Windsor Central School District

School Information

District Name: Windsor Central School District
School Address: 215 Main Street, Windsor, NY  13865
School Phone: 607.655.8216
School Fax: 607.655.3553
Principal: Mr. Jason A. Andrews, Superintendent
Principal email: jandrews@windsor-csd.org
Web Address: http://www.windsor-csd.org/

Demographics

Number of Students: 1956
Percent Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 52%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: Less than 1%
Percent of Special Education: 17%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

• White: 96%
• Black: 2%
• Hispanic: 1%
• Asian/Pacific Island: 1%
• Other:

Student Achievement Data:

Windsor Central Middle School

Grade: 3rd	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	92/85	76/67	NA	NA	NA
Year 07-08	92/90	78/70	NA	NA	NA
Year 08-09	95/93	76/76	NA	NA	NA
Year 09-10	68/59	60/55	NA	NA	NA
Percentage of students passing: School Scores/Comparison Scores Levels 3 and 4
Grade: 4th	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	77/80	73/68	NA	94/85	NA
Year 07-08	86/84	74/71	NA	94/85	NA
Year 08-09	85/87	81/77	NA	96/88	NA
Year 09-10	60/64	52/57	NA	100/88	NA
Percentage of students passing: School Scores/Comparison Scores
Grade: 5th	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	87/76	82/68	NA	NA	94/78
Year 07-08	85/83	82/78	NA	NA	95/85
Year 08-09	94/88	88/82	NA	NA	90/NA
Year 09-10	80/65	55/52	NA	NA	96/NA

Windsor Central Middle School

Grade: 6th	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	83/71	77/63	NA	NA	NA
Year 07-08	90/79	80/67	NA	NA	NA
Year 08-09	94/83	87/81	NA	NA	NA
Year 09-10	70/61	75/54	NA	NA	NA
Percentage of students passing: School Scores/Comparison Scores Levels 3 and 4
Grade: 7th	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	80/67	66/58	NA	NA	NA
Year 07-08	96/79	78/70	NA	NA	NA
Year 08-09	98/87	94/80	NA	NA	NA
Year 09-10	75/62	55/50	NA	NA	NA
Percentage of students passing: School Scores/Comparison Scores
Grade: 8th	Math	Reading	Writing	Science	Social Studies
Year 06-07	79/59	80/57	NA	96/65	90/57
Year 07-08	88/70	72/56	NA	93/71	95/63
Year 08-09	93/80	76/69	NA	94/71	95/NA
Year 09-10	64/55	67/51	NA	95/74	95/NA

Windsor Central High School

Summary of School Performance
Percentage of students that scored at or above Level 3(65 and above)

	English	NYS Public Schools
2003 Total Cohort	89%	72%
2004 Total Cohort	86%	75%
2005 Total Cohort	96%	77%
2006 Total Cohort	83%	79%
	Math	NYS Public Schools
2003 Total Cohort	87%	74%
2004 Total Cohort	88%	76%
2005 Total Cohort	91%	77%
2006 Total Cohort	87%	79%

Performance on Regents Exams After Four Years
All Students Percentage of Students Scoring:

WCHS	Global History & Geography		US History & Gov’t		Science
	65-84	85-100	65-84	85-100	65-84	85-100
2003 Total Cohort	50%	37%	31%	56%	56%	35%
2004 Total Cohort	48%	36%	34%	53%	52%	37%
2005 Total Cohort	56%	37%	20%	75%	49%	47%
2006 Total Cohort	46%	39%	27%	57%	46%	39%

NY State	Global History & Geography		US History & Gov’t		Science
	65-84	85-100	65-84	85-100	65-84	85-100
2003 Total Cohort	41%	27%	28%	41%	46%	27%
2004 Total Cohort	39%	30%	33%	39%	46%	28%
2005 Total Cohort	45%	26%	31%	43%	47%	28%
2006 Total Cohort	42%	31%	35%	40%	49%	29%

High School Completers Diplomas All Students

WCHS
Year	Regents	Regents/Adv	IEP*
2006-2007	84%	42%	2
2007-2008	96%	52%	6
2008-2009	90%	57%	3
2009-2010	92%	47%	5

*Reported as the number of students

NY State
Year	Regents	Regents/Adv	IEP*
2006-2007	80%	39%	NA
2007-2008	80%	40%	NA
2008-2009	81%	38%	NA
2009-2010	83%	38%	NA

*Reported as the number of students

High School Non-completers All Students

WCHS
Year	Dropped Out	HS Equivalency	Total
2006-2007	1%	1%	2%
2007-2008	1%	0%	1%
2008-2009	1%	0%	1%
2009-2010	1%	1%	2%

NYS State
Year	Dropped Out	HS Equivalency	Total
2006-2007	3.2%	0.3%	3.5%
2007-2008	2.9%	0.5%	3.4%
2008-2009	2.7%	0.7%	3.4%
2009-2010	2.7%	0.6%	3.3%

