely (SMART) goals/mission, and long-term vision inclusive of core values that address the priorities outlined in the School Comprehensive Educational Plan (SCEP).

2.3 Leaders make strategic decisions to organize programmatic, human, and fiscal capital resources.

2.4 The school leader has a fully functional system in place aligned to the district's Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) to conduct targeted and frequent observation and track progress of teacher practices based on student data and feedback.

2.5 Leaders effectively use evidence-based systems and structures to examine and improve critical individual and school-wide practices as defined in the SCEP (student achievement, curriculum and teacher practices; leadership development; community/family engagement; and student social and emotional developmental health).


5

OVERALL RATING FOR TENET 2: 2

Tenet 3 - Curriculum Development and Support: The school has rigorous and coherent curricula and assessments that are appropriately aligned to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) for all students and are modified for identified subgroups in order to maximize teacher instructional practices and student-learning outcomes.


Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

3.2 The school leader ensures and supports the quality implementation of a systematic plan of rigorous and coherent curricula appropriately aligned to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) that is monitored and adapted to meet the needs of students.

3.3 Teachers develop and ensure that unit and lesson plans used include data-driven instruction (DDI) protocols that are appropriately aligned to the CCLS and NYS content standards and address student achievement needs.

3.4 The school leader and teachers have developed a comprehensive plan for teachers to partner within and across all grades and subjects to create interdisciplinary curricula targeting the arts, technology, and other enrichment opportunities.

3.5 Teachers implement a comprehensive system for using formative and summative assessments for strategic short and long-range curriculum planning that involves student reflection, tracking of, and ownership of learning.


Tenet 4 - Teacher Practices and Decisions: Teachers engage in strategic practices and decision-making in order to address the gap between what students know and need to learn, so that all students and pertinent subgroups experience consistent high levels of engagement, thinking, and achievement.


Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

4.2 School and teacher leaders ensure that instructional practices and strategies are organized around annual, unit, and daily lesson plans that address all student goals and needs.

4.3 Teachers provide coherent, and appropriately aligned Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS)-based instruction that leads to multiple points of access for all students.

4.4 Teachers and students work together to implement a program/plan to create a learning environment that is responsive to students’ varied experiences and tailored to the strengths and needs of all students.

4.5 Teachers inform planning and foster student participation in their own learning process by using a variety of summative and formative data sources (e.g., screening, interim measures, and progress monitoring).


Tenet 5 - Student Social and Emotional Developmental Health: The school community identifies, promotes, and supports social and emotional development by designing systems and experiences that lead to healthy relationships and a safe, respectful environment that is conducive to learning for all constituents.


6


Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

5.2 The school leader establishes overarching systems and understandings of how to support and sustain student social and emotional developmental health and academic success.

5.3 The school articulates and systematically promotes a vision for social and emotional developmental health that is aligned to a curriculum or program that provides learning experiences and a safe and healthy school environment for families, teachers, and students.

5.4 All school stakeholders work together to develop a common understanding of the importance of their contributions in creating a school community that is safe, conducive to learning, and fostering of a sense of ownership for providing social and emotional developmental health supports tied to the school’s vision.

5.5 The school leader and student support staff work together with teachers to establish structures to support the use of data to respond to student social and emotional developmental health needs.


Tenet 6 - Family and Community Engagement: The school creates a culture of partnership where families,

community members, and school staff work together to share in the responsibility for student academic

progress and social-emotional growth and well-being.


Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

6.2 The school leader ensures that regular communication with students and families fosters their high expectations for student academic achievement.

6.3 The school engages in effective planning and reciprocal communication with family and community stakeholders so that student strength and needs are identified and used to augment learning.

6.4 The school community partners with families and community agencies to promote and provide training across all areas (academic and social and emotional developmental health) to support student success.

6.5 The school shares data in a way that promotes dialogue among parents, students, and school community members centered on student learning and success and encourages and empowers families to understand and use data to advocate for appropriate support services for their children.


Tenet 2 - School Leader Practices and Decisions: Visionary leaders create a school

community and culture that lead to success, well-being, and high academic outcomes for

all students via systems of continuous and sustainable school improvement.

Tenet Rating Stage 2

The school is in Stage 2 for Tenet 2 – School Leader Practices and Decisions.


