Fernwood Montessori School

3239 S. Pennsylvania Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53207 414-294-1300 Grades K3- 8

MPS site #: 158 Starting Year: 1983 (As Greenfield Montessori)

School Description

Fernwood Montessori School, a K-8 school in the beautiful Bay View area on the southeast side of Milwaukee, serves a diverse population of 550 students. Our classroom-sized greenhouse, classroom gardens, rain garden and close proximity to Lake Michigan shoreline provide unique opportunities for teaching and learning. A raised vegetable bed labyrinth will be added to our campus in 2009 to further promote the study of sustainable environmental systems. Because of our challenging academic program, Fernwood students consistently exceed MPS achievement goals on Wisconsin state assessments. Fernwood is identified by MPS as a high attainment, high value-added school.

Montessori at Fernwood: During her medical and educational career, Dr. Montessori observed that young children learn through activity of the hand and body. She designed educational environments to meet the intellectual, physical and emotional needs of children at various stages of development. Children stay with a teacher for three years, and each class includes children of different ages and abilities.

Within the "Children’s House" three to six year-old children use manipulative materials to train their hands and minds. Seven certified Montessori teachers provide individual lessons, which enable each child to advance at his own pace. Lessons and activities are grouped into five categories, Practical Life, Sensorial, Language, Cultural Subjects (History and Geography) and Mathematics. Lessons foster independence, confidence, self-esteem and self-control, building a foundation for academic success in the elementary class.

Six-to-nine year old children in five Lower Elementary Classes continue their work with manipulatives as they develop skills for complex academic work. The curriculum does not rely on textbooks, but rather integrates the various curricular areas through the use of lessons, projects, community activities, and research. In the Upper Elementary Classes, nine-to twelve year-olds develop the ability to do abstract academic work as well as higher level thinking, research and problem-solving.

Arts and creative expression are incorporated at all levels. In Montessori classrooms students work with shapes and colors, develop eye-hand coordination, learn beautiful penmanship and are encouraged to decorate and illustrate their written work. Arts exploration continues under the guidance of our art specialist and with the support of community partnerships such as Artists Working in Education, the Haggerty Museum of Art and talented parent volunteers. The Montessori Music Curriculum includes theory, performance and music appreciation. MPS traveling music teachers offer lessons in piano and violin starting at second grade. 4^th through 8^th graders also have the opportunity to perform with Fernwood’s Concert Choir and Theater Arts Club. A full time physical education specialist provides instruction in movement, health and life-long fitness for students in K5 through 8^th grade.

Fernwood’s Adolescent Community combines school work with community service, for the acquisition of practical life and leadership skills. Challenging academics enhanced by service projects, travel and physical activity, ensure that students are well prepared for the social and intellectual demands of high school and beyond. Additional support is provided through our association with Junior Achievement, St. Anne Intergenerational Center, Growing Power, Teens Who Care, UWM Planning for the Future and Rosalie Manor. Fernwood’s 8^th graders exceed district and state averages in reading, language arts, math and social studies and are recruited and accepted into specialty programs in MPS and private high schools.

Reading/Language Arts: Literacy is incorporated throughout the curriculum. Fernwood Montessori School exceeds the MPS district proficiency goals on the Third Grade Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test and on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE) as well as the Terra Nova and WKCE Language assessments at all grade levels.

Staff Development: Fernwood’s Montessori teachers are certified by the State of Wisconsin as well as the Association Montessori Internationale or the American Montessori Society. Teachers attend both Montessori and traditional education conferences and classes.

Parent Involvement: Parents play a key role at Fernwood. Monthly parent and family activities are well attended and supported by the parents and staff of our PTO. A weekly newsletter and website http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/fernwood provide current information about school events and policies. The Governance Council meets monthly to provide guidance for Fernwood’s learning community.

WKCE and WAA

WKCE Reading Proficiency Summary (by Subgroup)

Current Condition:
81.4 % of ALL students are proficient or advanced in reading as measured by the WKCE.

Urgent Fact:

18.6% of all students are NOT proficient/advanced in reading as measured by the WKCE.