Regents Exams

		WCHS - All Students			NY State – All Students
		Total Tested	Percentage of students Scoring at or above		Percentage of students Scoring at or above
			65	85	65	85
Comprehensive English	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	172 142 144 135	91% 97% 97% 93%	46% 58% 52% 40%	83% 82% 81% 78%	35% 33% 33% 30%
Mathematics A	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	NA 7 171 149	NA 71% 95% 91%	NA 14% 41% 36%	NA 60% 76% 77%	NA 16% 27% 29%
Mathematics B	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	46 134 109 112	63% 57% 67% 71%	0% 7% 12% 9%	61% 68% 70% 70%	16% 23% 26% 26%
Integrated Algebra	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	185 108 85 N/A	90% 84% 93% N/A	10% 4% 9% N/A	72% 72% 75% N/A	15% 15% 18% N/A
Geometry	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	109 121 N/A N/A	89% 83% N/A N/A	18% 21% N/A N/A	73% 73% N/A N/A	20% 25% N/A N/A
Global History And Geography	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	161 177 172 152	83% 89% 88% 83%	47% 46% 41% 34%	70% 70% 67% 63%	29% 30% 28% 24%
U.S. History\and Government	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	168 115 136 138	95% 95% 96% 93%	65% 60% 76% 54%	83% 80% 83% 79%	44% 43% 47% 42%
Living Environment	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	149 172 142 146	97% 96% 92% 95%	54% 44% 44% 38%	78% 80% 75% 75%	31% 29% 26% 22%
Physical Setting/ Earth Science	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	132 126 134 139	89% 90% 87% 80%	43% 39% 26% 26%	74% 72% 70% 73%	31% 30% 27% 27%
Physical Setting/Chemistry	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	103 91 98 88	64% 64% 83% 67%	6% 21% 13%   7%	73% 74% 73% 71%	15% 18% 15% 13%
Physical Setting/Physics	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	19 24 12 16	95% 67% 75% 100%	16% 13% 42% 19%	82% 77% 78% 80%	33% 28% 31% 30%
Comprehensive French	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	52 41 33 32	100% 95% 97% 100%	58% 54% 67% 63%	95% 97% 97% 98%	54% 65% 62% 69%
Comprehensive Spanish	2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	73 58 64 46	100% 97% 98% 100%	53% 62% 41% 54%	95% 96% 95% 97%	60% 66% 62% 67%

 

Comparisons are to New York State.

Reading = ELA

Scores are percentage at proficiency – levels 3 and 4

Please comment on any aspect of the data that you believe is particularly significant.

Student results in grades 3-5 on the New York State assessments in Math have improved over the three year period ‘06-’07 to ’08-’09 but “dip” in ’09-’10 due to a change in “cut” scores for proficiency. Grade 4 remains a challenge for the district in comparison to grades 3 and 5 and the New York State average. In ELA, the New York State assessment results during this same three year period show growth in grades 4 and 5 but a static outcome in grade 3. In 2009-10 grade 3  has made some improvement relative to the New York State average but grade 4 has slipped to slightly below the New York State average (cut scores were also “re-set” in ELA). Science results at grade 4 are very consistent and strong as are Social Studies with the exception of a decrease in the percentage scoring at proficiency in the ’08-’09 school year.  However, ’09-’10 results show proficiency levels similar to ’06-’07 and ’07-’08.

Mastery Levels in ELA over the last four years were as follows:

Year	%
’06-’07	10%
’07-’08	3%
’08-’09	11%
’09-’10	8%

These results are similar to or slightly below New York State levels.

Mastery Levels in Math over the last four years were as follows:

Year	%
’06-’07	23%
’07-’08	26%
’08-’09	46%
’09-’10	24%

During the four year period of ’06-’07 to ’09-‘10, one of our elementary schools achieved 100% proficiency on the grade 3 mathematics assessment and grade 5 social studies assessment.  In the 2008-2009 school year this same building had 100% of their students scoring at proficiency and 71% at the mastery level in mathematics grade 5.  In another building grade 4 had 75% of their students at the mastery level in mathematics.  In that same building 100% of students achieved proficiency in grade 4 science in the ’06-‘07 school year.  In ’09-’10, 100% of our students districtwide scored at the proficient level in Science.

The district has also regularly disaggregated data on all state assessments relative to income (free and reduced priced lunch vs. not  free and reduced priced lunch), education “type” (students with disabilities vs. general education students), and gender (boys vs. girls).  We continue to make progress on all three of these indicators, reducing the number of students who score at level 1 – the lowest score possible on the four point rubric.  However, progress in all these areas remain a challenge.  During the last five years the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch at the elementary schools has increased from 36% to 52%.

 

Windsor Central Middle School

At each grade level, 6, 7 and 8 the district has scored higher than the New York State average each year in ELA and Mathematics.  ELA results have improved but are currently a challenge in grade 7 with only 55% at proficiency.  All data is also disaggregated based on income (free and reduced priced lunch vs. not free and reduced priced lunch), education “type” – (students with disabilities vs. general education students) and gender (boys vs. girls).  Trend data for all students and for each subgroup of students is charted for administrator and staff review.

In ELA, cohort data for proficiency (levels 3 and 4) is relatively “flat” over a 5 year period starting in grade 4 (2004-2005) for grade 8 students in 2008-2009.  During the ’08-’09 school year, approximately 85% of the students in grades 6 – 8 were “proficient” in ELA based upon their most recent ELA state assessment score.  It is difficult to discuss ’09-’10 data as the cut score for proficiency was reset by NY State.

