School Improvement Plan Elementary (LAP)

SIP Template

1 | Page 11/19/2013

Implementation September 2016-June 2019

Terminal Park Elementary

School Improvement Plan

Elementary (LAP)

School Improvement Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on date?

SIP Template

2 | Page 11/19/2013

September 2016-June 2019

Auburn School District Strategic Plan

Aspiration: The Auburn School District aspires to be a world-class education system preparing all students to

be globally competitive for career, for college, and for life in the twenty-first century.

District Goal 1: Student Achievement All staff in the Auburn School District provide support, leadership, and guidance to ensure each

student meets or exceeds state and district standards, graduates on time, and is prepared for

career and college.

District Goal 2: Community Engagements All staff in the Auburn School District are accountable for engaging its diverse community as

partners to support and sustain a world-class education system.

District Goal 3: Policies and Resource Management Auburn School District policies and resources are aligned to the strategic plan.

School:


Date of SIP Team District Goal Review:

SIP Team Members:

Rachel Betts Michelle Clough Tom Dudley Rose Finley

Julie Gragg Maris Hanson Marlene Hanson John Harlor

Kristin Harlor Marissa Iams Tabitha Jumelet Jesslyn Kuzaro

Emily Mischke Wendy Parce Jessica Prochaska

SIP Template

3 | Page 11/19/2013

School Improvement Team Signatures 2015-2016

Date

Submitted:

Date of School

Board Approval:

Name Title/Position Signature

Tom Dudley Principal

Tabitha Jumelet Parent (incoming PTA president)

None Student None

Maris Hanson Community member (parent)

Marissa Iams Instructional Specialist

Emily Mischke Kindergarten teacher

Wendy Parce Grade 1 teacher

John Harlor Grade 2 teacher

Michelle Clough Grade 3 teacher

Kristin Harlor Grade 4 teacher

Marlene Hanson Grade 5 teacher

Jesslyn Kuzaro Language arts specialist

Rose Finley Learning specialist

Julie Gragg Counselor

Rachel Betts Para educator

Jessica Prochaska Para educator (parent)

Each team must include staff, students, families, parents, and community members.

SIP Template

4 | Page 11/19/2013

Signatures for Approval

Department of Student Learning

Heidi Harris Assistant Superintendent

Student Learning

Julie DeBolt Executive Director High

School/Post Secondary

Programs

Vicki Bates Assistant Superintendent

Technology

Department of School Programs

Ryan Foster Associate Superintendent

Principal Leadership and

School Programs

Rhonda Larson Assistant Superintendent

Family Engagement and

Student Services

Superintendent

Alan Spicciati

Superintendent

School Board

Anne Baunach School Board

Carol Seng School Board

Laurie Bishop School Board

Ray Vefik School Board

Ryan Van Quill School Board

SIP Template

5 | Page 11/19/2013

Executive Summary

Auburn School District Mission

In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become

ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.

Auburn School District Vision

The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will

maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.

School Mission

Ensuring positive, personalized learning for every student, every day.

School Vision

Empowering successful, lifelong learners.

Background Information

WAC 180-16-220

Requirements for School Improvement Plan Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined

by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a

school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a

continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and

update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to

establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WELPA, Credit

Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE.

SIP Template

6 | Page 11/19/2013

Stakeholder Input

The Terminal Park Elementary strategic improvement plan (SIP) team (also referred to as the

building leadership team, BLT) includes a variety of experienced staff, as well as input from

Parent Teacher Association (PTA) officers, to ensure that the perspectives of different

stakeholders are represented in our improvement planning. The SIP team held monthly meetings

throughout the 2015-2016 school year to provide feedback and insight on the SIP. A subgroup of

the SIP team participated in four formal training days and work sessions as well as many hours

of additional communication and work to develop the SIP, which was checked and approved by

the entire SIP team. This document provides a summary of what we discovered in our data

analysis as well as much of the specific data we analyzed to determine what our areas of

emphasis should be for action planning. The goals and action plans that follow represent input

from all the certificated staff who participated in needs assessment data analysis as well as other

feedback and idea brainstorming sessions that occurred during staff meetings throughout the

year. Even though all staff could not be included in the detailed work of the SIP team, they have

had opportunities to view planning documents and provide feedback throughout the SIP process.

While only a few parents and no students are involved directly with our SIP, the ideas of these

important stakeholders have been incorporated through the use of perceptual survey data,

communication with the PTA, and a variety of anecdotal data gathered by day-to-day

interactions. We value the participation of all of our stakeholders in our improvement efforts.

Highly Qualified Staff Learning Assistance Program (LAP) #5 LAP Component #5-Provide Instruction by Highly Qualified Teachers and

Paraprofessionals Systems Connections: AWSP Framework Criterion 6; Managing Resources ◻ Highly Qualified Certificated staff funded by LAP: 2 ◻ Highly Qualified Classified staff funded by LAP: 5 ◻ Not Highly Qualified: 0

Needs Assessment LAP #1 Systems Connections:

RCW 28A.165.005 CEL5D Assessments for Student Learning; Assessments & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion 3; Planning with Data

a. Data was used when developing programs to assist underachieving students: ◻DIBELS ◻MAP Reading ◻MAP Math ◻SBA Reading ◻SBA Math

Needs assessment was conducted on October 1, 2015.

