School Improvement Plan
Endeavour Elementary
School Improvement Plan
2021-22
A School Improvement Plan (SIP) ...
- Is developed according to the Washington Administrative Code 180-16-220
- Shows evidence of annual school board approval
- Includes information that staff certification requirements were met
- Includes evidence the plan is based on self-review and participation of required participants
- Considers a collection of data over time that is analyzed to determine the focus of the plan
- Promotes continuous improvement in student achievement in state learning standards
- Recognizes non-academic student learning, what, and how
- Addresses the characteristics of highly successful schools
- Is led by the principal and the building’s Leadership Team
- Requires collaboration with the school staff and district administration
- Addresses equity (e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, culture, language and physical/mental ability)
- Has action plans that are based on best practice as identified by quality research
- Is a continuous process that requires ongoing monitoring and adjustment
- Addresses the use of technology to facilitate instruction
- Addresses parent, family and community involvement
Characteristics of Successful Schools
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction identifies the following nine characteristics of successful schools:
- clear and shared focus
- high standards and expectations for all students
- effective school leadership
- high levels of collaboration and communication
- curriculum, instruction, and assessments aligned with state standards
- frequent monitoring of learning and teaching
- focused professional development
- supportive learning environment
- high levels of family and community involvement
SIP Planning
START DATE: Fall 2021
SITE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: January 2022
SCHOOL BOARD REVIEW DATE: March 15, 2022
PRINCIPAL: Megan Funes
LEADERSHIP TEAM:
-
Lynn Bacon – Kindergarten
-
Leslee Frankland – 1st grade
-
Holly Cleveland – 2nd grade
-
Debbie Haroutoonian – 3rd grade
-
AnhThu Ngo – 4th grade
-
Kathy Jensen – 5th grade
-
Misti Shupe – MERLIN
-
Leah Skosky – Specialist
-
Leah Doyle – Instructional Coach
-
Brooke Blowers – ELL Specialist
-
Shandell Baker – LRCI Teacher
-
Tim Hemker – Dean of Students
Staff and demographic information are available for each school at the OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction) School Report Card Home.
- Re-Engagement & Recovery
- Data Study
- Achievement Goals & Actions
- Supporting & Monitoring School Improvement
Re-Engagement & Recovery
This section of the School Improvement Plan describes the strategies this school used to identify and address the social-emotional and academic needs for students to successfully re-engage in the learning community and their learning path.
- How did your school identify students who may have difficulty re-engaging in the learning community or may have social-emotional or mental health wellness needs?
- What strategies did your school employ to re-engage students and address wellness needs?
- How did your school identify pre-requisite skill gaps that might prevent a student from successfully accessing grade-level or course-appropriate learning?
How did your school identify students who may have difficulty re-engaging in the learning community or may have social-emotional or mental health wellness needs?
In August of 2021, we worked as a Tier 2/MTSS team to continue the work in place around supporting behavior and academic needs. As a team, we met every other week, and created three “groups” of students to look at every six-weeks. Having a set agenda allowed us to collect sufficient data to make sure interventions were effective. This strategic agenda allowed us to take a deeper dive into the Tier 2, school-wide, supports to make sure ALL students are accessing what they need in order to be successful.
Staff at all grade levels are noticing the behavior and academic needs of students are very different this year as they have been in the past. Collaboration and creative thinking support the development of classroom procedures and developing a school community that support ALL learners.
- Tier 2/MTSS team discusses behavior and academic needs of all students every two weeks
- Shared folder developed to track, monitor, and share data with team
- Academic interventions developed before taking students to Guidance Team
- Intervention Specialist, ELL Facilitator, Swedish Mental Health Counselor, and LRC staff are all part of the Tier 2/MTSS team
- Students identified in 2020-2021 were the first on the Tier 2/MTSS Agendas
- PBSES, Counselor, Dean and Principal collaborated with teachers and families to set up supports to begin as early in the 2021-2022 school year
- i-Ready (Spring 2021 and Fall 2021) used to evaluate academic gaps
- Fall SBA for current 4th & 5th graders to assess previous years’ knowledge
- Updating the MTSS Referral process for staff to identify students throughout the year that may need Social-Emotional, Mental Health or Academic supports
What strategies did your school employ to re-engage students and address wellness needs?