In Math, cohort data for proficiency (levels 3 and 4) shows growth and a leveling off after an initial drop over a 5 year period starting in grade 4 (2004-2005) for grade 8 students in 2008-2009.  During the ’08-’09 school year approximately 95% of students in grades 6-8 were proficient in math based upon their most recent state assessment score.  Again with the change in “cut scores”, the percentage of students at proficiency has dropped in ’09-’10.

8th grade Science results are very strong for the four years reported with 96%, 93%, 94%, and 95%  of students at proficiency – levels 3 and 4.  Level 4 (mastery) is 30.6% to 55% over the same period for all students.

8th grade Social Studies results are very strong for the four years reported with 90%, 95%, 95% and 95%  of students at proficiency – levels 3 and 4.  Seven years of data indicate strong growth especially at level 4 (mastery) (from 15.3% to 52%).

During the period of time from 2006 to 2010, Free and Reduced Priced Lunch student participation increased from 30% to 38% at the Middle School.

Windsor Central High School

English Regents results at level 3 or higher (proficiency) have been consistently strong for our cohorts with 96% of the 2005 cohort scoring at level 3 or higher (65 and above) and 83% in the 2006 cohort.  Math results are slightly lower (91% for the 2005 cohort) and 87% for the 2006 cohort..  Regents results for Global History and Geography show consistent results for students scoring 85-100 (37% to 39%).  The same is true for Science (35% to 39% with a spike to 47% for the 2005  cohort)).  However, US History and Government,  showed a significant increase in the number of students scoring at 85-100 (56% to 75%) for the 2005 cohort.  However, results for the 2006 cohort were similar to previous years (2003 and 2004).  For all of these assessments, the results are better than the State results.  Mastery is a score of 85-100 on state Regents exams.

The high school has increased the percentage of students achieving Regents diplomas (84% to 92%) and also Advanced Regents diplomas (42% to 47% with a “spike” of 57% in 2008-2009).  In both cases the results are better than State averages 83% and 38% in the 2009-2010 school year.  Dropout rates and high school equivalency students – counted by the state as “non completers” - remain low for the high school. 

Individual Regents results are positive for the district when compared to NY State.  However, Math B results are an area of concern especially the percentage of students scoring at 85 and above – 0% as compared to 16% for the State in 2009-2010.  The same is true for Integrated Algebra with 10% at 85 and above for the high school as compared to 15% for the State in the 2009-2010 school year.  In Science the number of students at the mastery level in Chemistry and Physics is also a concern.  However the percentage of students at the mastery level in Global History and Geography, US History and Government, and Living Environment are all higher than the state averages.  All data is also disaggregated based on income (free and reduced priced lunch vs. not free and reduced priced lunch), education “type” (students with disabilities vs. general education students), and gender (boys vs. girls).  Trend data for all students and for each subgroup of students is charted for administrators and staff review.  During the last four years the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch at the high school has increased from 25% to 33%.

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

At the elementary level, all teachers have been given time to collaborate within the daily schedule.  Teachers meet every Monday in building or district-wide grade level teams, and also once per 6 day cycle in building-wide grade level teams.  This collaborative time is spent reviewing student performance and planning for instruction.

As a result of these meetings, our district wide collaborative teams are working together to meet proficiency and mastery targets for New York State Assessments at each grade level 3-5, and are currently completing curriculum maps in all core subjects PK-5.  Proficiency and Mastery Target goals in ELA and Math for the district are as follows:

ELA
	Proficiency	Mastery
Grade 3	64%	14%
Grade 4	62%	3%
Grade 5	65%	5%

Math
	Proficiency	Mastery
Grade 3	70%	35%
Grade 4	70%	20%
Grade 5	80%	26%

Curriculum Maps in ELA and Math, four (4) common summative assessments and aligned frequent assessments are currently in place for grades PK-5.  Curriculum Maps in Science are currently being completed – all essential learnings and core curriculums are to be completed by June 2011. The curriculum maps address:

Essential Learning – the critical skills, knowledge and dispositions each student must acquire as a result of each course, grade level, and unit of instruction. Each team has engaged in collective inquiry to ask, “What do we want each student to learn? What are the most essential learnings of our course, each subject in our grade level, and each unit of instruction?”

Learning Targets: The critical skills embedded in essential learnings which fit the following criteria:

• Small and specific: it is the right grain size that would allow you to know what to teach next.
• High leverage: it is foundational in order to master the skill and move to the next level of proficiency. It is “necessary vs. simply nice” for proficiency.
• Teachable and learnable within a short cycle of a few days to a few weeks.
• Measurable for monitoring and for tracking progress over time.

Daily Objectives: What a student will know and/or be able to do. In other words they are the specific behaviors students must demonstrate to indicate that learning has occurred.

