SITE SEARCH
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:
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 |
|
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:
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:
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:
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.
At the high school, student progress is monitored as follows:
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:
At the middle school, the following interventions have been developed:
At the high school, the following interventions are in place:
Windsor Elementary Schools Pyramid of Intervention
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:
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:
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:
District