Irving Elementary School

School Information

School Name: Irving School
School Address: 9 Garden Place, Derby CT 06408
School Phone: 203-736-5043
School Fax:
Principal: Mr. Fran Gallo
Principal email: fgallo@derbyps.org

 

Demographics

Number of Students: 466
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 55 %
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 16.6 %
Percent of Special Education: 9 %
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

• 52 % White
• 14 % Black
• 32 % Hispanic
• 2 % Asian/Pacific Island
• 0 % Other

 

Present Student Achievement Data in at least three points to demonstrate trends –

*Test was given in the fall of 2004. No scores to report for grade 3. Test was given in the spring of 2006 and 2007.

Grade 3 Results: Irving (%CT making goal)

 

Grade 3	Math	Reading	Writing
2004*
2006	61 (56)	49 (59)	73(63)
2007	74 (59)	56 (52)	77 (61)

 

Grade 6 Results: Irving (%CT making goal)

 

Grade 6	Math	Reading	Writing
2004*	84 (61)	44 (60)	53(61)
2006	61 (59)	65 (64)	73(63)
2007	79 (64)	73(64)	88(63)

**DRG = Demographic Reference Group. School districts in Connecticut are grouped into similar groups, depending on demographics.

DRG’s rank from A (most wealthy) to I (urban centers)

 

Grade 3 scores compared to other schools in our DRG (Demographic Reference Group):

Irving School outperformed all other schools in the demographic reference group (DRG) in reading and writing on the grade 3 CMT and ranked ahead of five other schools in the DRG in math.

 

	Math	Reading	Writing
Ansonia	45.2	41.4	53.8
Danbury	63.9	39.7	51
Derby	54.8(#2)	41.7(#2)	66.7(#1)
Irving	54.8(#4)	41.7(#1)	66.7(#2)
E.Hartford	51.8	58.9	64.3
Meriden	38	26.6	44.5
Norwalk	39	28	45.6
Stamford	52.9	41.6	55
W.Haven	42.7	38.7	53.5

 

Grade 6 scores by DRG:

Irving School outperformed all other schools in the demographic reference group (DRG) in reading and writing on the grade 6 CMT. Irving was ranked 4th on the math CMT, higher than the district average and ahead of 5 other schools in the DRG.

 

	Math	Reading	Writing
Ansonia	39	46.2	47.4
Danbury	55.4	54.3	44.3
Derby	48.1(#4)	60.6(#1)	61.5(#1)
Irving	51.8(#4)	58.9(#1)	64.3(#1)
E.Hartford	30.2	31.7	38.2
Meriden	41.1	40.4	46.4
Norwalk	40.5	44.8	50.4
Stamford	53.9	56.3	60.2
W.Haven	47.9	55.2	49.3

 

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the data that you feel is particularly significant. 

Irving School is a Tile 1 school that failed to make AYP in the 2005-6 school year. A significant turn- around resulted in the 2006 -7 school year when the school not only made AYP, but in some areas outperformed the other elementary school in our district, which is not a Title 1 school. This occurred in year 3 of our PLC initiative, and is certainly a result of the grade level meetings, common assessments and talk about assessment and instruction that took place and are now an integral part of the school culture.

In some cases, Irving’s score is above the average score of the two schools, indicating that Irving carried the non-Title 1 school. Irving has a high transience rate, with about 17% of the student population new each year. The results on our 2007 test scores were especially noteworthy, given that statistic.

Derby is a school district of 1400 students. We have one social worker who serves the entire district.  Therefore, the task of assisting new students adjust falls to Irving staff.

 

Please present any additional information that indicates your efforts to build a professional learning community have had a positive impact upon students and/or teachers.

Finding time to hold meetings was an obstacle that we had to work to overcome. Teachers meet either before or after school, in addition to early release days provided by the district on the first Wednesday of the month. The use of teacher leaders as literacy coaches and a math coach has provided support to classroom teachers as they use common assessments in writing and reading.

This is a district that had no shared time or professional development for many years before the current superintendent arrived in 2005. The teachers from the same grade level never met; the teachers from the two elementary schools did not meet. It was a system of schools, not a school system. Overcoming the culture of working alone and independently was the first obstacle. But once teachers understood the power of teams and the assistance they could get by sharing with each other and working together, they were enthusiastic and eager to do more.

 

Please elaborate upon strategies you have found to be effective in any of the following areas:

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

We are in year two of using common assessment that include a writing prompt, the DRA and open ended questions based on a reading passage.  This year, the use of these common assessments is resulting in more discussions about instruction and student achievement.  The teachers seem to understand and appreciate the value of providing assessments across grade levels and across our two schools. For the first time ever, teachers have been given time to talk about instructional issues in grade levels teams that include teachers from both elementary schools.  Teachers from Irving, our Title 1 school, are especially proud of the fact that they can share achievement stories with the school across town that represents middle class students.

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

The pyramid of intervention is a living document that is implemented across all grade levels. Using Title 1 funds we were able to add a guidance counselor to Irving School this year and she is instrumental in implementing the pyramid.  An added bonus of teacher teams is that a uniform policy of student behavior guidelines is now in place throughout the school. This allows teachers to focus on student achievement.

The literacy coaches and the math coach created intervention folders that they shared with teachers when they returned in the fall. These folders contain individual plans for students who scored below goal on the state test last spring. The principal has scheduled ‘compelling conversations” with each teacher and during this short meeting of 15-20 minutes, the folders are reviewed to indicate how students are progressing in this intervention. This one strategy seems to be the most rewarding for teachers, who continually say that they never before had a good handle on student achievement, but using the folders combined with verbalizing this to their teammates as well as to the  principal has added to their own understanding.

3. Building the capacity of teachers to work as members of high performing collaborative teams who focus the efforts of their team on improved learning for students.

This has been a slow steady progress, but last year’s scores indicate that we are making significant headway on this process.  Our efforts in PK -3 have resulted in significant gains in all areas on the grade 3 state tests.  The literacy coaches and math coach have taken the lead in helping teachers on all of the teams construct assessments and plan instruction that meets the needs of the students.  At our last Professional Development day for the first time ever all of the sessions were presented by Derby teachers who shared strategies they use in the classroom. They combined into trams of 2-3 teacher sot plan and present topics of their choice that were related to student achievement.

 

List any Awards and Recognition Garnered by Your School

Recognized in the State of Connecticut Public Education: A 2006 Report Card for Elementary and Middle Schools as one of the top 10 schools (#6) in performance gains.  Irving School outperformed all other schools in the demographic reference group (DRG) in reading and writing on the grade 3 CMT and ranked ahead of five other schools in the DRG in math. Irving School outperformed all other schools in the demographic reference group (DRG) in reading and writing on the grade 6 CMT. Irving was ranked 4th on the math CMT, higher than the district average and ahead of 5 other schools in the DRG.