Over the past four (4)  years, 22 elementary staff members (approximately 25%) have participated in a six (6) day PLC Coaching Academy presented by Dr. Dick Dewey, PLC Master Coach and annual follow-up training. Staff participating have assumed leadership roles as coaches and have undertaken new roles such as the “Weeks Watch Mentor Program” which impacts 30 students in one of our elementary schools and presenting to fellow staff members at faculty meetings on topics such as: “Planning for Intervention”, “Character Education”, “Discipline”, “Awards Programs” (Example: Black Diamond), “AIS Academic Focus”, “Learning by Doing”  (chapter review), common core curriculum and antibullying.

As a result of our PLC implementation and staff development, faculty meetings are increasingly used for in house staff development.  Teachers have also developed a “collective sense” of not yours or mine – but ours.  They have taken the responsibility for blowing up the building schedule in one of our elementary schools in order to create a new framework that increased common planning time with both grade level colleagues as well as AIS reading, math and special education support providers.

At the middle school student failure rates have fallen dramatically each quarter of the school year and for final grades.  A summary of final average failure rates in the middle school in five of the last eight years is as follows:

	’02-03	’04-‘05	’06-‘07	’08-‘09	'09-'10
English	6.6%	2.2%	4.0%	0.7%	0.7%
Math	11.8%	3.8%	3.9%	1.4%	1.4%
Social Studies	11.0%	6.5%	5.0%	2.5%	2.3%
Science	12.0%	4.5%	4.5%	2.7%	2.5%
LOTE*	9.0%	5.2%	3.5%	3.0%	1.1%
Phys Ed	0.6%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

*Languages Other Than English

The last four years’ failure rates have been consistently lower and are as follows:

	’06-‘07	’07-‘08	’08-‘09	'09-'10
English	4.0%	1.7%	0.7%	0.7%
Math	3.9%	4.1%	1.4%	1.4%
Social Studies	5.0%	2.8%	2.5%	2.3%
Science	4.5%	2.5%	2.7%	2.5%
LOTE*	3.5%	3.7%	3.0%	1.1%
Phys Ed	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

*Languages Other Than English

Time Out Room visits have decreased as follows over a six year period:

’04-’05	2582
’05-’06	1717
’06-’07	1638
’07-’08	1018
’08-’09	1394
’09-’10	547

Library circulation has increased over the past four years as follows:

’06-’07	2913 books
’07-’08	5052 books
’08-’09	6192 books
’09-’10	7749 books

The district has begun to add “electronic books” to our libraries to further increase circulation.

Staff has found that teamwork involved in PLC planning and common quarterly summative assessments is translating into better instruction, greater student motivation, and measurable successes.  The PLC structures put in place are of a great benefit to all of our students. 

Approximately 25% of the middle school faculty has been trained as a PLC Coach, attending a six (6) day PLC Academy over the past four years.  All staff participate in weekly PLC meetings as part of an extended school day and all coaches have participated in a one day annual follow-up training. 

At the high school, as a result of creating a 9th grade academy to assist students with the transition to high school as part of our PLC implementation, the following positive outcomes have occurred this school year:

• Total number of classes failed has been reduced by 65% since the  9th grade academy has been introduced.  42 classes failed in 06-07.  27 classes failed in 07-08.  19 classes failed ‘08-‘09 and 31 classes failed in ’09-’10 (increased Math and Studio Art failures).
• The Earth Science Regent’s exam (taken at the conclusion of a student’s 9th grade year) has seen the failure rate decrease from 19.4% (at the conclusion of 2006-07, before the 9th grade academy was implemented) to 9.1% at the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year and 2% in 2009-2010.  Students meeting proficiency has risen from 80.6% to 89% for the same time period.  Finally, the percentage of students’ mastering this exam has risen from 26.9% to 43% again in the same time period. 

Students in the 9th grade academy have the same core of academic teachers for ELA, Social Studies, Math and Science.  These teachers work as a team and meet every other day to review and discuss student progress.  As a result of this common planning and collaboration, end of the year failure rates for grade 9 students over the past four years are as follows:

Course	’06-‘07	’07-‘08	’08-‘09	’09-‘10
English	11.0%	2.8%	2.0%	6.0%
Math I/Int Algebra	5.9%	3.6%	1.7%	4.5%
Global Studies 9	7.3%	3.4%	3.9%	2.3%
Earth Science/Intro to Living Environment	10.6%	3.2%	2.0%	2.4%
Spanish I/French I	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

The 9th grade academy was instituted at the start of the ’07-’08 school year.  Physical Education failure rates were not included in the above as PE staff does not meet with the academic teachers every day.  However, failure rates in Physical Education are low in grade 9 and at all grade levels in the high school – approximately 2%.