How much of a gap (in percentage points) exists between your school’s data and the MPS strategic plan targets? +3.6 percentage points below the Long-Term Target number of 85%.

How much of a gap (in percentage points) exists between your school’s data and the AYP targets? +7.4 for the 2009-2010 target.

Subgroups

% Proficient

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

African American

80.8

78.0

71.8

Students with Disabilities (Swd)

50.0

24.0

25.0

English Language Learners (ELL)

50.0

Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL)

69.2

74.1

67.6

Total

82.0

81.0

81.4

What trend/s do you observe across demographic subgroups of students?

African American stable; Students with disabilities, a downward trend! Total number of ELL students is 2 so the data change is not statistically significant. Slight decrease in proficiency with FRL.

WKCE and WAA Reading Proficiency Summary by Grade

Identify within grade levels, trends using the 2006-07 data as your baseline year:

	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
2008-09	74.5	85.0	71.9	90.9	88.5	84.6
2007-08	79.1	73.7	80.0	85.7	81.3	91.7
2006-07	76.3	80.6	80.6	94.1	87.0	81.8

Grade 3 decrease Grade 4increase Grade 5 decrease Grade 6 increase

Grade 7 increase Grade 8 increase

What trend/s do you observe across grade levels? Most grades are quite stable. A small amount of change occurs each year with no definite trend up or down. The only large drop is seen at grade 5.

WKCE SPI Summary

Record the percent of questions answered correctly for each objective area:

Grade

2008-09

% Determines Meaning

% Understands Text

% Analyze Text

% Evaluate & Extends Text

3

71.0

70.6

64.1

55.0

4

70.6

71.8

62.9

61.4

5

71.2

68.9

61.3

59.2

6

61.8

68.2

68.1

58.3

7

72.0

74.3

62.2

59.1

8

69.4

70.5

70.4

66.2

WKCE and WAA

continued

Hypothesize:

Why are certain objective areas lower than others?

Evaluating and extending text is the lowest objective area. This area requires deeper levels of thinking. An evaluation of specific student scores reveals that this area is not lower for the students who are proficient or advanced in reading.

What is your STAFF doing that may have contributed to the results in what you are observing in your WKCE literacy data? Fernwood’s WKCE Data indicates that instructional practices are effective.

What is your STAFF not doing that may have contributed to the results in what you are observing in your WKCE literacy data? Teachers are not consistently teaching specific strategies for evaluating and extending text.

Are any groups outperforming other groups? Yes

African American and White students.

Why might this be? Students with exceptional education needs are frequently identified based on literacy skills. Although our students with special education needs show good progress in reading and literacy, they are not yet proficient.

Are there differences in grade level trends? Not Apparent

Fernwood Student WKCE Proficiency by Grade in Reading

	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
2008-09	74.5	85.0	71.9	90.9	88.5	84.6
2007-08	79.1	73.7	80.0	85.7	81.3	91.7
2006-07	76.3	80.6	80.6	94.1	87.0	81.8

Why might this be?

The number of students in each grade level is relatively small. One additional proficient or non-proficient student dramatically changes the percentages. Following one group of students over time shows that a lower performing class consistently scores lower from year to year.

Why haven’t certain student sub-groups met AYP? Fernwood has met AYP every year. Therefore, we do not have data about sub groups.

What does this say about the effectiveness of your reading curricula? Reading strategies are effective.

What might this say about the instructional practices used in literacy? Most students are making adequate progress in literacy.

How will this data inform your planning for next year? We will focus improvement strategies on the lowest performing group of students at each grade level.

Value-Added
		2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08
	Tier-Score	4.5	4.9	3.1	3.5
	What is your school’s trend in growth over time? Declining growth rate. How does your school’s growth compare to the district average? (District average is 3) Consistently above MPS.
	Choose the correct quadrant for each year:	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08
	Quadrant^1	HH	HH	HH	HH
	^1 Quadrant values are: HH: High Value Added–High Attainment, HL: High Value Added–Low Attainment, LH: Low Value Added–High Attainment, LL: Low Value Added–Low Attainment What pattern do you observe in your quadrant data in Reading? Consistently High with a decreased rate of growth. Hypothesize: What is your STAFF doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your literacy Value-Added data? Staff uses differentiated instruction to serve all students. What is your STAFF not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your literacy Value-Added data? Perhaps teachers are not implementing optimal strategies with the lowest performing groups. What might you need to do differently to alter your student “growth” rates in reading? Focus instructional strategies on the lowest performing groups.

