Washington School Plan 2006/07

Washington Elementary School was a K-5 school with an enrollment of 337 in 2006/07. 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

What Did You Learn from 2005/06 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?

At least one third of the Washington School population leaves the school each year. Seventy-eight Inter-district and Intra-district students are registered at Washington School this year. Of the 323 students in the K-5 grade level, 161 are EL and FEP students. The EL students compose about half the school population. Only 43.1% of the EL students scored at or above proficient on the CST Language Arts. Only 51.7% of EL students scored at or above proficiency on the CST in Math.

43.1% of the EL students scored at or above proficiency in language arts.

51.7 % of the EL students scored at or above proficiency in math.

35.1% of SED students scored at or above proficiency in language arts.

42.0% of SED students scored at or above proficiency in math.

25.8% of African-American students scored at or above proficiency in language arts.

35.8% of African-American students scored at or above proficiency in math.

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. Teachers implemented Writer’s Workshop as a part of the universal access time.

Students wrote daily and were engaged in the process of writing to publish finished products for the classroom libraries. The principal and literacy coach observed students writing more often and becoming more fluent within their writings.

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

We were hoping implementing Writer’s Workshop would increase CST test scores. Although our test scores dropped last year, over a three year period there was still an increase in the ELA scores and observational data revealed an increase in writing fluency. Since half of our focal students left Washington during the school year, we did not have enough evidence to support that our focus on these students had a positive impact on their learning.

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

The percentage of proficient students on standardized test data indicates that we need more collaboration with the EL teacher in identifying SDAIE practices to use with our EL students in the regular classroom. There is a need to identify skills and strategies that can be scaffold throughout the day and school year to assist EL students in developing vocabulary and an understanding test-taking vocabulary.

Fall 2006

1. What are your problem statements?

Problem Statements

Student Achievement Problems

Our API score went down 23 points last year (05-06). Our EL, African-American, and SED students performed considerably lower than our Asian, Filipino, and White students. EL’s constitute close to half of our student body. EL students need support in developing vocabulary and other language skills.

Teacher Practice Problems

Although most of our staff are CLAD certified, most have not recently had additional training in SDAIE strategies. Teachers also need to explicitly and systematically teach Tier II vocabulary and test-taking vocabulary consistently with EL students’ needs. Both SDAIE strategies and Tier II vocabulary instruction will help our SED and African-American students as well.

We have had significant staff changes since last year: a new principal, three beginning public school teachers, two new teachers from within the district and three classrooms with teachers sharing a contract (two of whom are new to the district). Therefore, there is a need for more continuity and follow-up on instructional practices involving vocabulary development and SDAIE.

2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

Are our EL, SED, and African-American students able to understand Tier 2 words as evidenced by teacher designed observations/assessment?

Do our EL, SED, and African-American students understand academic vocabulary, including that used in test directions, as evidenced by teacher designed observations and district assessments?

Teacher Practice Questions

To what extent are we explicitly and systematically teaching academic vocabulary, including the vocabulary used in test directions?

To what extend are teachers implementing SDAIE strategies within the classroom?

3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

Using the California Standards Tests for ELA, EL students will make a 7% gain in the percent proficient.

At least 5% more students will be proficient in the CST-ELA.

Strategic Title 1 including EL, SED, and African-American students will show increased proficiency on HMR and district math assessments.

Teacher Practice Goals

Teachers will use SDAIE strategies based upon principal and ELD teacher walk throughs and teacher self monitoring and reflection.

Teachers will teach and reinforce Tier II vocabulary words based upon principal and literacy coach walk throughs and teacher self monitoring and reflection.

4. What are your major strategies?

Improve the implementation of SDAIE strategies

Improve the teaching of Tier II words, including vocabulary necessary for understanding test directions.

Use diagnostic data to guide instruction.

Provide a system of support for students during regular and after school hours.

Create a meaningful parent and community involvement program which supports increased student achievement.

Washington 2005/06 Single School Plan

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.