Participants in our needs assessment included (per our building SIP process):

◻District Leadership ◻Principal

◻Teachers ◻Para Professionals

SIP Template

7 | Page 11/19/2013

◻Other School Staff ◻Students ◻Parents

b. The LAP plan focuses first on addressing the needs of students in grades

kindergarten through 4 who are deficient in reading or reading readiness skills

to improve reading literacy.

Grade

Level

Readiness (# of Students)

Reading (# of Students)

Math Extended Day (# of Students)

K 27

1 25 15

2 36 17

3 24 14

4 8 17

Demographic Data

Terminal Park Elementary serves an ethnically, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse

population. Terminal Park has a current K-5 student population of approximately 450 students,

which has increased by about 30 students since a year ago, partly due to the addition of two SLC

classrooms, but has consistently been around 415 for the past decade. We also have about 35

preschool students, which are not represented in the demographic data. Here are some notable

changes in demographics within the past decade:

Our Hispanic/Latino population has increased from 14.3% in 2005-2006 to 19.1% in

2012-2013 to 23.8% in 2014-2015.

Our Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander population has doubled from 3.6% in 2011-

2012 to 7.3% in 2014-2015.

Our low income population has increased from 60.6% in 2005-2006 to 64.4% in 2011-

2012 to 72.9% in 2014-2015.

Our ELL population has increased from 13.5% in 2005-2006 to 17.1% in 2012-2013 to

24.9% in 2014-2015.

SIP Template

8 | Page 11/19/2013

Overall stayed the same…Terminal Park has steadily increased over the past decade in

the number of minority students, students receiving free or reduced-price meals, and

English language learners. Hispanic population growth...(See demographic table below.)

Give specifics for ELL/free-reduced…Doubled transitional bilingual…

Discipline Analysis

Terminal Park Elementary’s approach to student behavior is significantly influenced by PBIS

(Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports), which is a compilation of best practices

supported by research and data. Part of this approach is to track data in regard to positive

incentives as well as disciplinary action.

Use of positive incentives increased from 2012-2013 but then decreased from 2013-2014

to 2014-2015.

Suspensions increased from 41 in 2012-2013 to 75 in 2013-2014 but then decreased to 21

in 2014-2015.

While administrator disciplinary referrals decreased significantly from 2013-2014 to

2014-2015, referrals for black students increased from a total of 21 to 38 and referrals for

multicultural students increased from a total of 42 to 67.

Attendance Analysis

In 2014-2015, 16.6% of students at Terminal Park were chronically absent, compared to 19.41%

for Auburn School District. However, in the same year, 33.3% of ELL students at Terminal Park

were chronically absent, compared to 16.37% for the district.

Data Analysis- DIBELS

Overview

The Dynamic Indicator of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is a nationally-normed fluency

assessment administered to all Terminal Park students three times a year (and used for monthly

progress monitoring). Data from the assessment is compared to students within the district and

across the country to assess literacy skills. Those students not meeting benchmark are more

frequently assessed to ensure adequate progress toward expectations. Individual student progress

is communicated to parents at least three times a year (and we are working toward a monthly

communication system).

Strengths

The percentage of kindergarten students at-risk on DIBELS decreased from 32% in the

fall of 2014 to 6% in the spring of 2015 (based on DIBELS former goals).

The percentage of 1st grade students at benchmark in the spring of 2015 was 71%, up

from 39% in the fall of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).

The percentage of 4th grade students at-risk on DIBELS decreased from 19% in the fall of

2014 to 9% in the spring of 2015.

SIP Template

9 | Page 11/19/2013

Areas for Growth The percentage of kindergarten students at benchmark decreased from 87% in the spring

of 2012 to 68% in the spring of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).

The percentage of 1st grade students at intensive increased from 9% in the spring of 2012

to 20% in the spring of 2014 (based on DIBELS former goals).

The percentage of 2nd grade students at benchmark in DIBELS decreased from 75% in

the spring of 2014 to 41% in the spring of 2015.

The percentage of 3rd grade students at benchmark in DIBELS decreased from 71% in the

winter of 2015 to 59% in spring 2015.

Data Analysis- MAPS

Overview The Measure of Academic Progress (MAPs) is given to second through fifth grade students at

Terminal Park in the fall, winter, and spring to measure progress and diagnose needs in reading

and math. Reading Strengths Terminal Park’s second through fifth grade students improved their mean RIT scores on the

MAPs reading assessment from the fall of 2014 to the spring of 2015. The second grade students

increased their average RIT score by 10 points, going from 171 in the fall of 2014 to 181 in the

spring of 2015. The third grade students increased their average RIT score by 5 points, going

from 189 in the fall of 2014 to 194 in the spring of 2015. The fourth grade students increased

their average RIT score by 8 points, going from 200 in the fall of 2014 to 208 in the spring of

2015. The fifth grade students increased their average RIT score by 5 points, going from 212 in

the fall of 2014 to 217 in the spring of 2015. Reading Areas for Growth The percentage of students that achieved either high-average or high scores (above 60th

percentile) on the MAPs reading assessment decreased between the fall of 2014 to the spring of

2015 in all grade levels. The percentage of proficient second grade students decreased from 30%

in the fall of 2014 to 15% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient third grade students

decreased from 39% in the fall of 2014 to 29% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of

proficient fourth grade students slightly decreased from 48% in the fall of 2014 to 46% in the

spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient fifth grade students decreased from 51% in the fall

of 2014 to 44% in the spring of 2015.