7

The school leader, along with the transformation team, has developed a vision and mission statement

with long-term goals. However, while many stakeholders are aware of the school’s vision it was not

universally known. During the vertical teacher meeting, teachers were able to speak specifically to the

vision and mission. Teachers cited the goal was to develop life-long learners, build character, provide

students with the ability to use what they learned and take it out into the community even at young

ages, develop the ability for students to collaborate, and engagement is a top priority. The school

leader noted there is a board with the learning targets for all visitors to see. Additionally, the vision

and mission statements are posted in all classrooms and the school leader reads the statement each

morning to the student body during announcements. Parents told reviewers they were not aware of

the school’s mission and goals given the changes in school leaders. It should be noted that the current

school leader took over on January 4, 2016. The lack of full participation by all stakeholders limits the

supports students can receive from the community.

The school leader has re-aligned the schedule to create common prep times. This has enabled the

leaders to embed professional development during the common planning time for teachers. The

school leader also realigned the schedule for AIS support so all students receive AIS services.

Additionally, the school leader stated, “With the new time periods, I can bring teachers into the

Focused Instructional Learning Walks (FILWs). 13 out of 18 teachers have been on the team with us.”

Reviewers noted that due to the leader’s limited tenure in the school, systems have not yet been

established to support the transformational changes that have begun. The changes, while supported

by staff, have not evolved from documented plans based on the vision. The lack of an articulated long-

range plan limits the ability of all stakeholders to develop unified next steps.

The school leader shared there is a data driven mission he has connected to the APPR. There is a

behavioral database that connects to student achievement data and the leader is in the process of

helping everyone understand how it all comes together. He stated, “We debrief with the teachers

week-to-week at staff meetings. Everyone is there to see what the learning targets are. Everyone is

focused and intentional.” A teacher also shared in the vertical team meeting, “They (the teachers) are

very pleased with the 48-hour response time from the school leader to provide feedback from the

FILWs.” The quality feedback being provided to and with teachers has begun a positive instructional

dialogue within the school culture.

The staff has not yet implemented building-wide data systems. The school leader stated to the

reviewers, “Teachers are using the data: information the students learned, applying best practices, and

progress monitoring.” He further indicated there is a focus on identifying the amount of time on task

and the quality of instruction, which leads to student achievement. However, due to the lack of

planning by teachers there was limited evidence of data being used in the classroom. The school

leader also shared his data system with the reviewers, “My ACT (Academics, Conduct Timeliness)

system keeps track of merits points earned every day and emulates the Superintendent’s model.”

However, the data system is not consistent noting participation by teachers is not required. It should

be noted that the program defaults to indicate success by all students unless otherwise noted by staff.

This lack of a required system does not support informed decision making for continuous building wide

improvement.


8

Recommendation:

The school leaders should develop and implement a plan involving all stakeholders in the

implementation of SMART goals that aligns to the long-term vision.

Schools leaders should ensure teachers use data to target the academic needs of individual

students and align student needs to specific programs within the school day with the extended

day programs.

The school leaders should continue the FILWs to analyze and use data reflecting the strengths

and areas needing improvement, in order to modify and revise instructional practices.

The school leader should establish regular data-driven meetings with explicit protocols where

teachers analyze individual student data to provide students with interventions to increase the

achievement levels of all students.

Tenet 3 - Curriculum Development and Support: The school has rigorous and coherent

curricula and assessments that are appropriately aligned to the Common Core Learning

Standards (CCLS) for all students and are modified for identified subgroups in order to

maximize teacher instructional practices and student-learning outcomes.


The school is in Stage 1 for Tenet 3 – Curriculum Development and Support.

The school leader spoke to building trust and his belief in transparency so that teachers can understand

how to work together to develop a CCLS curriculum that supports the needs of the students, adding, “It

was not about being compliant but being pragmatic.” He cited that Core Knowledge Language Arts

(CKLA) is used with fidelity in grades one and two with a reading writing block adding, “we would see

the use of the expeditionary modules in some classrooms along with other supplementary material

such a GoMath.” The work on pacing the curriculum with the appropriate levels of differentiation had

just been launched the week prior to the DTSDE school review. In the vertical teacher meeting

classroom teachers spoke of “unpacking the modules,” and evidence of these charts for grade 4 were

posted in the office. He also spoke to the difficulty of implementing CCLS strategies consistently into

classroom practices. In the majority of the classrooms, non-common core materials were used. For

example, the following materials were used in classrooms Rocket Math, DIBELS, SRA McGraw Hill, Evan

Moor Corp., Curriculum Based Assessment (CBM), and Gatewayto21. The school leader’s pragmatic

view is not ensuring that teachers understand how to provide a rigorous curriculum that meets the

needs of students.