Writing Observation/Analysis
	WKCE Writing
Grade		Composition (0 – 6)			Conventions (0 – 3)
		2006-07	2007-08	2008-09	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
4		3.5	3.3	3.4	2.0	1.9	2.0
8		3.8	3.9	4.0	2.0	2.0	2.2
	Proficiency is based on a score of 4 or more for Composition and 2 or more for Conventions. Analyze scores separately. Composition Describe your school’s trend in writing based on the average rubric scores in the chart above for composition. Slight decline at 4^th grade; rising slightly at 8^th grade. How do your school’s rubric scores compare to the district and the state? In 2008-2009 Fernwood’s Rubric scores were higher than the MPS and the State rubric scores. Conventions Describe your school’s trend in writing based on the average rubric scores in the chart above for conventions. Consistent at 4^th grade; slight rise at 8^th grade. How do your school’s rubric scores compare to the district and the state? In 2008-2009 Fernwood’s Rubric scores were higher than the MPS and the State rubric scores. MPS School-Based Writing Assessment List the average score, holistically, for each grade: _2.7 Grade 3 2.4_ Grade 5 _2.7_ Grade 7 List the average score in each writing domain for each grade. All scores should be compiled using a 4 point rubric.
Grade		Ideas	Organization	Voice	Word Choice	Sentence Fluency and Variety	Conventions
3		2.5	2.5	3.4	2.6	2.5	2.4
5		2.9	2.7	2.9	2.7	2.5	2.4
7		3.4	2.9	3.0	2.5	2.4	2.4
	Which domains appear to be the weakest across the grades within the school on the MPS School-Based Writing Assessment? Conventions

Parent and Family Involvement

What type of assistance/activities did you provide to families related to your school’s literacy program? Family Literacy Night; Back-to-school Parent Orientation; Conferences; K3 Early Literacy Screening Multicultural Night, Student Research Presentations Describe the results of any surveys, checklists, interviews, face-to face feedback or other data sources from parents and/or community members about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of your efforts to engage them in the school’s literacy program. Parent questions and concerns regarding literacy were addressed at specific conferences with the teachers and literacy coach. Information on curriculum was presented in the Parent bulletin. Feedback from Family Literacy Night was universally positive. Hypothesize: What is your STAFF doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your Parent and Family Involvement data? Staff communicates effectively with parents at conferences and through individual meetings and phone calls as needed. Principal facilitates communication with Spanish-speaking parents. What is your STAFF not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your Parent and Family Involvement data? Parents would like teachers to present more parent education sessions related to Literacy instruction in Montessori. What is staff doing/not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your other data sources? Teachers communicate personally with parents on an ongoing, individualized basis as needed or at the request of parents.

