Continuous Improvement Plan

Literacy Collaborative Report

2015-2016

Diamond Path Elementary

School of International Studies
Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan School District #196
14455 Diamond Path
Apple Valley, MN 55124
952-423-7695

Lynn Hernandez, Principal

Leah Hack, Assistant Administrator
Pam Stevens, RtI Lead Teacher
Stacey Schultz, Tier 2 Lead
Susie Hanson, Tier 3 Lead

Table of Contents
I. Introduction to school
I. Evaluation Plan and Summary Data - 2014-2015
a. Smart Goals
b. MCA Data Summary
I. Data - Analysis of Smart Goal data and MCA data
I. Summary - Summary of findings into action plan
I. Implementation Factors a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on major accomplishments for the year
(Enablers)
b. 2014-2015 Team reflection on Barriers that are left from the year. (If
not, why not, then what?) (root cause analysis)
c. 2015-2016 Enablers and Barriers
Include Enablers and Barriers carried over, and the new list

of

Enablers and Barriers.

d. Team reflection on how to use Enablers and Barriers in the fall.
I. Future Goals
a. Goals as a Leadership Team
b. Professional Development Goals
c. Goals for Writing about Reading PLC with Stakeholders in the fall
d. 2015-2016 Smart Goals

II. Intervention Reports

a. Reading Recovery
b. Leveled Literacy Intervention

I.

Introduction to school
Diamond Path Elementary School of International Studies:
Diamond Path Elementary School of International Studies is an
elementary magnet school located in Apple Valley, Minnesota and is
part of the Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan School District. The
student enrollment for the 2014-2015 school year was 741 K 5
students. Diamond Path had a
22.3%
free and reduced lunch
population. The school offered six full day kindergarten classes,
Reading Recovery, Gifted and Talented, Young Scholars, Assurance
of Mastery, Special Education, Leveled Literacy Intervention and
English Language Learners.

9.98 % of students received Special Education services, and 5.93 % of the

school population are English Language Learners. The ethnic groups
represented include Native American - 0.94%, Asian 11.4%, Hispanic
6.0%, unspecified-one student of the total population Black 11.74 % and
White 69.63%. The breakdown of students by gender is 45.2% male and
54.6% female. Each ethnic group increased by one percent.

II. Evaluation Plan and Summary Data - 2014-2015

1)
What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 23 or higher as

measured by Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words assessment of

the Observation Survey by spring? 96%
2)
What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 15 as measured

by Concepts About Print assessment on the Observation Survey by

spring? 93.65%

3)
What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 23 or higher as

measured by Writing Vocabulary assessment of the Observation Survey

by spring? 87.2%
4)
What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 47 or higher as

measured by Letter Identification assessment on the Observation

Survey by spring? 98.41%
5)
What percentage of First Grade students scored 33 or higher as

measured by Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words assessment of

the Observation Survey by spring? 94.4%
6)
What percentage of First Grade students scored 18 as measured by

Concepts About Print assessment on the Observation Survey by spring?

92.8%
7)
What percentage of First Grade students scored 51 or higher as

measured by Writing Vocabulary assessment of the Observation Survey

by spring? 60.8%
8)
What percentage of First Grade students scored 54 as measured by

Letter Identification assessment on the Observation Survey by spring?

98.4%
9)
What percentage of K through 5th

grade students met the end of the

year high benchmark for their grade level of Reading High Frequency
Words by spring?
K -26

78.4%

1 - 100

66.4%

2 - 200

87.5%

3 - 300

99.15%

4 - 400

93.02%

5 500

95.9%

10.) What percentage of K through 5th

grade students met the end of the
year high benchmark for their grade level of TOTAL (Reading and
Writing) High Frequency Words?
K - 26

58.4%

1 - 100

15.2%

2 200

83.33%

3 300

83.9%

4 400

84.5%

5 - 500

78.69%

11.) What percentage of K through 5th

grade students met the end of
the year high benchmark for their grade level of Writing High
Frequency Words?
K - 26

60.8%

1 - 100

20.8%

2 200

85%

3 300

82.2%

4 400

87.6%

5 - 500

79.51%

12) What percentage of K through 5th

grade students are reading
instructionally in the meets proficiency band as measured by the
Benchmark Assessment System?
K-C

84.12%

1
-I

80.8%

2
-M

89.16%

3-P

82.2%

4
S

90%

5
V

85.25%

13) What percentage of K through 5th

grade students scored a 2 or 3 in
fluency on their instructional benchmark as measured by the
Benchmark Assessment System?
K - 37.6% of the 109 students that are at a C or above
1 - 69%
2 75.8%
3 78.8%
4 91.5%
5 - 82.7%
14.) What percent of students of students K-5 show no letter
reversals in the 2015 Spring Writing about Reading Prompt?
K -83%
1 - 89%
2 98%
3 97%
4 100%
5 -100%

b. MCA Data Summary

III Data - Analysis of Smart Goal data and MCA data

2014-2015 Building Goals to Raise the Bar and Close the Gaps for
WBWF
(WBWF: Worlds Best Work Force)

By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet with end of
Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or higher on Hearing and
Recording Sounds in Words.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Hearing and
Recording Sounds Assessment. We had 96 percent of the students
pass. We exceeded our goal by 6%.

By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet the end of
Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 15 on Concepts about Print.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Concepts About Print
Assessment. We had 93.65 percent of the students pass. We exceeded
our goal by 3.65%.
By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet with end of
Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or higher on Writing Vocabulary.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Writing Vocabulary
Assessment. We had 87.2 percent of the students pass. We have a
2.8% gap.
By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet the end of
Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 47 on Letter ID.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Letter Identification
Assessment. We had 98.41 percent of the students pass. We exceeded
our goal by 8.41%.
By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet with end of
First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 33 or higher on Hearing and
Recording Sounds in Words.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Hearing and
Recording Sounds Assessment. We had 94.4 percent of the students
pass. We exceeded our goal by 4.4%.

By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet the end of First
Grade RWB3 benchmark of 18 on Concepts about Print.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Concepts About Print
Assessment. We had 92.8 percent of the students pass. We exceeded
our goal by 2.8%.

By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet with end of
First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 51 or higher on Writing Vocabulary.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Writing Vocabulary
Assessment. We had 60.8 percent of the students pass. We have a
29.2% gap.

By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet the end of First
Grade RWB3 benchmark of 54 on Letter ID.

Our goal was to have 90% of the students pass the Letter Identification
Assessment. We had 98.4 percent of the students pass. We exceeded
our goal by 8.4%.

By May 30, 2015, 95% of students K-5 will show no letter reversals
Writing about Reading Prompt. 94.5%

By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th

grade students will
meet the end of the year high benchmark for their grade level of
Reading High Frequency Words.
K -26

78.4%

1 - 100

66.4%

2 - 200

87.5%

3 - 300

99.15%

4 - 400

93.02%

5 500

95.9%

By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th

grade students will
meet the end of the year high benchmark for their grade level of
Writing High Frequency Words.
K - 26

60.8%

1 - 100

20.8%

2 200

85%

3 300

82.2%

4 400

87.6%

5 - 500

79.51%

By May 30, 2015 85% of K-5 grade students will be reading

instructionally within the meets proficiency band as measured by the
Benchmark Assessment System:
K-C

84.12%

1
-I

80.8%

2
-M

89.16%

3-P

82.2%

4
S

90%

5
V

85.25%

ByMay30,2015,95%ofK5gradestudentswillscorea2or3inthefluencyontheir
instructionalbenchmarkasmeasuredbytheHeinemannBenchmarkAssessmentSystem
73.4%

IV.

Summary - Summary of findings into action plan

Writing Vocabulary (K-1)

Our data analysis revealed the following:
Kindergarten had 87.2% of students attain the goal for writing
vocabulary.
First grade had 60.8% of students reach their writing vocabulary goal.
As such, both groups are currently still approaching the 90% mastery
goal. The highest area of emphasis is first grade at 60.8%.

Reading High Frequency Words (K-2)

Our data analysis revealed the following:
Kindergarten had 78.4% of students reach the grade level goal
First grade had 66.4% of students attain the grade level goal
Second grade had 87.5% of students meet the grade level goal
Therefore, each of the K-2 groups are approaching the 90% mastery
goal. The highest area of emphasis is first grade at 66.4%.

Writing High Frequency Words (K-5)

Our data analysis revealed the following:
Kindergarten had 60.8% of students reach the grade level goal
First grade had 20.8% of students attain the grade level goal
Second grade had 85% of students meet the grade level goal
Third grade had 82.2% of students reach the grade level goal
Fourth grade had 87.6% of students attain the grade level goal
Fifth grade had 79.51% of students meet the grade level goal
All grade levels K-5 are approaching the 90% mastery goal. The
highest area of emphasis is first grade at 20.8%.

Mastery of High Frequency Words (K-5)

Our data analysis revealed the following:
Kindergarten had 58.4% of students reach the grade level goal
First grade had 15.2% of students reach the grade level goal
Second grade had 83.33% of students attain the grade level goal
Third grade had 83.9% of students meet the grade level goal
Fourth grade had 84.5% of students reach the grade level goal
Fifth grade had 78.69% of students meet the grade level goal
As such, our data shows that all grade levels K-5 are approaching the
90% mastery goal. The highest area of emphasis is first grade at 15.2%

Benchmark Assessment System Text Leveling (K-5):

Our data analysis revealed the following:
Kindergarten had 84.12% of students reach the grade level goal
First grade had 80.8% of students meet the grade level goal
Second grade had 89.16% of students attain the grade level goal
Third grade had 82.2% of students reach the grade level goal
Fifth grade had 85.25% of students meet the grade level goal
Therefore, the following grades are still approaching the 90% mastery
goal: Kindergarten, First, Second, Third, and Fifth.
Fourth grade met
the goal at 90%.
The highest area of emphasis is first grade at 80.8%.

V. Implementation Factors a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on major accomplishments for the year
DP:ManagedIndependentLearning
MILcontinuestobemotivationalandsuccessful
**
CommonLanguage(IncludingtheuseoftheReadersNotebook)

Writing
StudentOwnership,confidence,andtakingonmoregrowthaswriters*
(Becausethereismorefreedomforstudentsthanpreviouslyandmorechoiceleadingto
interestandownership)

LIteracyCollaborativeProcess
Resourcebinswithbooks

AssessmentSupport
Havingassessmentsubs**
AssessmentsubsandtimetoanalyzeNorthstardata

StudentGroups/StudentIdentity/StudentGrowth/StudentCollaboration
StudentOwnership,confidence,andtakingonmoregrowthaswritersprimary**
Kidsthatcanaresoaring

StaffDevelopment/Training/Collaboration/(Teacher)
Teacher/Staffcommitment,passionandflexibilitytolearnandtrydifferentpartsofthe
literacycollaborative

Interventionists

SchedulingandLiteracyModel

The*meansthatitwasatopchoicemorethanonce.

a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on Barriers that are left from the year.
DP:Interventionists/Pushinvs.PullOut/Scheduling
Onesizefitsallwearethinkingaboutageappropriatematerials/instruction/lessons*

Lackoftransitionoutsidetheclassroomduringthe2hour/15minuteLItblockwithinthe
classroomweneedtodowhatisageappropriate

Time
Notenoughtimetocollaboratewithclassroomteachersandproblemsolveabout
students,continuecommunicationaboutfollowthrough,knowhowtobestsupport
studentsthroughpushinmodel(Morechallengingtohavewritingandreading
conferencesattheintermediatelevel)
Westillfeelalittlelostinhowtogetthemagnetandliteracytofittogethermore
seamlessly.WeneedtheTIMEtoworktogetheronknowingourresources,lookingat
standardsandintegratingthemtogethersoweremorecomfortableteachingtheseunits.
WedlovetohavestaffdevelopmentTIMEtoreallyworkonthesethings.Teamtimeto
build,integrate,sharethelessonsthathavebeentried,launchingunits,keepingthe
international,meetingwithotherschoolteams,magnet,workingonaligningtimeobunits
tostandards
Teamtimetoplantoaddressthequestionswegetallthisinformationanditshardto
process
TeamtimewithSusie/Pam/Stacey
Timeasastafftoclarifyouridentityasamagnetschoolwhattoholdontowhattoletgo
of
Fittingitallin,WritersWorkshop.ReadersWorkshop,WordStudy,Magnet,math(We
arentsurehowtodoalloftheseatonce.shouldwebedoingalloftheseatonce?
ReadersWorkshop(responsetowriting),WritersWorkshop,Sciencewriting,phonics)
MergingmagnetandUnitsofStudytogethertime

NoCurriculum/Curriculum/Confusion/UnitCohesiveness/Standards/Clarificationof
Practices
Allwehaveisalistofstandardsandasetofbooks
Wherearethesocial/emotionalstandards?
Nocurriculum,onlystandardsmergingmagnetandunitsofstudy
Onesizefitsall(Whataretheabsolutesandwhatareasareflexible.Therearemixed
messagesbeingreceived).

SupportingStudents/GroupProblemSolvingaroundStudents
Needtoincreasetraininginterventionsforbothclassroomteacherand
interventionists.ie...howtointegrateLLIandlearnmoreaboutTier3interventionsare
effectiveandhowtheywork(timetolookatdataandcoordinateinterventions,learn
aboutinterventionsspecificinterventions
*

InterventionistsRR,EL,SLD,LLI
Needtolookatgewholecaseloadneedforstudents...LLIcantmeetALLtheneedsof
ELorSpEdstudents.ThereareneedsthatarenotdocumentedbythedatainNorth

StarsoLLIshouldntbetheonlyservicethesespecialistsprovide.Thesespecialists
needtimeinthescheduletoprovideothersupport/interventiontheirstudentsneed.

c. 2015-2016 Enablers and Barriers

Include Enablers and Barriers carried over, and the new list of
Enablers and Barriers.

d. Team reflection on how to use Enablers and Barriers in the fall.

VI.

Future Goals

a. Goals as a Leadership Team:

- Develop constructive ways to communicate within the school
(ideas, concerns, PLC expectations) and to parents.
- Model the Literacy Collaborative in our classrooms.
- Facilitate professional learning communities. (Common
agreements, times, accountability)
- Develop a problem solving process to address specific student
needs
b. Professional Development Goals
- Staff development around personalized learning (Tier 3, GT, YS,
SpEd, EL, LLI) for classroom teachers and interventionists.
- Staff development around components of the BAS and model
implementation.
- Staff development around specific topics (Common language,
verbal pathways, genre, book bags.)
c. Goals for Writing about Reading PLC with Stakeholders in the fall
- Data analysis and time to collaborate instructional goals using
the writing about reading BAS Fall writing samples and fluency
in text levels.
d. 2015-2016 Smart Goals

VII. Intervention Reports

a. Reading Recovery
b. Leveled Literacy Intervention