Student failure rates for all high school students have also decreased each quarter of the school year and for final grades.  A summary of final average failure rates at the high school in five of the last eight years is as follows:

	’02-03	’04-‘05	’06-‘07	’08-‘09	’09-‘10
English	8.3%	9.5%	6.3%	1.5%	3.9%
Math	14.6%	7.3%	5.6%	8.0%	8.4%
Social Studies	3.5%	6.4%	3.3%	3.9%	3.0%
Science	2.4%	4.0%	6.3%	2.3%	3.3%
LOTE*	3.0%	1.9%	1.2%	1.3%	0.2%
Phys Ed	4.1%	1.8%	2.7%	2.3%	2.5%

*Languages Other Than English

The last four years’ failure rates have been consistently lower and are as follows:

	’06-‘07	’07-‘08	’08-‘09	’09-‘10
English	6.3%	2.8%	1.5%	3.9%
Math	5.6%	6.9%	8.0%	8.4%
Social Studies	3.3%	2.8%	3.9%	3.0%
Science	6.3%	2.2%	2.3%	3.3%
LOTE*	1.2%	0.9%	1.3%	0.2%
Phys Ed	2.7%	2.9%	2.3%	2.5%

*Languages Other Than English

Correction Center (CC) visits and After School Detentions (ASD) have decreased as follows over a five year period:

	CC	ASD	Total
’04-‘05	505	195	700
’05-‘06	396	153	549
’06-‘07	236	165	401
’07-‘08	224	61	281
’08-‘09	330	38	368
’09-‘10	129	83	212

Student Suspensions (greater than 1 day) have decreased over a five year period:

’04-’05	118
’05-’06	92
’06-’07	66
’07-’08	56
’08-’09	98
’09-’10	54

Library Circulation has increased over the past three years as follows:

’06-’07	1867 books
’07-’08	1894 books
’08-’09	1947 books
’09-’10	2176 books

During the same period of time many classes have increased the percentage of students at the proficiency and mastery levels. Several courses where mastery levels have increased since last year are:

	1/09	1/10	1/11
Global Studies 10	22%	31%	32%
English 10	15%	28%	40%
English 11	24%	35%	39%

As in the middle school and elementary schools, all teachers meet every Monday in department teams to collaborate as part of an extended school day.  The collaborative time is spent reviewing student performance and planning for instruction.  Curriculum Maps (Essential Learning, Learning Targets, and Daily Objectives) have been completed in all secondary curriculum areas.  All departments administer at least four (4) common summative assessments and aligned frequent assessments each year in their courses.  To date approximately 20% of the high school faculty have been trained as a PLC Coach, attending a six (6) day PLC Academy over the past four years and one day of annual follow-up training.

Throughout the district, staff have identified essential learning, developed common learning targets, schedule and give at least four (4) common summative assessments and aligned frequent assessments, collect and organize data, analyze data to create an action plan and then reflect on the results of the action plan.  The PLC process then restarts as a continuous improvement

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

At all instructional levels in the school district (elementary, middle level and high school) summative common assessments are administered at the end of each quarter of the school year.  Throughout the school year, staff also administer aligned frequent assessments.  In addition, at the elementary level the following strategies are utilized to monitor student learning on a daily basis:

• For AIS and special education students, frequent short assessments are administered to determine short term flexible groups for targeted intervention. 
• Academic Focus Forms (Student Literacy Goal and Student Math Goal sheets) – individual forms for each AIS child - are used to guide intervention; grade level discussions, and assessment/test preparation. Therefore, each student has at least two professionals – classroom teacher and service provider – working together to provide interventions.
• Progress monitoring of all students in ELA and Math occurs in small groups as part of guided reading and math instruction.
• Student Support Teams (SST) have been organized in each building that focus on short term interventions for students.  As part of student reviews, individuals can be assigned to reteaching time or learning centers with AIS providers.  Student intervention action plans are developed as appropriate.
• Students with a failing grade on any 3 week interim report are immediately referred to the building SST so that an action plan for improvement can be developed and put in place.  In one building, 3 week grades are entered into a spread sheet so that student success/failure rates can be monitored and addressed.  In all buildings, ten week report card failures are summarized and reviewed.  Appropriate intervention services are then provided by academic and support staff.  All students (PK-12) will receive progress reports at 3 and 6 weeks and report cards at 10 weeks.
• Classroom teachers report guided reading levels to the principal on a monthly and/or quarterly basis to ensure that in class grouping remains deliberate and targeted.  Guided Reading Instructional Levels are also reported to parents quarterly on student report cards. 
• All elementary classrooms are equipped with SMART Boards and ten (10) sets of Senteos and 11 sets of Senteo LF’s are available for use.  Eighteen (18) SMART Tables are also used in PK and primary classrooms.
• Elementary staff regularly meet with AIS providers to check on student progress toward instructional goals.  They also:

• Complete bell ringer activities daily as an assessment check on student learning.
• Involve students in the tracking/monitoring of their progress on targeted skills in ELA and Math.
• Complete regular data analysis of student performance on quizzes, tests and common assessments.
• Have students complete practice exams for NYS ELA and Math assessments at regular intervals during the school year to monitor progress towards district-wide targets and goals.
• Recognition of student achievement is accomplished by the publishing and posting of the honor roll and merit roll each quarter.  Best work is also posted as short videos or slides on the district’s website www.windsor-csd.org.
• Student attendance is closely monitored with letters and phone calls after 7, 14, and 21 days total absences.  Counselors follow up with each student and their family.
• Parent Access through the student management system eSchool Plus allows parents to access student academic, discipline and attendance data on a timely basis.

At the middle school staff members are on teams and have daily common team time in addition to daily individual planning time.  Student learning is a daily topic of conversation for all teams.  Progress monitoring formerly occurs at 3, 6, and 10 weeks through interim grades and report cards.  Previously progress was monitored at the 5 and 10 week mark of each quarter.  This shift has played a significant part in intervening in a timely and deliberate manner.