SIP Template

10 | Page 11/19/2013

Math Strengths Terminal Park’s second through fifth grade students improved their mean RIT scores on the

MAPs math assessment from the fall of 2014 to the spring of 2015. The second grade students

increased their average RIT score by 12 points, going from 175 in the fall of 2014 to 187 in the

spring of 2015. The third grade students increased their average RIT score by 10 points, going

from 189 in the fall of 2014 to 199 in the spring of 2015. The fourth grade students increased

their average RIT score by 9 points, going from 203 in the fall of 2014 to 212 in the spring of

2015. The fifth grade students increased their average RIT score by 9 points, going from 218 in

the fall of 2014 to 227 in the spring of 2015. In addition, the percentage of proficient fourth

grade students increased from 45% in the fall of 2014 to 56% in the spring of 2015. Math Areas for Growth The percentage of students that achieved either high-average or high scores (above 60th

percentile) on the MAPs math assessment decreased between the fall of 2014 to the spring of

2015 in grades three and five while staying the same in grade two. The percentage of proficient

second grade students remained the same from 27% in the fall of 2014 to 27% in the spring of

2015. The percentage of proficient third grade students decreased from 40% in the fall of 2014 to

29% in the spring of 2015. The percentage of proficient fifth grade students slightly decreased

from 54% in the fall of 2014 to 52% in the spring of 2015.

Data Analysis- WELPA

Overview The annual WELPA (Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment) is given to all

students who qualified for ELD services with a Placement Test. It measures students’ growth in

English language knowledge and skills. Results from this test determine which students are

eligible to continue to receive ELD services. Strengths In 2014-2015, 18.7% of Terminal Park 3rd graders transitioned out of ELL compared to 11.0%

for the district and 13.5% for the state. Areas for Growth In 2014-2015, 6.2% of Terminal Park 4th graders transitioned out of ELL compared to 13.5% for

the district and 16.5% for the state.

SIP Template

11 | Page 11/19/2013

Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey

Overview The Center of Educational Effectiveness survey is administered to staff, parents, and fifth-grade

students every two years. The purpose of this survey is to provide perceptual data for the

development of the school in regard to the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools.

Each characteristic is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (almost never true to almost always true). Strengths In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated higher than high-improving

schools in the following areas: “collaboration and communication” and “high standards and

expectations.” Areas for Growth In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated lower than high-improving

schools in the following areas: “clear and shared focus,” “parent and community involvement,”

“curriculum, instruction, and assessment,” “monitoring of teaching and learning,” “cultural

responsiveness,” and “district support for improvement;” the lowest of these being: “parent and

community involvement,” “cultural responsiveness,” and “district support for improvement; the

lowest below high-improving schools being: “parent and community involvement.”

Data Analysis- SBA ELA

State Testing Overview State testing occurs every spring for all third through fifth grade students at Terminal Park. This

includes the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for English language arts (ELA) and math at

each grade level and the measurement of student progress (MSP) for science at grade 5. Strengths

56.6% of third grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in ELA in the

spring of 2015, which was 4.5% higher than the state average of 52.1%. This was an

increase from being nearly 12% below the state average of meeting standard in reading in

the spring of 2014.

72.6% of fifth graders at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in ELA in the spring of

2015, which was 15% higher than the state average of 57.6%. Areas for Growth

Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the

spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for third grade students was 66.4%

compared to 56.6% at Terminal Park.

Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the

spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for fourth grade students was 56.9%


While 45.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the

spring of 2015, 59.9% of low income fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet

standard.

SIP Template

12 | Page 11/19/2013

While 27.3% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the

spring of 2015, 38.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet

standard.

Data Analysis- SBA Math

Strengths 64.1% of third grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the

spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 56.7%.

56.5% of fourth grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the

spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 54%. 69.3% of fifth grade students at Terminal Park demonstrated proficiency in math in the

spring of 2015, which is above the state average of 48.1% and the district average of

60%. Areas for Growth

Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in math in the

spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for third grade students was 67.3%


Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in math in the

spring of 2015. The district average for proficiency for fourth grade students was 64.4%


While 43.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the


standard.

While 30.6% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the

spring of 2015, 45.5% of low income fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meetstandard.

Data Analysis- MSP Science

At Terminal Park, 63.7% of the fifth grade students achieved proficiency in science on the MSP

in the spring of 2015, which outperformed both the district (56.8%) and the state (63.4%);

however, this continued a downward trend for Terminal Park over the past several years: 78% in

2012, 71.9% in 2013, and 65.4% in 2014.

Data Analysis- Credit Attainment, Honors/AP Enrollment

Not applicable.

Assessment Decisions – LAP#2 & #4

Assessment data is used regularly to evaluate progress by student, class, grade level, and the entire school. Assessment data helps us determine how we need to improve overall and how we need to support each individual student.