- Implemented school-wide Tier 1 PBSES strategies to support whole class and individual student successes
- Created three rotations of students to focus on every 6 weeks during MTSS meetings
- Allows team to collect data and determine if interventions are having an impact before making a decision
- Included Swedish Mental Health Counselor on our MTSS team to support students
- Recovery Services meetings
- Small groups (Friendship Groups, Lunch Bunches, etc.) with the counselor and/or PBSES Coach
- Advocated for additional ELL staffing to support large number of identified students
- Implemented Success Blocks in 1st-5th grade
- Utilized paraprofessional time to support grade levels during the blocks
- Allows teachers to focus on the most striving students, while paraprofessionals can support extension activities
- Intervention Specialist supporting 1st-5th grade students
- Utilized paraprofessional time to support grade levels during the blocks
- Focus on Foundational Skills for students in 3rd-5th grade that are well below grade level
How did your school identify pre-requisite skill gaps that might prevent a student from successfully accessing grade-level or course-appropriate learning?
- Spring 2021 i-Ready Math & Reading assessments
- Building Leadership Team looked at Spring Data during August Retreat to get a better understating of where students would be starting
- Spring 2021 grade level teams worked together to determine what was fully taught, partially taught, or not taught at all during the 2020-2021 school year based on district scope and sequence documents
- Teams used these at the beginning of the year to have a better understanding of where students were starting the year – have an immediate look at what gaps students may have and where to start on pace or where to reteach
- Fall 2021 i-Ready Math & Reading assessments
- Fall 2021 SBA for current 4th & 5th graders
- Identify gaps in previous grade-level understanding to support teaching new content
Data Study
This section of the School Improvement Plan describes the use and study of student achievement data to inform SIP goals and to set learning targets to address systemic disproportionality. Targets to address disproportionality are in reference to state Smarter Balanced Assessments using the Washington School Improvement Framework (WSIF), per state regulation. The most current WSIF available dates to 2019 due to the cancelation of recent state assessments. This WSIF provides a pre-pandemic baseline. Additional data available since the re-opening of schools is added to provide more current data for school improvement planning.
Endeavour Smarter Balanced Assessment
Percent Meeting Standard
|
|
ELA |
|
Math |
||
|
|
2019 |
2021 |
|
2019 |
2021 |
|
3rd |
81.9% |
81.7% |
|
87.6% |
80.8% |
|
4th |
77.7% |
82.3% |
|
79.3% |
82.3% |
|
5th |
86.3% |
79.1% |
|
84.6% |
67.0% |
Sources:
2019 OSPI School Report Card
2021 Preliminary Scores from Homeroom
Note: 2021 was a modified SBA given in Oct-Nov 2021, with no performance tasks.
Washington School Improvement Framework
2021 Measures by Student Group – Endeavour ES
|
|
All |
American Indian / Native American |
Asian |
Black / African American |
English Language Learners* |
Hispanic / Latino |
Low-Income* |
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander |
Students with Disabilities* |
Two or More Races |
White |
|
SBA: ELA % Proficient1 |
80.9 |
|
92.9 |
|
25.0 |
80.0 |
44.4 |
|
41.7 |
64.3 |
72.5 |
|
Fall i-Ready Reading % Prof. % Approaching or above |
77.3 94.0 |
|
88.0 98.9 |
|
46.9 75.0 |
52.0 72.0 |
22.2 55.6 |
|
26.9 73.1 |
81.3 96.9 |
70.4 91.7 |
|
SBA: Math % Proficient1 |
80.4 |
|
94.1 |
|
50.0 |
80.0 |
33.3 |
|
25.0 |
64.3 |
70.0 |
|
Fall i-Ready Math % Prof. % Approaching or above |
66.5 90.2 |
|
83.7 97.8 |
|
37.5 84.4 |
36.0 76.0 |
33.3 55.6 |
|
19.2 50.5 |
68.8 90.6 |
53.8 84.6 |
*Program enrollment fluctuates during the year, this data reflects students enrolled in programs on November 30, 2021
1 SBA was modified, without performance tasks. Scores are preliminary 3rd-4th assessment scores administered to current 4th-5th grade students.