Professional Practice
	Professional Development District will record the number of literacy-related professional development sessions attended by staff and total number of hours, as it relates to district and school level professional development.
	Literacy Professional Development	2008-09		2009-10
		# of Sessions	# of Actual Hours	# of Sessions	# of Actual Hours
	District Level
	School Level
	What was the focus of the trainings? Literacy PD focused on writing How did staff share and use their new literacy knowledge and skills in the classroom? New skills adapted to instruction throughout the curriculum areas, (i.e. 6-traits as applied to student research). How did staff share and use their new knowledge to build knowledge of other staff members at the school? Collaborative planning and committee time. Shared scoring sessions in writing. Did your school provide professional development on how to use formative assessment practices in literacy? Yes. How did the school monitor whether or not the skills learned at the training were, in fact, implemented by teachers at the school? Classroom observations and review of student work. Principal’s Monitoring Conferences. Instructional Practices Survey (IPS) – Key Area Analysis Highest Instructional Practice Key Area: Strategic Instruction Choices and Differentiation Fernwood Score =65.00 Lowest Instructional Practice Key Area: Routine use of a variety of assessments; Fernwood = 49.65 How does your Instructional Practices Survey data relate to your literacy professional development focus? There was a close alignment between the PD Strategy and Survey data. In the 2008-2009 school year, Fernwood’s PD strategy in literacy was: “Collaborative support on best practices to incorporate reading strategies (Identifying similarities and differences, Summarizing and note taking, Generating and testing hypotheses, Cues, questions, and organizers) in regular classroom instruction. Collaborative time for regular and special education teacher to work together.” Fernwood’s Highest Key Area was: Strategic Instruction Choices and Differentiation was Fernwood’s Highest key area. This is defined as: Teachers ensure that all students are meaningfully challenged. Teachers strategically select methods, differentiate instruction, and use technology to foster student learning. Hypothesize: How has the school helped the development of content knowledge in literacy with staff? Montessori Teachers have extensive content training as part of their Montessori Teacher Training. At Fernwood, teachers have collaborative planning time around content and best practices. The literacy coach provides professional development around best practices, technology and research. What professional development needs does your staff have as it relates to developing literacy skills in students? More effective strategies for working with the lowest performing students. What writing approaches and instructional strategies are currently being addressed in your professional development plan? We will continue to incorporate literacy throughout all curriculum areas throughout the day. Montessori Curriculum/6-Traits Writing; Descriptive Feedback Writing for content learning across the curriculum in the content areas. Tiered approach/scaffolding. Analyze formative data to identify needs and next steps in writing.

Professional Practice		Continued
	INITIAL EDUCATOR NEEDS: If you have initial educators on staff, what unique professional development needs do they have with regard to teaching reading and writing as contrasted with veteran educators? Our initial educators, though new to MPS, are experienced teachers with Montessori Certification. Literacy coach provides a one-day in-service on reading and 6-trait writing. How will you provide these initial educators with site based support around instruction, management, and parent and family involvement? Montessori Implementor serves as a school-based mentor. Literacy Coach and Math teacher leader model lessons and give ongoing feedback.

Summary

What should STAFF do differently to promote student success in literacy? Implement strategies that meet the needs of the lowest performing students. How can you increase the literacy content knowledge required of staff to move students forward academically in literacy? PD related to specific reading strategies for students with poor reading skills. How do you improve the instructional practices (of staff) required to move students forward academically in literacy? Grade level collaboration around best practices for implementing the Montessori literacy curriculum. Sharing of strategies, struggles and successes. What types of additional professional development needs to be offered to promote student success in literacy? Instructional Technology. Teachers need support to work with students in effective use of technology for research and publishing of student work. What could you do that might improve family literacy services? Fall Family Literacy Night. What barriers exist that may hinder your efforts? Some parents do not understand the Montessori approach to literacy. How will you overcome these barriers? Continued one-on-one communication to address parent concerns and Fall Family Literacy Night.

LITERACY SECTION: Our Current Reality

Proficiency:	81.4% of all students are proficient/advanced in reading as measured by the WKCE.
Urgent Fact:	18.6% of all students are NOT proficient/advanced in reading as measured by the WKCE.

LITERACY SECTION: Goal, Measurable Objective and Progress

Supports Strategic Goal #1:

Students meet and exceed Wisconsin academic standards and graduate prepared for higher education, careers and citizenship.

Literacy Measurable Objective	Baseline		Long Term Target	Annual Key Targets
	2008-09			2009-10	2010-11	2011-12
By 2012, 80% of our students will read on grade level as measured by the WKCE.	WKCE	81.4	85%	67%	72%	80%
	AYP	74%	100%	74%	80.5%	87%

Benchmark Progress (Optional): Fernwood did not collect Benchmark Data in 2008-2009

Enter data results that show your ongoing progress toward the goal from district benchmarks and local assessments.	Benchmark Progress
	2009-10				2010-11				2011-12
	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
Grade ___
Grade ___
Grade ___
Grade ___
Grade ___
Grade ___
Performance Monitoring Data Source:	CABS portfolios for non-proficient students.