SIP Template

13 | Page 11/19/2013

Student Selection-

LAP Component #2-Plan Incorporated in SIP LAP Component #4-Coordination and Support to General Program System Connections RCW 28A.165.015 CEL5D Assessments for Student Learning; Assessments & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion 3; Planning with Data

a. Our building conducts a LAP program that addresses reading, writing, and/or

mathematics, as well as readiness skills associated with these content areas.

b. Students are identified for LAP as those students in kindergarten through

grade 4 who score below standard for his/her grade level using multiple

measures of performance, including the statewide student assessments or

other assessments and performance tools administered by the school or

district and who is identified by the district to receive LAP services.

Multiple Measures of Performance Include:

◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) screener Grades K-4 ◻Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) Grades 3 & 4 ◻Smarter Balanced Assessment Grades 3 & 4 ◻Teacher Rating Scale Grades K-4

Students with greatest academic deficits in basic skills as identified by

statewide, school and/or district assessments or other performance measures

are served in LAP.

#3 Methods and Strategies are Research-based

● Small group targeted instruction

● Additional learning time within the school day

● Extended learning math

● Summer school

#4 Coordination and Support to General Education

● Extended learning math taught by grade-level teachers

● Targeted professional learning

○ Reading specialist supports teachers and para educators

○ Instructional specialist supports teachers and para educators

● Professional Learning Communities

○ Data analysis to inform instruction

○ Collaboration to improve instruction (implement best practices)

#7 Parent Involvement

● Reading specialist and instructional specialist at case study meetings

● LAP parent night

● School monthly newsletter

SIP Template

14 | Page 11/19/2013

● Classroom newsletters

● Open house

● November parent-teacher conferences

● Family nights

● Home visits

● Kindergarten roundup and screening

● WaKIDS conferences for entering kindergarteners

Prioritized Challenges ELA

Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the

spring of 2015, 56.6% meeting standard compared to 66.4%.

Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in ELA in the


While 45.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the


standard.

While 27.3% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in ELA in the


standard.

Math

Terminal Park’s third grade students performed below the district average in math in the


Terminal Park’s fourth grade students performed below the district average in math in the


While 43.3% of all fourth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the


standard.

While 30.6% of all fifth graders at Terminal Park did not meet standard in math in the


standard.

Parent Involvement

In 2014-2015, 33.3% of ELL students at Terminal Park were chronically absent,

compared to 16.37% for the district.

In the fall of 2014, based on staff perception, Terminal Park rated the lowest in “parent

and community involvement” and “cultural responsiveness.”

SIP Template

15 | Page 11/19/2013

SMART Goal 1:

The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the ELA SBA will

increase from 62% in 2015 to 77% in 2019 (67% in 2017 and 72% in 2018).

SMART Goal 2:

The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the math SBA will

increase from 63% in 2015 to 78% in 2019 (68% in 2017 and 73% in 2018).

SMART Goal 3:

“Parent and community involvement” as measured by staff perception on the CEE survey will

increase from 3.6 in 2014 to 4.4 in 2020 (3.8 in 2016 and 4.1 in 2018).

SIP Template

1 | Page 11/19/2013

Needs Assessment Data Documents

LAP #1

DIBELS Dashboard

DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Annual Progress (Take note that winter DIBELS testing occurred mid-February in 2014 versus beginning of January in 2015.)

Kindergarten – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress

2015-16 (DIBELS Next/former goals)



2012-13

2011-12

Kindergarten continuously enrolled

Year Fall (%) Spring (%) Change (%)

2014-15 30 25 45 4.8 22.2 73 -25.2 -2.8 +28

2013-14 46.2 20 33.8 9.2 21.5 69.2 -37 +1.5 +35.4

SIP Template

2 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 1 – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress




2012-13

2011-12

Grade 1 continuously enrolled


2014-15 38.5 18.5 43.1 18.5 7.7 73.8 -20 -10.8 +30.7

2013-14 38.5 17.3 44.2 25 11.5 63.5 -13.5 -5.8 +19.3


2015-16

2014-15

SIP Template

3 | Page 11/19/2013

2013-14

2012-13

2011-12



2014-15 30.2 17 52.8 32.1 28.3 39.6 +1.9 +11.3 -13.2

2013-14 13.2 17 69.8 9.4 13.2 77.4 -3.8 -3.8 +7.6


2015-16

2014-15

2013-14

2012-13

2011-12 (invalid)

SIP Template

4 | Page 11/19/2013



2014-15 16.7 16.7 66.7 20.4 20.4 59.3 +3.7 +3.7 -7.4

2013-14 27.8 37 35.2 14.8 42.6 42.6 -13 +5.6 +6.8


2015-16

2014-15

2013-14

2012-13

2011-12

Grade 4 continuously enrolled (not including STEP)


2014-15 22 36 42 14 34 52 -8 -2 +10

2013-14 21.2 13.5 65.4 9.6 23.1 67.3 -11.6 +9.6 +1.9

SIP Template

5 | Page 11/19/2013


2015-16

2014-15

2013-14

2012-13

2011-12

Grade 5 continuously enrolled (not including STEP)


2014-15 18 24 58 14 24 62 -4 0 +4

2013-14 11.3 18.9 69.8 9.4 15.1 75.5 -1.9 -2.9 +5.7

All (Grades K-5) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) annual progress

2014-15

K-1

2-5

SIP Template

6 | Page 11/19/2013

K-5 (n=429>416>401) 112/26% 80/19% 237/55% 71/17% 80/19% 271/65% 64/16% 75/19% 262/65%

2013-14

K-1

2-5

K-5 (n=424>414>413) 111/26% 76/18% 237/56% 56/14% 80/15% 296/71% 50/12% 77/19% 286/69%

DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress (Take note that winter DIBELS testing occurred mid-February in 2014 versus beginning of January in 2015.)

Kindergarten (class 2027) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress

2014-15 (current school year, former goals)

Grade 1 (class 2026) – DIBELS (fall>winter>spring) Cohort Progress

2014-15 (current school year, DIBELS Next/former goals)

2013-14 (when in Kindergarten, DIBELS Next/former goals)

SIP Template

7 | Page 11/19/2013


2014-15 (current school year)

2013-14 (when in grade 1, DIBELS Next/former goals)

2012-13 (when in Kindergarten)



2013-14 (when in grade 2)


2011-12 (when in kindergarten)




SIP Template

8 | Page 11/19/2013








SIP Template

9 | Page 11/19/2013

MAP Data Dashboard


MAP Data – READING

YEAR 3rd Fall

3rd Winter

3rd Spring

4th Fall

4th Winter

4th Spring

5th Fall

5th Winter

5th Spring

2013-14 75 – 100% 16%

(10) 10% (7)

10% (6)

42% (35)

45% (35)

45% (35)

36% (30)

41% (35)

36% (30)

50 – 74% 13% (8)

18% (12)

23% (14)

14% (12)

19% (15)

16% (12)

25% (21)

24% (21)

23% (19)

50-100% 29% 28% 33% 56% 64% 61% 61% 64% 59% 25 – 49% 22%

(14) 27% (18)

20% (12)

21% (18)

18% (14)

22% (17)

20% (17)

13% (11)

25% (21)

0 – 24% 49% (31)

45% (30)

47% (28)

23% (19)

18% (14)

18% (14)

18% (15)

22% (19)

16% (13)

Total Students 63 67 60 81 78 77 83 86 83 2014 - 15 75 – 100% 32%

(18) 22% (12)

40% (32)

33% (26)

19% (10)

9% (5)

50 – 74% 25% (14)

33% (18)

17% (14)

16% (13)

23% (12)

15% (8)

25 – 49% 18% (10)

20% (11)

14% (11)

16% (13)

19% (10)

30% (16)

0 – 24% 25% (14)

25% (14)

39% (24)

34% (27)

38% (20)

46% (25)

Total Students 56 55 81 79 52 54

YEAR

2nd Fall

2nd Winter

2nd Spring

2014 -15 75 – 100% 19%

(10) 9% (5)

50 – 74% 23% (12)

15% (8)

25 – 49% 19% (10)

30% (16)

0 – 24% 38% (20)

46% (25)

Total Students 52 54

SIP Template

10 | Page 11/19/2013


MAP Data – MATH

YEAR 3rd Fall

3rd Winter

3rd Spring

4th Fall

4th Winter

4th Spring

5th Fall

5th Winter

5th Spring

2013-14 75 – 100% 5%

(3) 5% (3)

10% (6)

34% (28)

37% (29)

45% (34)

37% (30)

34% (29)

41% (34)

50 – 74% 25% (16)

28% (19)

25% (15)

22% (18)

17% (13)

14% (11)

15% (12)

17% (15)

20% (17)

25 – 49% 22% (14)

27% (18)

25% (15)

13% (11)

19% (15)

18% (14)

20% (16)

26% (22)

17% (14)

0 – 24% 48% (31)

40% (27)

40% (24)

31% (25)

27% (21)

23% (18)

29% (24)

23% (20)

22% (18)

Total Students 64 67 60 82 78 77 82 86 83 2014 - 15 75 – 100% 23%

(13) 19% (10)

37% (30)

32% (25)

44% (34)

38% (29)

50 – 74% 23% (13)

28% (15)

13% (11)

18% (15)

19% (15)

21% (16)

25 – 49% 18% (10)

28% (15)

21% (17)

22% (17)

16% (12)

14% (11)

0 – 24% 36% (20)

26% (14)

30% (24)

28% (22)

21% (16)

27% (21)

Total Students 56 54 82 79 77 77

YEAR

2nd Fall

2nd Winter

2nd Spring

2014 -15 75 – 100% 13%

(7) 13% (7)

50 – 74% 22% (11)

15% (8)

25 – 49% 41% (21)

40% (21)

0 – 24% 24% (12)

32% (17)

Total Students 51 54 (1 invalid

score)

SIP Template

11 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 2 Reading

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 2 Math

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

SIP Template

12 | Page 11/19/2013

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 3 Reading

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 3 Math

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

SIP Template

13 | Page 11/19/2013

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 4 Reading

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

SIP Template

14 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 4 Math

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 5 Reading

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

SIP Template

15 | Page 11/19/2013

Fall 2014-2015

Grade 5 Math

Fall 2015-2016

Spring 2014-2015

Winter 2014-2015

Fall 2014-2015

SIP Template

16 | Page 11/19/2013

WELPA Results

SIP Template

17 | Page 11/19/2013

SIP Template

18 | Page 11/19/2013

SIP Template

19 | Page 11/19/2013

CEE Spider Chart (staff survey)