Fall i-Ready was administered to 1st-5th grade students.
Data Study
- Describe your SIP team process for studying school-wide, disaggregated data and selecting SIP goals.
- Describe your observations regarding disproportionality that informed your SIP gap goal(s).
Describe your SIP team process for studying school-wide, disaggregated data and selecting SIP goals.
As a Building Leadership Team, we continually look at i-Ready data and Homeroom data to support implementation of the program and track progress of students throughout the year. Looking at benchmark assessment data, along with personalized instruction data, the team was able to determine that a powerful school-wide goal would be around
supporting students to get to grade level by 3rd grade, knowing the strong correlation between Smarter Balanced and i-Ready assessment success. The Building Leadership Team takes back the learning and resources to their colleagues every month in order to build a systemic process around data analysis.
As a building, we are also utilizing the PLC+: Better Decisions and Greater Impact by Design book by Fisher and Frey to support implementation of powerful teaming and planning. Focus on the Common Core State Standards and developing Learning Intentions and Success Criteria have been a foundational block of our work together this year.
Describe your observations regarding disproportionality that informed your SIP gap goal(s).
The students who scored below grade level in Phonics were placed in Instructional Grouping 1 and 2 based on the Fall 2021 i-Ready Reading Assessment. Knowing Phonics is a foundational skill for students to have in order to be proficient in literacy and recognizing that many of our students who are identified at English Language Learners and/or students receiving Special Services fell into these groupings, the Building Leadership Team felt the urge to address the needs of students in these groups. Many of these students are receiving supports through the Intervention Specialist, targeted ELL instruction, and push-in services from the LRC I team. Tracking success of these students throughout the year will be done by the Building Leadership Team, individual teachers, and support staff.
Disproportionality Targets
Identify targets for each Washington School Improvement Framework subgroup for which you have baseline data. Baseline for group sizes of less than 20 are suppressed in public documents, targets are set for all groups.
ELA Proficiency Rate
|
Group |
2017-19 WSIF Baseline |
2022 Target |
|
All Students (for comparison) |
82.6% |
--------------------------- |
|
Black / African American |
|
N=3 66% |
|
English Language Learners |
38.6% |
(N=4 in 4th&5th 25% passed) N=12 42% |
|
Hispanic/Latino of any race |
54.0% |
(N=10 in 4th&5th 80% passed) N=19 80% |
|
Low Income |
43.2% |
50% |
|
Students with Disabilities |
27.2% |
N=17 53% |
Math Proficiency Rate
|
Group |
2017-19 WSIF Baseline |
2022 Target |
|
All Students (for comparison) |
82.9% |
--------------------------- |
|
Black / African American |
|
N=3 66% |
|
English Language Learners |
38.6% |
(N=4 in 4th&5th 50% passed) N=12 60% |
|
Hispanic/Latino of any race |
46.0% |
(N=10 in 4th&5th 80% passed) N=19 80% |
|
Low Income |
33.3% |
40% |
|
Students with Disabilities |
30.9% |
N=17 53% |
Regular Attendance Rate
|
Group |
2017-19 WSIF Baseline |
2022 Target |
|
All Students (for comparison) |
94.0% |
--------------------------- |
|
Black / African American |
|
N=8 85% |
|
English Language Learners |
93.5% |
95% |
|
Hispanic/Latino of any race |
95.0% |
95% |
|
Low Income |
79.6% |
85% |
|
Students with Disabilities |
91.1% |
95% |
**COVID protocols negatively affect attendance in ways not seen in previous years**
Achievement Goals & Actions
This section of the School Improvement Plan describes the setting of a specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and timely (SMART) school-wide achievement goal(s).
School-Wide Goal(s)
As a school, we continue to focus on how to best support ALL students – those above, at, or striving to meet grade level. We know, when it comes to literacy development our youngest learners focus on developing strong foundational skills to support fluency and build comprehension. Our intermediate students focus on building their background knowledge through vocabulary development and comprehension of literary and informational text.