• Student learning is also monitored through the use of quarterly common summative assessments and aligned frequent assessments throughout the school year.  Departments meet to analyze the common assessment data and create action plans to serve individual students and whole classes if common deficiencies are observed.  Teachers use the action planning time to discuss curriculum alignment, teaching strategies, and design intervention activities or plans.  Departments meet once a week to participate in this process and attend to other department needs.
• The district also makes extensive use of SMART Board technology and Senteo’s (“clickers”) for in class quizzes.  Quiz results are exported to an Excel spread sheet for review and analysis.  Students are provided with immediate feedback and missed questions can be reviewed at that time or throughout the following week.  Every classroom in the middle school is equipped with a SMART Board and there are ten (10) sets of Senteos (“clickers”) available.
• Changed interim notices from 5 weeks to 3 and 6 weeks.
• District-wide use of common classroom teaching strategies.  A few of these are:
  
  

• What “checking for understanding” means.
• Bell ringers for checking for understanding of prior knowledge.
• Classroom management strategies, “re-training”.
• End of class ideas, “ticket out”
  
  
• Common Formative Assessments
• Technology.  Senteo software and the updated SMART Response software allow teachers to access student knowledge at a moment’s notice.
• Parent Access through the student management system eSchool Plus, allows parents to access student academic, attendance, and discipline data on a timely basis.
  

At the high school, student progress is monitored as follows:

• 3, 6 and 10 week student reports for all students (progress report, progress report, report card) four times a year.
• Building wide use of the following common teaching strategies such as:
• Checking for understanding
• Bell ringers
• Ticket out
• Common Summative Assessment are completed four times per year in all subjects. Aligned frequent assessments are also regularly administered by staff.
• The use of SMART Technology resources – SMART Boards and Senteo Response Systems.  Every classroom in the high school is equipped with a SMART Board and twenty-one (21) sets of Senteos are available for teacher use.
• All students report daily to a 15 minute Advisory period where they meet with a faculty member in a classroom setting of twelve students or less.
• Student attendance is closely monitored with letters and phone calls after 7, 14 and 21 days total absences.  Counselors and principals follow up with each student and their family.
• Parent Access through the student management system eSchool Plus allows parents to access student academic, attendance and discipline data on a daily basis.

2. Creating Systems of Intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

At the elementary level the following interventions have been institutionalized:

• Intervention blocks – one of our buildings has scheduled deliberate blocks of time for each grade level where most pull out interventions are scheduled.  The “block” greatly simplified the scheduling of speech, ESL, OT and PT and increased the time that the whole class was present for instruction.  It also has provided a regular small group time with some students for remediation.
• Flexible groups in 4th and 5th grade Mathematics with additional re-teaching time for students struggling with a single math concept.  This change was accomplished through collaboration among the classroom, consultant, and AIS teacher to review common assessment data and to set goals.
• Homework Club – remediation time at the end of the school day for students who need additional help with a concept, studying for a test, or completing homework.  In grades 3-5 the homework club meets 5 days in a 6 day cycle at the end of the day for 30-45 minutes.
• Academic interventions have been implemented with scaffolded levels of support for students.  Each student has an AIS goal sheet which is created specifically for their needs.  Intervention includes both academic and social-emotional support for students.  Grades 3-5 have a 45 minute period at the end of the day devoted to timely small group remediation of a given skill- teachers assign students to these groups based upon day-to-day needs.
• At risk students are provided with an adult mentor who meets with the student on a regular basis.  Currently10-15% of students have a mentor assigned.  Mentors are classroom teachers, district level personnel, and building support staff.
• Students may request to eat lunch in their classroom and meet with their teacher to receive additional help.
• Prior to State assessments, after school ELA and math enrichment programs are scheduled to assist students with test preparation.
• Each elementary building has a fulltime school counselor to assist students and staff with social and developmental issues.

At the middle school, the following interventions have been developed:

• Grade  teams meet daily and respond to learner needs through a variety of measures.   Timely intervention has been assisted by the creation of the enrichment –remediation mod at each grade level.  Depending on the grade level, students have access to enrichment courses such as Green Technology, Podcasting, Sculpture and more.  Students who are in need of academic assistance are assigned to Math or ELA academic intervention class as needed or as deemed necessary by performance on NY State Assessments. 
• An additional intervention, yet more intensive, is the Guided Study Center.  Grade teams determine which students are in need of this service.   Students needing assistance in the “Guided Study Center” enter the center with an “Entrance Form” that details individual learning goals, materials needed, reassessment items, and notes for the staff providing guided study.
• Grade Teams also use this time to assign students to the Mod 11 program.  Mod 11 provides academic intervention and enrichment opportunities three days per week from 2:15 – 3:15 pm.  The Homework Club meets with students assigned to complete assignments under the supervision of a staff member.  The Homework Center provides individualized instruction and academic assistance in a small group setting, supervised by two staff members.  During this period a wide variety of student clubs and activities also meet – open to all Middle School students.  Students who do not have an academic obligation or do not wish to participate in the enrichment offerings during Mod 11 may exercise the option to go home at 2:15.
• The Middle School has also instituted an Advisory Program that provides a connection for every student with at least one adult, peers and the school.  All activities help foster student moral and performance character.  Weekly plans guide activities and the Advisory Jobs Program assists students in the development of school pride, individual and collective responsibility and fosters community development through team work and school improvement.  Advisors also meet with students at the time of each progress report to discuss and set goals.
• The Middle School’s Golden Ticket program rewards students for achieving “Merit Points”.   Positive Points are earned through weekly good behavior, perfect attendance, being student of the month, being citizen of the month, school/community service, and receiving “Principal Points”.  Negative points are subtracted for being sent to Time Out, having a written referral, and being suspended for a half day or a full day.  In addition, students must also qualify by earning a 75 average in each subject area. 
• Once a quarter, a two hour window of time is dedicated to the Golden Ticket program.  Students earning a Golden Ticket attend a Golden Ticket event (movie, sledding, kickball, etc.)  Students not achieving Golden Ticket status are provided additional targeted instruction, individual academic support and an opportunity to catch up on their work to improve their grades.