The school leader built common planning time into the school day yet there was no evidence that the

time was used to support planning, assessment, or data-driven instruction. The school leader shared

with the reviewers he had asked the teachers to “think about the professional learning targets, to

include them in the lesson plans and to make sure they are standards based, EngageNY etc.” The lack

of collaboratively developed lesson plans that incorporate data driven instruction limits the ability of


9

students to have the necessary sequence and rigorous skill development.

Interdisciplinary curricula were non-existent. The teachers of the arts, technology, physical education

or other enrichment subject areas were not partnered with classroom teachers for meetings or

curriculum development. In the classroom, further disconnects were noted; for example, in one class

the teacher was attempting to instruct ELA units without the knowledge of literacy based instruction.

Students were, therefore, not receiving quality ELA instruction when in the class and with the focus on

ELA they were not receiving quality enrichment in the arts. Students and parents spoke to the

behavioral issues in these classrooms that are not being addressed. The lack of interdisciplinary

opportunities and strong enrichment opportunities has a negative impact on student engagement.

The school leader encourages the staff to use a data driven system aligned to the CCLS, yet teachers

are not engaging in these discussions. At the Grade Level meeting the school leader opened by

reviewing the process and framework for discussions to be held during the day’s events. After

describing a process that would include the collection of student data, the principal left the meeting for

the teachers to work. The meeting was characterized by informal staff conversations regarding varied

anecdotal data and the charts were not utilized a half-hour into the meeting. Rather the staff was

involved in elbow partner conversations with peers. Comments such as “The little A… you will get next

year is like T... but I think she is a little above. T… is not there yet but she is trying.” These exchanges

did not use data; rather there were many one – on – one-shared biased perspectives on students’

environments and lack of home-to-school support. By not using data and assessments to inform and

modify the curriculum, the teachers are not developing quality units to inform instruction.

Recommendation:

The school leaders should design professional development to build teachers’ capacity on how

to plan for and deliver a rigorous curriculum.

Teachers should develop lesson plans that support a rigorous CCLS curriculum that

incorporates student needs, complex materials, and higher order questions with formative

assessments.

The school leaders should create frequent opportunities to structure content level planning

meetings for interdisciplinary curriculum development.

Tenet 4 - Teacher Practices and Decisions: Teachers engage in strategic practices and

decision-making in order to address the gap between what students know and need to

learn, so that all students and pertinent subgroups experience consistent high levels of

engagement, thinking, and achievement.


The school is in Stage 1 for Tenet 4 – Teacher Practices and Decisions.

Throughout the school, teachers were not using instructional practices or interventions to address

individual student needs. In the majority of classrooms, students were physically grouped by sets of

twos or fours; however, the class instruction was delivered in a whole group manner. For example, in


10

one classroom, while one teacher directed the lesson from the Smart Board, the second teacher

remained in the back of the classroom watching the presentation. When the opportunity to assist

students presented, both teachers watched as students struggled with answering the questions on the

Smart Board. Instead of assisting students who were struggling, the presenting teacher reviewed the

answers. Due to this often-utilized, whole group approach to instructional delivery, this did not

provide opportunities to address struggling students and did not provide insight into addressing the

learning needs of students.

In the majority of classrooms observed, teachers were using a variety of instructional resources not

aligned to the CCLS. In addition, lesson plans were not made available and the posted information in

the classroom did not indicate the lesson objectives. In some rooms where the “Smart Charts” were

present they did not include information relevant to the lesson. In a class with special needs students,

the co-teacher was not present. Students were observing a “Bill Nye Science Guy” video, which was 22-

minute long. They were sitting in clusters with some observing, some fiddling under the desk, or eyes

nodding. A visually impaired student was at the back of the room. All students require multiple points

of access with the CCLS aligned curriculum for high levels of achievement.

Reviewers noted that the classroom questioning techniques were limited to students being asked basic

content knowledge. For example, one teacher said, “If you are collecting evidence you are looking for

what?” The same teacher also asked a student to “Look in your cereal box and look for the two

characters that are important to the story.” Then, without wait time, the teacher pulled out papers for

the student to look at and directed him to refer to the paper for the correct answer. Another

classroom had students sitting at desks working on a worksheet. This worksheet was also displayed on

the mimeo board at the front of the room with questions such as: “Is an ant big? Can a cat swing a bat?

Can a man sit? Is the sun hot?” The teacher circulated the room and asking students questions to

guide them to the correct answer. For example, “Can a cat swing a bat?” The student responded “no.”