Implementing i-Ready Reading has allowed us to track progress through multiple domains and overall growth. As a school, our goal is to increase the percentage of students meeting mid- or above-grade level proficiency as measured by the fall and spring i-Ready Reading Assessments over the next three years. (Knowing that by 3rd grade, mid-grade level i-Ready proficiency is our district benchmark (Level 3) and equivalent to a Level 3 on the Smarter Balanced Assessment.)
For the 2021-2022 school year, we are focusing on getting 1st -5th grade students that placed Early On Grade Level (solid green) on the Fall i-Ready Reading Assessment into the Mid or Above Grade Level (striped green) by the Spring i-Ready Reading Assessment.
As a staff we focused on current student levels, and cohorts of students to determine the percentage of students we knew would be able to reach the ISD Benchmark for meeting standard, what i-Ready calls the Mid or Above Grade Level grouping, each spring. Analyzing the Spring 2021 and Fall 2021 i-Ready Reading Baseline data supported our decision- making.
|
Grade |
Baseline |
Spring 2022 |
Spring 2023 |
Spring 2024 |
|
1st |
41% |
45% |
75% |
80% |
|
2nd |
53% |
70% |
85% |
90% |
|
3rd |
67% |
78% |
87% |
90% |
|
4th |
55% |
74% |
87% |
95% |
|
5th |
42% |
70% |
92% |
95% |
Action Steps. What research-based strategies will be implemented to achieve school-wide goals?
By the spring of 2022, we feel 100% of our students that placed Early On Grade Level based on the Fall i-Ready Reading Assessment, will reach Mid or Above Grade Level.
As cohorts of students continue throughout their elementary career, we feel confident that a minimum of 80% of students that placed One Grade Level or More Below based on the fall 2021 i-Ready Reading assessment will reach Mid or Above Grade Level each subsequent year over the next three years.
Some of the research-based strategies that are implemented to achieve this goal are:
- ALL students participate in differentiated Success Blocks at their level to address Foundational Skills and areas of need/growth
- Strive for 45 minutes of i-Ready Reading instructional time each week
- Small Group Instruction during core reading block (Guided Reading and Strategy Groups)
- Implementation of Reading Units of Study and Making Meaning Curriculum
Gap Closing Goal(s)
Our gap-closing goal is for 50% of the 1st-5th grade students who are placed in Instructional Grouping 1 and Grouping 2 based on the Fall 2021 i-Ready Reading Assessment will subsequently move out of these Instructional Grouping placements, as measured by the Fall and Spring i-Ready Reading Assessment over each of the next three years.
Students are placed in Instructional Grouping 1 or 2 if they are below grade level in Phonics.
|
Grade |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
Instructional Grouping 1 |
Instructional Grouping 2 |
|
1st |
25 |
6 |
12 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
2nd |
17 |
7 |
9 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
3rd |
16 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
4th |
6 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
5th |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- Action Steps. What additional research-based strategies will be implemented to achieve gap-closing goal?
- Approach to gap-closing. How will your action steps address disproportionality?
Action Steps. What additional research-based strategies will be implemented to achieve gap-closing goal?
- Small group differentiated instruction
- Support from Instructional Coach for grade-level teams to implement focused Guided Reading Groups
- Targeted Professional Development to address grade-level team needs around i-Ready implementation and usage
- “Train the Trainer” around utilizing i-Ready Reports and Progress Monitoring tools
- Student self-monitoring and goal-setting around i-Ready progress and success
Approach to gap-closing. How will your action steps address disproportionality?
Knowing that students who are well below grade level in Phonics and Phonological Awareness need to be supported at the early grade levels, teachers are addressing student needs through various instructional strategies and adopted curriculums. Through the Rapid Automatized Naming assessment (RAN), we are able to identify student ability to retrieve known information quickly; having this data supports identification of the possibilities for struggling readers and allows us to address the needs sooner than if we waited until 3rd grade and beyond to support needs.
Knowing that other schools may be further on the Success Group journey, collaborating with them around Data Analysis Protocols, systems and structures, and implementation of interventions gives us a window into successful practices. Sharing our learning with colleagues develops our systems to address our specific student needs.
