LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS

School Improvement Plan

School: RUSSELL STREET SCHOOL Plan Duration: July 2005 to June 2008

Council Members Title Signature

Jane Hall Principal _____________________________________

Judy Dokus Special Education Teacher _____________________________________

John Henshaw 4^th Grade Teacher _____________________________________

Andrea Biron Art Teacher – Gr. 1-5 ____________________________________

Kathy Arena Parent _____________________________________

Ed Fultz Parent _____________________________________

Mark Shelford Parent _____________________________________

Vacant Community Representative _____________________________________

“Whatever it takes, we will learn”

Russell Street Elementary School Philosophy

The Russell Street School, serving grades three through five, is the second stage of the child's educational experience in Littleton, connecting the primary school years to their middle school years. As such, our primary focus is to promote the intellectual, emotional, social and physical growth of students through a developmentally appropriate academic program that motivates and inspires the child in the learning process. The school's standards establish high expectations of intellectual growth while maintaining sensitivity to the uniqueness of the individual and encouraging the natural creativity within each child.

We offer a sequentially structured curriculum and educational practices which encourage our children to realize their highest potential for learning while enabling them to acquire a body of knowledge, including the application of reasoning, analytical, and technological skills. Our environment encourages students to develop an appreciation for cultural diversity and awareness of the interdependence of the global community.

We strive to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect, tolerance, and optimism wherein each child will develop positive self-esteem. The dedication of the staff is evident through the professional and personal commitment to the student's academic and emotional development. We recognize that only through high expectations for our own performance can we, in turn, establish high expectations for our students. Through the collaborative efforts of students, teachers, parents, administrators, and community, the Russell Street School is dedicated to helping prepare each student to meet his or her educational future with excitement and a love of learning.

Celebrate differences! Be creative!

Reach for the stars! Do Your best!

Think hard, “ponder”!

Enjoy many different cultures!

Respect and tolerate others!

Be positive!

Demonstrate your excitement to learn!

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING

(For Each Goal)

MEASUREABLE SCHOOL GOAL:

Percentage of grade four students scoring at proficiency or higher in Mathematics will increase from 50% to 67% by the end of the 2007-08 school year as measured by the state required MCAS assessment administered in May of each year.

Background Data (Justification for this goal as a school priority):

MCAS 4^th grade math test results over a six-year period

Performance Levels	Math Spring 1999	Math Spring 2000	Math Spring 2001	Math Spring 2002	Math Spring 2003	Math Spring 2004
Advanced	20%	19%	11%	16%	20%	19%
Proficient	32%	45%	36%	31%	37%	28%
Needs Improvement	46%	28%	49%	48%	37%	41%
Warning	2%	8%	5%	5%	6%	13%

Interpretation (What data indicate a pattern? What data indicate an area on which to focus? What do the data suggest?)

1. The data suggest that over a six-year period our math scores remain flat particularly in the proficient and advanced categories. Our lack of consistent progress indicates that math must continue to be our area of focus for increasing student achievement.

2. The Everyday Math program (Chicago Math), as implemented has not had a significant impact on improving mathematics MCAS test scores in the fourth grade.

3. As a staff we need to further investigate strengths and weaknesses of our math curriculum and develop and implement strategies for improvement.

4. On going professional development in math is needed for teachers to increase their knowledge of the math curriculum and their expertise in using the program as an instructional tool for students to achieve mastery.

5. Analysis of 4^th grade math MCAS results/data will be done yearly, to identify areas of strength and weakness of the math curriculum. Strategies will be developed yearly to strengthen the curriculum, to improve instruction and to identify students in need of remediation and advancement.

6. For the past four years the greatest area of weakness identified is student response to open response questions. The 2004 MCAS results indicate that about one third of our fourth grade students did not answer the short answer questions.

7. Informal pre and posttests have been developed to monitor student progress throughout the year beginning with pre and posttests in grades 3-5 to measure student mastery of the essential outcomes.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN RUSSELL STREET SCHOOL DATE: July 2005

DISTRICT GOAL	Create and implement a challenging and comprehensive Pre-K—12 curriculum that meets the needs of all students and is consistent across grade levels.
MEASUREABLE SCHOOL GOAL	Percentage of fourth grade students scoring at proficient or higher will range between 65% and 70%by the end of June 2008 as measured by the state required MCAS Math assessment (results available in Oct of each year). By June 2008, 85% of students at each grade level will score 80% or above on end of the year math assessment (results available in June of each year).
SUCCESS INDICATORS (Measures, assessment tools)	· Increase the % of fourth grade students scoring in the advanced and proficient range of the MCAS Math Assessment · Decrease the number of students scoring in the warning range of the MCAS Math Assessment · Increase math scores each year as measured by the end of the year math assessment administered at each grade level · Improve proficiency scores of open response and short answer math problems
ANNUAL TARGETS 4^th Grade MCAS MATH	Baseline (3 yr. Average, 02,03,04) Spring 2005 Spring 2006* (Target) Spring 2007 (Target) Spring 2008 (Target) 50% proficient/advanced 55% proficient/adv. (target) 57% actual 61% proficient/adv. 65% proficient/adv. 70% proficient/adv.
ANNUAL TARGETS End of Year Math Assessment teacher developed	Grade average Baseline established (June 04) June 2005 (Target) June 2006 (Target) June 2007 (Target) June 2008 (Target) 3^rd grade 84% scored at 80% or above 86% (80% actual) 86% 90% 92% 4^th grade 57% scored at 80% or above 65% (68% actual) 75% 80% 85% 5^th grade 63% scored at 80% or above 49% 67% 75% 80%
ANNUAL TARGETS 4^th Grade Math Open Response	Baseline Established (Spring 04) June 2005 (target) June 2006 (Target) June 2007 (Target) June 2008 (Target) 21.4 out of 40 points 23 out of 40 points 28 out of 40 points 29 out of 40 points 30 out of 40 points 26.6 out of 40 points actual

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING

(For Each Goal)

Background Data (Justification for this goal as a school priority):

Performance Levels 4^th grade MCAS English Language Arts	4^th Grade ELA Spring 2001	4^th Grade ELA Spring 2002	4^th Grade ELA Spring 2003	4^th Grade ELA Spring 2004
Advanced	4%	7%	13%	10%
Proficient	66%	61%	60%	52%
Needs Improvement	29%	30%	24%	28%
Warning	1%	2%	3%	10%
Performance Levels 4^th Grade Writing Prompt	14.0/20 points (Average score)	14.2/20 points (Average score)	14.8/20 (Average score)	14.1/20 (Average score)
Performance Levels 3^rd grade MCAS reading	3^rd Grade Reading 2001	3^rd Grade Reading 2002	3^rd Grade Reading 2003	3^rd Grade Reading 2004
Proficient	83%	88%	78%	83%
Needs Improvement	16%	12%	16%	15%
Warning	2%	0%	6%	2%

Interpretation (What data indicate a pattern? What data indicate an area on which to focus? What do the data suggest?) English Language Arts

Although we saw a dip in the ELA scores this year, the data suggest that over time the Language Arts program has been an area of strength at the elementary school level.

We intend to bring our ELA scores back to where we were in 2003 and continue an upward trend in improvement at the advanced and proficient levels. Analysis of 4^th

grade long composition scores indicate strength in conventions and a weakness in topic development. This is also supported by the scores of the grade level school wide writing

assessments.

Reading

Four years of data suggest that students are performing well on the third grade reading test. Although we did see a dip in 2003, after careful data analysis we believe this was a one year decline for several reasons:

Year	Proficient	Needs Improvement	Warning
Spring 2002	29-40	16-28	0-15
Spring 2003	32-40	19-31	0-18
Spring 2004	30-40	17-29	0-16

ü There has been a fluctuation in the performance levels for raw score intervals as the table above indicates:

ü The 2002 MCAS Reading test scores do not reflect an accurate reporting of students with disabilities, thus the scores are most likely inflated creating a bubble in the scores for this class.

ü The current fifth grade class, where we saw the dip when they were in third grade, has a larger than expected number of students receiving special education and Title I compensatory services in reading and writing with double the number of students receiving support in reading and written language than in previous years.

1. With the No Child Left Behind legislation requiring that all students read proficiently by the end of third grade by the year 2014, we need to continually assess our grade K –5 reading/literacy program to ensure that we are implementing best practices for teaching reading and writing to improve instruction.