SIP Template

20 | Page 11/19/2013

Discipline Data

Tickets=Tiger Express Tickets, TPA = Tiger Pride Awards, TCA = Tiger Class Awards

Off = Disciplinary Offenses (admin referrals), SR =Study Room referrals, ED = Extended Day referrals, Su = Suspensions

* Total Extended Day referrals/total available extended day sessions

**Total suspensions for year (not daily average)

SIP Template

21 | Page 11/19/2013

2014-2015 administrator disciplinary referrals by race


SIP Template

22 | Page 11/19/2013


Attendance Data

Chronically absent students for the 2014-2015 school year:

Terminal Park ASD

All 16.6% 19.41%

ELL 33.3% 16.37%

SIP Template

23 | Page 11/19/2013

Demographic Chart

2005-2006 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Total fall/spring

enrollment 413 (fall) 412/396 397/439 414/416 411/413

Male/female % 51.6/48.4 55.8/44.2 53.7/46.3 50.2/49.8 49.9/50.1

Hispanic / Latino of

any race % 14.3 18.9 19.1 20.0 23.8

American Indian /

Alaskan Native % 1.7 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.7

Asian % N/A 4.9 5.5 4.8 4.1

Black / African

American 8.5 10.0 8.8 8.5 8.3

Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander %

N/A 3.6 5.0 6.8 7.3

White % 64.9 52.2 50.4 47.3 41.8

Two or More Races % N/A 9.5 10.8 11.8 13.9

Free or Reduced-Price

Meals % 60.6 64.4 72.4 70.9 72.9

Special Education % 10.6 13.4 12.5 9.4 10.2

Transitional Bilingual % 13.5 12.6 17.1 20.7 24.9

SIP Template

24 | Page 11/19/2013

AYP Results

SBA/MSP Results and trend charts

Grade 3 Reading/ELA

SIP Template

25 | Page 11/19/2013

SIP Template

26 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 3 Math

SIP Template

27 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 4 Reading/ELA

SIP Template

28 | Page 11/19/2013

SIP Template

29 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 4 Math

SIP Template

30 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 5 Reading/ELA

SIP Template

31 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 5 Math

SIP Template

32 | Page 11/19/2013

Grade 5 Science

SIP Template

33 | Page 11/19/2013

SMART Goal 1

Subject Area: English Language Arts (ELA)

School Name: Terminal Park

Target Population- based

on demographic, discipline and

attendance data analysis:

All students, with emphasis on ELL

Our Reality-based on

assessment data analysis:

Terminal Park ELA assessment scores are generally below district average:

Grade 3, spring 2015 SBA: 56.6 compared to 66.4


Our SMART Goal-based on

target population and your reality: The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the ELA SBA will increase from 62% in

2015 to 77% in 2019 (67% in 2017 and 72% in 2018).

Action Plan

Action Step Increase alignment of effective ELA curriculum and research-based instructional strategies across

grade levels, tiers of instruction, and programs.

Evidence of Implementation Evidence of Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility

All teachers use common

effective ELA curriculum and

materials

All teachers follow ELA

common grade-level pacing

schedule and stay within at

least 2 days of each other

Read Well (K-2)

Weekly passages (3-

5)

DIBELS (K-5)

Monthly

Monthly

Benchmark (Sept,

Jan, June) and

progress monitoring

(monthly)

District instructional materials:

-Step Up to Writing (K-5)

-District Writing Assessments and

ELA Performance Tasks (K-5)

-Weekly Passages (3-5)

-Harcourt

Curriculum common pacing schedule

template

Principal

IS

Reading specialist

Grade-level teachers

Specialists

SIP Template

34 | Page 11/19/2013

(district pacing guide

recommended)

Grade-level teachers update

public ELA pacing schedules

on common template at least

every two weeks

All teachers use common

effective ELA instructional

strategies, emphasizing ELL

best practices

MAPs (2-5)

District writing

assessments and

ELA performance

tasks (K-5)

IABs/ICAs

SBA (3-5)

Oct, Jan/Feb, May

Oct/Nov, Feb/March,

May/June

Sept-April

Annually

District pacing guide

Table with common gestures,

language, visuals, templates, etc.

Common posters (inventory)

WTR curriculum

CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP, SWRL

(speaking, writing, reading, listening)

PLC

Building 28 hours, etc.

Google

Para educators

Students

Parents

Action Step Improve use of ELA common assessment data to diagnose instructional needs and improve core

instruction, remediate for struggling students, and enrich students at or above standard.


Grade-level teachers create

grade-level ELA common

assessment schedules (to fit

within building common

assessment schedule) and

update them at least monthly

Read Well (K-2)

Weekly passages (3-

5)

DIBELS (K-5)

Monthly

Monthly

Benchmark (Sept,

Jan, June) and

progress monitoring

(monthly)

Curriculum pacing and assessment

calendar (common templates for grade-

levels)

Shared ELA data spreadsheet

PLC


Principal

IS

Reading specialist


Specialists

SIP Template

35 | Page 11/19/2013

All teachers record data in

shared ELA Google sheet

(within a week of assessment)

All teachers regularly review

ELA common assessment data

during PLC and other data

meetings

All teachers use data to

determine and execute specific

actions to meet grade-level,

whole-class, small-group, and

individual learning needs

MAPs (2-5)

District writing

assessments and

ELA performance

tasks (K-5)