The implementation of Success Groups, the use of i-Ready, and new Reading Foundational Skills curriculum gives us all common language to support students at all grade levels. This continuity will develop strong systems to allow us to continue to build student success around the disproportionate data. With the focus on Instructional Groups 1 and 2 in i-Ready, we will be able to track student success over the year(s).
Supporting & Monitoring School Improvement
This section describes the supports and monitoring of school improvement plan efforts.
- Professional Development. What professional learning activities will be needed to support the successful implementation?
- Resources Available. What existing and new resources will be used to accomplish the activity?
- Technology. How is technology being used to facilitate instruction?
- Family Engagement. How will you inform and engage families regarding your SIP goal(s)?
- Monitoring Effectiveness. What on-going artifacts or evidence will be gathered to show this activity is making a difference in student learning?
Professional Development. What professional learning activities will be needed to support the successful implementation?
The focus of the Professional Development for the 2021-2022 school year and beyond fall into three “buckets:”
- Differentiated Instruction
- Collaboration
- Literacy Foundational Skills
Throughout the year(s), the learning activities staff will participate in are around:
- Whole staff Book Study
- PLC+ Better Decisions and Greater Impact by Design by: Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey
- PLC+ Playbook A Hands-on Guide to Collectively Improving Student Learning Grades K-12 by: Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey
- Effective Universal Instruction: An Action-Oriented Approach to Improving Tier 1 by: Kimberly Gibbons, Sarah Brown, and Bradley Niebling
- Analysis of Common Core State Standards
- Developing Learning Intentions & Success Criteria
- Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)
- Grading Calibration
- Success Groups
- Data Analysis
- Collaboration/Communication
- Planning
- Implementation
- i-Ready: Implementation, Analysis, and Next Steps
Resources Available. What existing and new resources will be used to accomplish the activity?
The three Professional Development foci have been in place for over two years. With a continued vision our work around supporting Culture, Collaboration, and Analysis to support ALL students remains.
- Updated Tier II/MTSS school-wide structures
- 6-week rotations of students of concern to make sure adequate data is collected
- Monitoring Professional Development Calendar to address staff needs in the moment
- Utilizing TLS & i-Ready staff to support specific needs around curriculum and content implementation
- Grade-level focused Coaching Cycles to address students and curriculum needs
Technology. How is technology being used to facilitate instruction?
Integrating technology into instruction has been a continued goal of our staff this year. Learning how to accommodate the needs of ALL learners through various technology applications has allowed students to feel successful and for teachers to truly see what students are capable of doing.
- Laptops have been distributed to all classrooms to ensure access for students on a regular basis
- 24 devices to every 3rd-5th grade classroom
- 10 devices to every Kindergarten-2nd grade classroom
Family Engagement. How will you inform and engage families regarding your SIP goal(s)?
- Monthly “Zoom by and Say Hi” meeting with the Principal and Dean
- Topics addressed: SIP, PTSA, COVID Protocols, i-Ready implementation
- Principal participates in PTSA Board Meetings to address the needs of school and how community can support
- PTSA Board Members support the building by participating in Site Council meetings
- Monthly Principal Messages in school eNews to address progress toward student learning and success
Monitoring Effectiveness. What on-going artifacts or evidence will be gathered to show this activity is making a difference in student learning?
- Use of i-Ready Math and Reading data to create Success Group instruction – whole school and grade-level data shared with Building Leadership Team Representatives and collaboratively with staff on a regular basis (Diagnostic & Personalized Instruction data)
- Use of the i-Ready data analysis tools Tools for Instruction, Tools for Scaffolding Comprehension, reading foundational skills practice
- Weekly meetings and internal professional development for classified staff
- Focus on small-group instruction, use of i-Ready tools, math/literacy strategies, how to use tech tools
- Development of Success Block Data Analysis Tools to support grade-level teams determining how to best serve ALL students
- Tier 2 notes/spreadsheet – response to interventions
- i-Ready Data – tracking school-wide, grade-level, and individual student progress to support decision-making
- Most teachers using i-Ready to develop and track Student Growth Goals
- BEISY Data compared to Risk Indicator data
- PLC+ implementation