At the high school, the following interventions are in place:

• Guided Study Hall (GSH) – an alternative setting for students who have failed (or are failing on an interim basis) at least one academic class.  This room is staffed by one dedicated employee.  Students move in and out of GSH at each report period depending on their grades.
• Homework Center – remediation time at the end of the school day for students who need additional help with a concept, studying for an exam, or completing homework.  The homework center meets four days per week from 2:30-3:15 pm and is staffed by two (2) teachers.
• AIS – incoming 9th grade students who have scored a 1 or 2 on their 8th grade assessments are automatically assigned AIS services.  In addition those upperclassmen who are recommended by their teachers are placed into AIS, if their schedule permits.
• Student Support Team – the building level team meets to review students, and the behaviors that are negatively impacting their success.  The Team suggests possible strategies that can be used to change negative behaviors into positive ones.  Reviewed as part of the referral process are academic progress, health issues, behavior, and attendance which are the four domains of the high school’s RTI pyramid.
• Advisory Wednesdays – provides time for teachers to work in small groups (or individually) with students on a learning objective which may not have been mastered the first time by students.
• Differentiated Bell Ringers to assess student learning and differentiated lessons based on student  knowledge and understanding of the present instructional topics are used by staff daily.
• The scheduling of the 9th grade academy allows teachers to meet on an every other day basis.  The majority of 9th grade students have a study hall during this period with one of the teachers on their team.  During this time students may receive additional support and assistance in any area of academic concern.
  

Windsor Elementary Schools Pyramid of Intervention

Click here to see a more detailed pyramid of interventions map for Windsor Central School District (PDF).

 

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

            At the elementary level, the following are occurring:

• Monthly district grade level meetings to discuss Essential Learning, Common Assessments, Curriculum Mapping, and Best Practices.  From these meetings teachers set student specific goals based upon agreed upon common assessments, and plan reteaching strategies.  They also self-audit developed documents to insure their alignment with State standards and assessments.
• Literacy coaches in each building are training teachers to improve their literacy skill set.  Training has focused on consistent assessment practices and uniform implementation of readers and writers workshops.
• Teachers trained as PLC coaches through one of the 6 day PLC Academies scheduled over the last three years have led to the development of a mentor program for students, and a new discipline plan for students.  Most coaches are members of the Building Leadership Team which develops annual goals and initiatives for school improvement.  Examples of current goals and initiatives are:  implementation of Leveled Literacy Intervention, Math Problem Solving staff development, student and staff safety-security, and the analysis of student  achievement trend data on NYS assessments.
• Collaborative teams have formed to establish and implement Extended SMART Goals, Action Plans and Performance Projects for staff Annual Professional Performance Review.  The goals for this approach to teacher performance review is to improve practice, and to positively impact student outcomes.  Examples are as follows:  OT, PT and UPK staff have developed a rubric to assess student development in a number of fine motor development areas.  Students are then provided targeted assistance to meet their individual needs.  Another example is the development of a common formative assessment for grade 2 Mathematics.  A third example is the monitoring of consultant teacher/teacher instruction in classrooms on four co-teaching strategies (one teach, one support; parallel teaching; alternative teaching, and team teaching).
• Building schedules are developed with non-negotiables that prioritize time for collaboration and common planning.  Examples are:

• Collaboration:  PLC planning/collaboration is part of the normal workday on Mondays as the length of the teachers’ day is extended by 45 minutes.  Teachers meet in grade level teams in their buildings and monthly at the district level.  The district also completes 2 or 3 “Roll Throughs” per year in ELA and Math to provide staff with additional time for staff development, planning, and collaboration.  The sessions are coordinated by AIS staff in ELA and Math PK-5.
• Common planning:  Once per 6 day cycle all instructional staff at a grade level in a building meet in addition to their daily planning period.  In one building, teacher lunch time is extended by 10 minutes a day to “bank” time for later common planning.