IABs/ICAs

SBA (3-5)

Oct, Jan/Feb, May

Oct/Nov, Feb/March,

May/June

Sept-April

Annually

Assessments:

-Read Well (K-2)

-Weekly passages (3-5)

-DIBELS (K-5)

-MAPs (2-5)

-District writing assessments and ELA

performance tasks (K-5)

-IABs/ICAs

-SBA (3-5)

Google

Para educators

Students

Parents

Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 1: Student Achievement, Objectives 1-4

SMART Goal 2

Subject Area: Math







assessment data analysis:

Terminal Park math assessment scores are generally below district average:



SIP Template

36 | Page 11/19/2013


target population and your reality: The average percent of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 meeting standard on the math SBA will increase from 63% in

2015 to 78% in 2019 (68% in 2017 and 73% in 2018).

Action Plan

Action Step Increase alignment of effective math curriculum and research-based instructional strategies across

grade levels, tiers of instruction, and programs.


All teachers use effective

common math curriculum and

materials

All teachers follow math

common grade-level pacing

schedule and stay within at

least 2 days of each other

(district pacing guide

recommended)

Grade-level teachers update

public math pacing schedules

on common template at least

every two weeks

All teachers use effective

common math instructional

strategies, emphasizing ELL

best practices

Math fact fluency

Problem solving

Unit assessments

(Engage New York

module

assessments)

DSL domain

summative

assessments

DSL performance

tasks

Tri-skills K-1

MAPs (2-5)

IABs/ICAs

Monthly

Weekly

4-6 weeks

varies

varies

Nov, Feb, June

Oct, Jan/Feb, May

Sept-April

District instructional materials

-Problem Solving Practice/Assessment

Sets (3-5)

-Problem Solving Summative

Assessments (3-5)

-Performance Tasks (3-5)

-Engage New York (K-5)

-Trimester Skills Assessments (K-1)


Balanced math

Walk to math alignment meetings

(grades 2-5)

PLC


Table with common gestures,

language, visuals, templates, etc.

Principal

IS

Math learning

specialist


Specialists

Para educators

Students

Parents

SIP Template

37 | Page 11/19/2013

SBA (3-5) Annually Common posters (inventory)

CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP, SWRL

(speaking, writing, reading, listening)

Google

Action Step Improve use of math common assessment data to diagnose instructional needs and improve core

instruction, remediate for struggling students, and enrich students at or above standard.


Grade-level teachers create

grade-level math common

assessment schedules (to fit

within building common

assessment schedule) and

update them at least monthly

All teachers record data in

shared math Google sheet

(within a week of assessment)

All teachers regularly review

math common assessment data

during PLC and other data

meetings

All teachers use data to

determine and execute specific

actions to meet grade-level,

whole-class, small-group, and

individual math learning needs

Math fact fluency

Problem solving

Unit assessments

(Engage New York

module

assessments)

DSL domain

summative

assessments

DSL performance

tasks

Tri-skills K-1

MAPs (2-5)

Monthly

Weekly

4-6 weeks

varies

varies

Nov, Feb, June

Oct, Jan/Feb, May

District instructional materials

-Problem Solving Practice/Assessment

Sets (3-5)

-Problem Solving Summative

Assessments (3-5)

-Performance Tasks (3-5)

-Engage New York (K-5)

-Trimester Skills Assessments (K-1)

Common posters (inventory)


PLC


CEL 5D, GLAD, SIOP

Google

Principal

IS

Math learning

specialist


Specialists

Para educators

Students

Parents

SIP Template

38 | Page 11/19/2013

IABs/ICAs

SBA (3-5)

Sept-April

Annually

Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 1: Student Achievement, Objectives 1-4

SMART Goal 3

Subject Area: Parent Involvement







assessment data analysis: All Terminal Park assessment scores are generally below district average.


target population and your reality: “Parent and community involvement” as measured by staff perception on the CEE survey will increase from 3.6 in

2014 to 4.4 in 2020 (3.8 in 2016 and 4.1 in 2018).

Action Plan

Action Step Improve student attendance communication and collaboration among staff and parents.

Evidence of Implementation Evidence of

Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility

Grade-level teachers regularly

communicate to parents about

Overall attendance

percentages

(absence and tardy)

Nov, March, June

Attendance tracking spreadsheet

Skyward

Principal


SIP Template

39 | Page 11/19/2013

how attendance problems are

affecting their child’s progress

Attendance team schedules

attendance meetings with

parents to develop and execute

individualized attendance plans

Attendance team (and grade-

level teachers) reward students

for good attendance and

attendance improvements

for whole school

and subgroups

Percentage of

students with

excessive absences

Attendance

improvement

percentage for

students on

attendance

spreadsheet

Nov, March, June

Monthly

Monthly attendance team meetings

Monthly absence and tardy concern

letters (excessive absence and tardy

letters each trimester) to parents

Attendance action sheet (attendance

team maintains and shares with

relevant staff)

Counselor

Office staff

CIS coordinator

Parents

Students

Action Step Improve student learning progress communication and collaboration among staff and parents.

Evidence of Implementation Evidence of

Impact Timeline Resources Responsibility

Grade-level teachers share

curriculum and assessment

schedules with parents at least

monthly

Grade level teachers send home

DIBELS progress monitoring

graphs and math fluency scores

monthly

Grade level teachers initiate

two-way communication with

parents at least each trimester

Parent-teacher

conference

attendance

CEE data

Progress monitoring

graphs

November

Every other year

Monthly

Curriculum and assessment calendars

DIBELS

Parent involvement forms (parents

identify and communicate to teachers

how they will support their child at

home)

CEL 5D, student growth goal rubric

Principal

IS

Reading specialist

Math learning

specialist


Specialists

Para educators

SIP Template

40 | Page 11/19/2013

for all students and at least

monthly for struggling learners

Designated team develops

parent involvement forms for

grade-level teachers to send

home with all students at the

end of each trimester with

report cards and with

struggling learners at least

monthly with academic

progress data

Parents

Students

Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives: Goal 2: Community Engagement, Objective 1

SIP Template

41 | Page 11/19/2013

Professional Development and

Implementation Calendar Professional Development LAP #6 LAP Component #6- Provide Opportunities for Professional Development System Connections AWSP Framework Criterion # 5; Improving Instruction # 6: Managing Resources ◻ Targeted Professional Learning: Professional Development that is an on-going systematic process informed by evaluation of

student, teacher and school needs embedded in School Improvement Plan (SIP).

◻PDTIP Form (see attached)

◻SIP- PD implementation calendar plan and calendar with specificity (see attached) ◻Professional Learning Communities: Teachers meet on a regular, planned basis to analyze data and student work that will guide

their instructional strategies and planning to support struggling learners in meeting K-4 ELA standards.

Building Leadership meetings Monitoring Implementation and Impact

Program Effectiveness System Connections RCW 28A.165.100 CEL5D Assessment for Student Learning; Assessment & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion#8 Closing the Gap ◻LAP students’ entrance and exit performance data and LAP program will be evaluated.

◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning (DIBELS) K-4: pre/post

◻Measure of Academic Progress (MAP Test) Grades 3-5 pre/post

◻Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Gr. 3-5

◻Other assessment :< Identify assessment used and grade level>

◻ End of the Year Summary Report

SIP Template

42 | Page 11/19/2013

Data Reviews – Whole Staff and BLT and PLCs

Program Effectiveness- System Connections RCW 28A.165.100 CEL5D Assessment for Student Learning; Assessment & Adjustments AWSP Framework Criterion#8 Closing the Gap ◻LAP students’ entrance and exit performance data and LAP program will be evaluated.

◻Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning (DIBELS) K-4: pre/post

◻Measure of Academic Progress (MAP Test) Grades 3-5 pre/post

◻Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) Gr. 3-5

◻Other assessment :< Identify assessment used and grade level>

◻ End of the Year Summary Report

Implementation and Professional Development Calendar

LAP #6

2016-2017

Month Assessments BLT (1x90 min/month)

SIP work subgroups PLCs

PD meetings (2x45 min/month) Waiver days

Aug /

Sept

Aug 29 -

Aug 31 -

Sept 1 -

Sept

DIBELS benchmark MAPs (Sept 12-16) Math Fluency (by Sept 23)

BLT - Oct-Nov-Dec SIP -

Data meetings (spring/fall data to set up

programs) PLC 26 -

ELA 1(1) - 2(2) -

Oct DIBELS PM (2nd week) BLT - Nov-Dec-Jan PLC 3 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM Math

SIP Template

43 | Page 11/19/2013

Math Fluency (by Oct 21) SIP -

PLC 10 - PLC 17 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 24 - PLC 31 -

1(3) - 2(4) - Waiver 14 -

Nov

DIBELS PM (2nd week) Math Fluency (by Nov 22)

BLT - Dec-Jan-Feb SIP -

PLC 7 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 28 - DIBELS/WTR check

Parent involvement 1(5) -

Dec

DIBELS PM (2nd week) Math Fluency (by Dec 16)

BLT - Jan-Feb-March SIP -

PLC 5 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 12 -

All/reflection 1(6) -

Jan

DIBELS benchmark Math Fluency (by Jan 25)

BLT - Feb-March-April SIP -

PLC 9 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM PLC 16 - DIBELS/WTR check** PLC 23 - PLC 30 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM

ELA 1(7) - 2(8) -

Feb

MAPs (1st week) DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Feb 15)

BLT - March-April-May SIP -

Data meetings PLC 6 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 13 - PLC 27 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM

Math 1(9) - 2(10) -

Mar

DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Mar 21)

BLT - April-May-June/Aug SIP -

Waiver 6 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 13 - PLC 20 - PLC 27 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM

ELA 1(11) - 2(12) - Waiver 6 -

Apr

DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by Apr 19)

BLT - May-June/Aug-Sept SIP -

PLC 3 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 17 - PLC 24 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM

Math 1(13) - 2(14) -

May SBA DIBELS PM (last week) Math Fluency (by May 17)

BLT - June-Aug/Sept-Oct SIP -

PLC 1 - DIBELS/WTR check PLC 15 - PLC 22 - Math fluency/Tier 3/WTM

Parent involvement 1(15) - 2(16) -

SIP Template

44 | Page 11/19/2013

Waiver 8 -

Jun

MAPs DIBELS benchmark Math Fluency (by Jun 16)

BLT - Aug/Sept-Oct-Nov SIP -

All/reflection 1(17)- 2(18)-