The teacher directed students to continue to work on the back of the worksheet if they were done with

the front. Without an environment that supports student inquiry, students are not able to have

rigorous connections with the learning.

The majority of classrooms observed had teacher-lead interactions. Teachers and student responses

were generally characterized by single word answers or limited feedback. In an example, a first grade

teacher began her lesson with, “Who remembers the letter pattern we looked at last time?” When

two students attempted to answer her question, the teacher ignored their attempt to respond. The

teacher continued with the lesson explaining several objectives in rapid fashion. The lack of quality

instructional strategies and questioning limits student engagement and learning. In another classroom,

the reviewer asked students what they were working on. Students shared they needed to write their

goals on their performance tracker sheet. When asked what the performance tracker sheet was, a

student said, “It helps you keep track of your goals so that you don’t get confused.” The reviewer

asked if they always meet their goals and the students in the group responded “Yes or sometimes.”

Students were able to use the “goal” language but these were not individualized for the students. In

these examples, and others, the student goals were general and not personalized to the individualized

student learning needs. Purposeful data based instruction is necessary if individual student learning


11

needs are to be achieved.

Reviewers noted that the primary model to deliver instruction and provide feedback to students was to

engage with the entire class simultaneously. Students were unable to know if their learning was

correct or incorrect. This disconnect was also evident in discussions with students when examining

their work. A second grade student, upon being asked what the red star on her worksheet meant,

indicated, “I did a good job.” When the reviewer pointed out there were several errors on her paper,

the second grader shrugged stating, “I thought I got a 100 (percent).” When asked if she understood

what the check-minus symbol on her paper meant, the student understood she had some responses

that were correct and some that were incorrect. The check-minus symbol was the only feedback and

the student could not tell which responses were right or wrong. Several students who participated in

the focus group stated a similar lack of understanding of teacher feedback. Without quality and timely

data based feedback, students cannot own their own learning and reflect on their progress.

Recommendation:

The school leaders should employ the district partner instructional coaches in supporting

interventions that address the students’ individual data-driven learning goals.

Teachers should develop lesson plans that lead to a high level of rigor and relevance, and

engage students with multi-modal learning styles.

Teachers should provide for purposeful student groupings based on focused, data-driven

feedback.

The school leaders should provide teachers with strategies, protocols, and expectations for

using summative and formative data that leads to targeted instruction and is responsive to the

needs of the subgroups of all students.

Tenet 5 - Student Social and Emotional Developmental Health: The school community

identifies, promotes, and supports social and emotional development by designing

systems and experiences that lead to healthy relationships and a safe, respectful

environment that is conducive to learning for all constituents.


The school is in Stage 1 for Tenet 5 – Student Social and Emotional Developmental Health.

The student support staff, when discussing vision and mission, indicated that the focus for student

social emotional growth stems from “taking them from where they are and helping them fill the gaps.

Character piece is a big part of the vision that ties into what we do but in terms of the bigger picture

from a tier one perspective, we have been trying to use a tier one approach; this is daunting as we are

split in the buildings.” The Support Staff shared there are specific counseling goals in place; yet they

were not able to share these goals with the reviewers. They did say; however, it is difficult for staff to

attend to the academic needs with the number of social and emotional needs in the building. The

student support staff indicated their role is focused on relieving some of the family stressors and

connecting with community resources to bring in needed food, clothing, shelter, and coping skills. The


12

school’s vision and systems for social and emotional developmental health have not removed barriers

to learning allowing students to be academically successful.

The student support staff indicated the building has been utilizing and establishing the Second Step

program through the mental health program last year and the year before. A staff member stated, “All

materials are in place; however, we now need to push for teachers to incorporate into scheduling and

prioritize to implement.” The school leader has established assemblies every month but pride tickets

are used inconsistently in the building. The lack of consistency in social-emotional learning and skilled-

based instruction for all students limits student positive engagement in school.

The support staff indicated that the PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems) curriculum has a

home-school connection piece; however, all that is currently done are ad hoc parent conversations and

homework is sent to parents to reinforce academics at home. The lack of collaboration among all

stakeholders does not provide for ownership and; therefore, lacks social and emotional supports all

students.

The school leader has not made the use of data a priority to identify student needs connected to social

and emotional developmental health. The student support staff indicated that Instructional Support

Team (IST) meetings are held but, as the staff is split between two buildings, it makes it difficult to be

at all meetings. A member added, “Data is used specifically for counseling and behavioral rating scales

for children’s function to get a baseline. Self-reports from students are used to get their perspective

and structure observations of students are used to create goals for students.” The support staff

indicated that information is not formally shared with teachers unless it is brought into IST. Systems for

tracking communication to parents are not kept consistently. One staff member commented, “Some

teachers have a log, but not all. The psychologist uses a sticky note and places it in the students file to

indicate a contact with parent was made.” By not using a proactive model for tracking student social-

emotional supports or successes, the school will continue to have barriers to student learning.