Literacy Improvement Strategies for All Students

Category	Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
Extended Learning Time (Block)	__90 minutes reading PreK-5 __60 minute reading Grades 6-8 __Extended reading time in Grades 9-12 _x_ Literacy incorporated throughout all curriculum areas throughout the day.	Board Funds	Literacy Coach, Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing
Aligned Curriculum	__Research-based reading program __Reading/ELA curriculum aligned to Wisconsin ModelEarly Learning Standards (K3/K4) __Reading/ELA curriculum aligned to Wisconsin Model Academic Standards __MPS Learning Targets (K-12) __Lesson planning and tuning protocols _x_ Montessori Curriculum	Board Funds	Literacy Coach, Learning Team	___Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing
High Yield Instructional Strategies	_x__Descriptive feedback ___Academic vocabulary (district vocabulary and Marzano’s 6-Step Process) ___Instructional strategies to aid with comprehension (Examples: Marzano’s Instructional Strategies, Project CRISS, Pebble Creek Literacy, FTF) _x__Writing for content learning (across the curriculum/in the content areas)	Board Funds	Literacy Coach, Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing
Differentiated Instruction	__x_Tiered approach/scaffolding ___Small group instruction using leveled text ___Instructional technology (Examples: RAZ Kids and My Access)	Board Funds	Literacy Coach, Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing
Data Analysis	_x_Analyze formative data and CABS to identify needs and next steps ___Analyze benchmark data to identify needs and determine next steps ___Analyze summative data to identify needs and determine next steps	Board Funds	Implementor, Literacy Coach, Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _X Implementing __ Institutionalizing

Literacy Interventions for Non-Proficient Students

Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
_x_Explicit instruction connected to identified student needs __30 minutes of extra small group instruction _x_Strategic tutoring __Reading intervention program (Gr. 6-9) Example: READ 180 __Content-based scaffolding based on students’ Lau levels __Replacement/alternate comprehensive literacy program for SwD (Gr. 3-12) Example: Language! _x_Literacy interventions for SwD as mandated by the IEP	Additional materials for tutors, Materials for phonemic awareness.	Literacy Coach with Classroom and Special Education Resource Teachers	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing

Parent and Family Involvement in Literacy

Schools must help teachers, principals, and other staff work well with parents.

Standard 1: Communicating—Communication between home and school is regular, two-way, and meaningful.

Standard 2: Parenting—Parenting skills are promoted and supported.

Standard 3: Student Learning—Parents play an integral role in assisting student learning.

Standard 4: Student Volunteering—Parents are welcome in the school, and their support and assistance are sought.

Standard 5: School Decision-Making and Advocacy—Parents are full partners in the decisions that affect children and families.

Standard 6: Collaborating with Community—Community resources are used to strengthen schools, families, and student learning.

Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
__Parent literacy trainings on standards, assessments, __Parent classes __Explanation and review of assessment data _x_Communication about literacy through newsletters, websites, etc. __Workshops for parents on various ways to read aloud with children _x_Parent-teacher-student conferences on reading goals and assessments at the start of the school year and on reading progress midyear __ Parents as reading-partner volunteers, guest readers __ Weekly interactive reading activities/ strategies to support school literacy focus __ PTA/PTO Parent center/family room to provide information on children’s reading, and to conduct book swaps, make book bags for read-at-home programs, create family books, and sponsor other reading activities __ Partner with businesses for donations of books	Board funds	Literacy Coach, Implementor, Learning team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating __ Implementing _x_ Institutionalizing