• Teachers are encourage to make peer visitations.  During the past school year approximately 20% of our staff have completed a peer visitation, visiting a colleague in the building during instructional time.
• Staff regularly complete book talks in small teams as part of their professional development.  Example of book talk teams currently in place are:
  
  
• The Collaborative Teacher: Working Together as a Professional Learning Community by Erkens, Jakicic, et. al.
• Teacher Teams That Get Results by Gregory & Kuzmich
• Strategies for Teaching Boys and Girls – Secondary Level: A Workbook for Educators – by Gurian, Stevens, & King
• Strategies for Teaching Boys and Girls – Elementary level: A Workbook for Educators – by Gurian, Stevens & King
• Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work by Diller
• The Art & Science of Teaching by Marzano

At the middle school all grade teams meet daily and each department meets once a week.  Each team has developed team norms, protocols and commitments by each team member to guide members in working together.  Norms have helped team members clarify expectations regarding how they will work together to achieve their shared goals.  Teams have developed SMART Goals which addressed goals that are Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented and Time Bound.  The goals include strategies and action steps, a listing of responsibilities, a timeline, and evidence of effectiveness.

The SMART Goal development process involves the following four (4) steps:

1.  Review State Assessment/Common Assessment Data
2.  Develop Good Team Quarterly SMART Goals
3.  Develop an Action Plan Across Content Areas
4.  Evaluate Goals

In developing team norms, staff were asked to address the following:

Time – when do we meet, begin/end and promptness
Listening – listening to others and discouraging interrupting
Confidentiality – openness and confidential information, what is said after the meeting.
Decision making – how to make decisions – how to deal with conflicts, and what is advisory
Participation – encourage all to participate and attend
Expectations – what is expected and required of each team member

The 2009-10 PLC Focus in the Windsor Central School District is the alignment of NYS Core Curriculum and Essential Learnings and our Common Assessments.  A curriculum map in electronic form has been developed in the process that requires staff to identify the following:

• Essential Learning
• Common Targets
• Daily objectives implemented to achieve the target
• Lesson(s) link
• Vocabulary
• Time
• Districtwide Assessments (yes/no)

Departments meet once a week to participate in what is known as the Quarterly Common Assessment Process.  Each Department Team has developed Essential Outcomes for each quarter of the school year which addresses exactly what students are to learn.  Each of these outcomes has endurance, leverage, and is essential for success in the next unit, course or grade level.  A common assessment is constructed, administered and analyzed.

Following common assessment administration team time is spent on the analysis of the results, development of an action plan and reflection.  Guiding questions are:

1.   What targets from the assessments require more attention?  Are any patterns evident?  Is reteaching necessary?
2.   Is there a particular class/group that needs additional instruction?  Which students require remediation?
3.   Which targets were areas of strength or weaknesses?  Can a different instructional strategy improve student performance?

An action plan is developed from the above that addresses a Short Term Plan (reteaching students/targets), Reassessment (make-tests, ongoing formative assessments, observation) and Long Term Plan (instruction/curriculum adjustments).  After the Short Term Plan and Reassessment are completed faculty members have an opportunity to complete a reflection of the assessment results.

At the high school:

• School-wide functions during the school day are often supervised by non-teaching personnel (administrators, teaching assistants, aides) allowing teaching staff to work in their collaborative teams. An example would be a school play.  Performers give their final dress rehearsal to students during the school day.  Students watching the performance are supervised by non-teaching personnel and building administrators while teachers work in their collaborative teams.
• Targeted time during Superintendent Conference Days.  Teachers are given specific directions that the time must be used on one of the areas in the “loop”; 1. Developing Essential Outcomes, 2. Creating Common Assessments, 3. Analyzing Data, 4. Creating an Action Plan in which all students will be brought up to proficiency as determined by the team.  During the 2009-2010 3 days have been utilized in this manner as well as 2 PLC data analysis ½ days.
• Professional Development Credits.  The WCSD teachers are allowed an opportunity to expand their knowledge on one of several topics.  The options follows the four goals of the WCSD Professional Development Plan which are:
  
  
• Effective Teaching Skills/Intervention Strategies
• Becoming a Professional Learning Community
• Effective Implementation of Instructional Technology
• Differentiating Instruction to provide support students at all levels
  
  
• Contracted time – every Monday from 2:30-3:15 all professional staff meet to collaborate as a Professional Learning Community.  During this time staff focus on the alignment of NYS core curriculum, essential learning and common assessments in their courses and departments.

District

• The PLC Focus for the 2010-11 school year is Aligned, Frequent, Common Assessments to Inform Instruction PK-12 in the Windsor Central School District.
• 2010-2011 Initiatives:
• Improve Student Achievement as measured by State Assessments to meet 2010-2011 targets
• Advance Professional Learning Community Commitment
• Develop Comprehensive Plans to Promote Student Growth and Development
• Effectively Integrate Instructional Technology
• Monitor implementation of expanded literacy support and student enrichment
• Development of a comprehensive plan to improve the PK-12 music program

• The District is also participating in the “Get-to-Great” Program of the Rensselaerville Institute for Leadership Development and the alignment of energy and resources for greater student achievement.  This program focuses on achieving results through the use of prototypes – of which can be used to develop SMART Goals.
• All staff have also received six (6) days of training in APL Skills – Instructional Skills and Strategies for the Experienced and Novice Teacher.  aplassociates@tweny.rr.com