Recommendation:

The school staff should develop a system whereas each student is well known by an adult to

support social emotional development.

The school should schedule the Second Step program into the school day and utilize building-wide

systemic social-emotional supports for all students with intentionality to strengthen the home-

school connection.

The school leaders and staff should coordinate a central data dashboard, or primary instrument,

to eliminate data silos across stakeholders so that meaningful data is gathered and analyzed to

inform supports for each student.

Tenet 6 - Family and Community Engagement: The school creates a culture of

partnership where families, community members, and school staff work together to

share in the responsibility for student academic progress and social-emotional growth



13

and well-being.

The school is in Stage 1 for Tenet 6 – Family and Community Engagement.

The school leader has yet to develop a plan that includes school wide expectations for strong home-to-

school communication that support the vision. Parents provided specific examples to the reviewers of

communication miss-steps about their children by teachers. In their words, simply being told an issue

would be taken care of was not “communicating.” They spoke about children being unable to

participate in activities and parents not being notified. They cited teachers not being responsive to

them when they are in the building, adding it felt disrespectful. It is important to note they also were

able to provide examples of a few teachers who were approachable, who took time to communicate,

and who attended the evening parent-teacher organization meetings. The parents did share that the

current school leader is very approachable saying, “You can drop-in and speak or get an appointment.“

This view of the school leader is consistent with his vision. However, without inclusive partnerships

with families, students cannot reach their potential.

Partnerships between school and families are not yet established and school-to-home communication

does not meet the needs of students or their families. In the words of a parent, “Nothing works here.

You need to know our kids. You need to meet us where we are at. You can’t compare our kids to Hyde

Park and Arlington.” Parents spoke about not feeling welcomed as they come to the building. They

identified numerous conflicts, such as fundraisers that are run by teachers which displace the PTA

fundraisers, a School leader’s school store that is different than the parent run school store,

newsletters from the school that are signed and returned and, therefore, not read. The lack of

reciprocal communication limits the ability of follow-through to support students.

Parents struggle to understand the data about their child. “The test they did, I don’t know what it says,

and it is hard to figure it out. They tell you to go on a website to figure it out.” Parents spoke about

going to the (district offered) Parent University classes which does help, but a parent also said, “If a

teacher can’t explain it and a counselor can’t explain it how can we understand it, the kids know a 3 or

4 is passing.” Another parent also cited Parent University saying, “I go the Parent University to try to

understand. They are doing division in a whole different mindset.” Parents were not comfortable with

the shifts and were looking to learn more, yet they were not confident that the teachers could help

them with their learning needs. The lack of parent training with teacher training impedes a shared

perspective on student outcomes.

Parents spoke to getting the results of the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) testing in the

beginning of the year. A parent indicated, “I don’t understand so I ask the school leader; I don’t even

bother with the teacher. They don’t explain.” Parents stated the importance of advocating for their

children but also were unable to establish the necessary relationships with the school staff. Without

quality relationships student learning needs and successes are inhibited.

Recommendation:

The school leader should create an annualized plan for reciprocal parent communication that


14

supports and informs the school’s vision and mission.

The school leader should reorganize the community engagement/transformation team to

include one-third parent members, one-third community members, and one-third school staff.

The school leader needs to develop a professional development plan for teachers that create

culturally responsive partnerships resulting in improved relationships between community,

parents, and staff.

The school leader and community/engagement transformation team need to develop an annualized

plan for sharing the data with parents that is also used to inform student intervention decision-

making.

Report Quality Assurance from the District

I certify that I have led this review on behalf of the district and assert that this District-led Review aligns with NYSED

expectations and protocols.

Name Dr. Debra Jackson

Title Outside Educational Expert

District Lead

Credential status

(Choose one)

Issued by NYSED on _________________________

Pending -- The requirements have been fulfilled, but I have yet to receive word from NYSED

Pending -- I have not yet fulfilled the requirements, but plan on doing so by the June 30,

2016.

N/A This is the only School Review with District Oversight and District-led review I am

responsible for.

Documents

DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS … · 2015-2016 School Year BEDS Code 131500010001 School Name Charles B. Warring Elementary School School Address 283 Mansion