Literacy Professional Development

Strategies/Activities	Targeted Groups	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
__Teaching in the block __Reading/Writing __Core reading/writing programs _x_Intervention and alternative comprehensive literacy programs _x_Descriptive feedback __Academic Vocabulary/Marzano’s 6-Step Process __Project CRISS __Pebble Creek Literacy (FTF) __Lesson Planning Protocol (FTF) __Lesson Tuning Protocol (FTF) _x_Instructional Technology __RAZ Kids/Reading A-Z __My Access __Small Group Instruction __Differentiated Instruction (including tiered approach and scaffolding) __Data Analysis	Classroom Teachers, community volunteers	Collaborative Planning Time	Principal, Literacy Coach, Montessori Implementor, Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _x_ Implementing __ Institutionalizing

LITERACY SECTION: Needs Assessment

Current Ed Plan Strategies

What school-wide literacy strategies outlined in the 2008-09 Educational Plan were, in fact, implemented? Use of Literatures Circles Students learn and work with reading/writing strategies: Cues, Questions, and Organizers Identifying similarities and differences Summarizing and note taking Trained tutors work 1-1 with students. Review the availability of literature in the school library. Teachers bring students to the library on a regular basis to select books. What data was collected on the effectiveness of the 08-09 literacy strategies? WKCE, Writing samples, CABS How was the data used by the teachers to inform instruction or modify practices? Teachers met collaboratively to review data. How was the data used by the learning team? Lit Coach presented information to the Learning Team for review. Hypothesize: What worked and why? Major strategies were effective because of consistent implementation by the teachers. What did not work and why? Parent Education Night was poorly attended. It was offered during the H1N1 flu scare. Literacy circles were introduced, but not widely implemented. Did your school integrate writing across the curriculum by connecting 6 traits of writing into reading instruction? Yes.

MATHEMATICS SECTION: Needs Assessment

Current Ed Plan Strategies

What school-wide math strategies outlined in the 2008-09 Educational Plan were, in fact, implemented? All strategies were implemented. We evaluated student work, implemented small group instruction for targeted students, and teachers used descriptive feedback on CABS and other class work in mathematics, What data was collected on the effectiveness of the 2008-09 math strategies? Data from CABs, Constructed response Benchmarks and WKCE. How was the data used by the teachers to inform instruction or modify practices?Teachers worked with the math teacher leader and MPS math specialists to evaluate data and determine new strategies. How was the data used by the learning team? Learning Team discussed data four times during the year. Hypothesize: What worked well in the area of math and why? Work with the MTL and MTS led to implementation of new strategies by classroom teachers. What did not work in the area of math and why? Not every teacher chose to participate in professional development opportunities. Scheduling of small groups was a challenge because of the numerous demands on teacher and student learning time. Did your school integrate writing across the curriculum by connecting 6 traits of writing into mathematics instruction? Not specifically. 6-traits is being used in classrooms, however we did not specifically focus on using it as a strategy in our constructed response work in mathematics.

WKCE
	WKCE/WAA Mathematics Proficiency Summary (by Subgroup) Current Condition: 71.4% of ALL students are proficient or advanced in mathematics as measured by the WKCE. Urgent Fact: 28.6% of all students are NOT proficient/advanced in mathematics as measured by the WKCE. How much of a gap (in percentage points) exists between your school’s data and the MPS strategic plan targets?+ 3.6 How much of a gap (in percentage points) exists between your school’s data and the AYP targets? + 13.4
	Subgroups			% Proficient
				2006-07			2007-08		2008-09
	African American 39			65.4			56.0		53.8
	Students with Disabilities (Swd) 32			50.0			40.0		43.8
	English Language Learners (ELL) 2			0			0		50.0
	Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) 71			61.5			55.6		56.3
	What trend/s do you observe across demographic subgroups of students? There is little change from year to year in percent proficient in each subgroup. No trend is evident. WKCE/WAA Mathematics Proficiency Summary by Grade Identify within grade level trends, using the 2006-07 data as your baseline year: Grade 3 up-down Grade 4 rising Grade 5 rising Grade 6 down Grade 7 down Grade 8 up Grade 10 What trend/s do you observe across grade levels? Because we are comparing small groups of students it is difficult to pinpoint a trend. However the group that is currently in 6^th grade has consistently been weak in mathematics. WKCE/WAA SPI Summary Record the percent of questions answered correctly for each objective area:
Grade		2008-09
		% Math Processes	% