Washington School Plan 2005/06

Washington Elementary School was a K-5 school with an enrollment of 306 in 2005/06. To review Washington's state Academic Performance Index scores since 2000 click here.

Disclaimer: Single School Plan were hand typed and transcribed from source documents. Please pardon the typos as the webmaster is a poor typist. While an effort was made to spell acronyms, here is a reference guide for those acronyms.

Single School Plan Components

Fall 2005

What Did You Learn from 2004/05 Cycle of Inquiry?

1. Looking at your data what general trends do you see? What does the data tell us about how the focus group did? How much progress did they make? How does this compare to growth of other subgroups? Is the student achievement gap closing?

11% more students at grade level on the CST ELA and the CST Math. 45% of our Title i students increased one or more levels in ELA and 45% in math. Overall, 35% went up in ELA and 30% went up in math. Among our lowest scoring ethnic groups, African American students increased from 6% to 16% and Hispanics increased from 26% to 32% proficient. Caucasian students increased from 41% to 53% proficient. While all students made increases, we are not closing the achievement gap. In CST-ELA cluster scores, writing strategies continued to be the area that was the lowest and made the least progress.

2. What evidence/data do you have regarding the level of implementation of the teacher/instructional practice and/or schoolwide practice that you planned in your last Cycle of Inquiry? Include information about what was not implemented as well as what was implemented.

During the last year, our teacher practice focus changed from Reader's Workshop in the context of Universal Access to Writer's Workshop. While we began classroom Cycle of Inquiry in the Spring, we were not able to become systematic enough to show data at all levels. Grade level self-assessments regarding teacher practice showed the need for more consistent writing instruction and specific procedures ( scheduling, instruction, assessment).

3. What evidence do you have that your focus on these students has positively impacted their learning?

Our classroom COI show the need for more systematic processes and systematic ways for looking at student work to udnerstand the impact of Writer's Workshop. Starting Writer's Workshop late in the year didn't provide adequate time to see and quantify broad student impact.

4. Is there anything else you learned in examining your data that will inform your revised problem statement?

It became clear in looking at teacher practice self-assessments and student work that teachers need more direct support for implementation in the classroom.

1. What are your problem statements?

Student Achievement Problem Statements

Title I strategic students are below grade level, but do not receive additional support from Title I teachers as do intensive studente. Therefore, the target population for classroom teachers will be strategic Title I students. Our staff recognizes that there are large gaps in achievement between ethnic groups but feels that these groups are addressed by focusing on Title I students.

Within the CST-ELA clusters students made the least gains in Writing strategies.

Teacher Practice Problem Statements

Writing is recognized weakness of the HMR adoption and teachers struggle to include this important component of literacy as past of the ELA curriculum. Strategies used to teach writing skills need to be further developed by classroom teachers to meet the varying needs of low performing readers. Teachers were trained in Writer's Workshop in the fall of 2005 and need to develop its used to better inform ELA instruction. We saw that consistent implementation was difficult withour additional support in the classroom.

Title 1 teachers are still in the process of refining the intervention program for intensive students by using SIPPS, Read Naturally and Corrective Reading.

2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

• Are "strategic" Title I students making progress in writing based upon writing samples?
• Are "strategic" Title I students who are making progress in writing also showing equilavent progress in reading on the district assessment?
• Title 1 intensive students who use SIPPS, Read Naturally and Corrective Reading showing growth on district assessments?

Teacher Practice Questions

• To what degree are classroom teachers implementing the components of Writers Workshop based upon the procedures/criteria we developed?
• In looking at student writing, what ar teachers learning the literacy needs of students who are struggling with reading?
• How effectively are Title 1 teachers supporting development of decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills in the context of using SIPPS, Read Naturally and Corrective Reading?
3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

• Using the California Standards Tests for English Language Arts, Title I students will make the expected score gains at each grade level to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress goals specified by NCLB leigislation.
• At least 5% more students will be proficient in the CST-ELA.
• Strategic Title 1 students will show increased proficiency on HMR assessments and in their student work throughout the year.
• There will be an increase in proficiency on the writing stratgies cluster of the CST-ELS.

Teacher Practice Goals

• Classroom teachers will implement the components of Writers Workshop based upon the procedures/criteria we developed.
4. What are your major strategies?
1. Improve the collection, organization, accessiblity and use of diagnostic data to guide instruction.
2. Implement a professional development model that helps teachers utilize adopted instructional materials, use research-based instructional strategies and differentiate instruction to meet the varied needs of all students.
3. Provide a system of support for students during regular and after school hours.
4. Create meaningful parent and community involvement program which supports increased student achievement.

Washington 2004/05 Single School Plan

Washington 2003/04 Single School Plan

Washington

4 Year District API Base Data

Definitions

School Mobility Percent - Represents the percentage of students attending the school for the first time.

Parent Education Average - The average of all responses where "1" represents "Not a high school graduate", "2" represents "High School Graduate", "3" represents "Some College", "4" represents "College Graduate" and "5" represents "Graduate School".

School Classification Index - A mathematically computed index using other non academic API components to create indicator of similar demographics and school environment to be used for similar school rankings.

Disclaimer: All data has been hand created. If there are questions about the validity of the data, please contact the webmaster.

Single School Plan Home

TOP

Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 8, 2005

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.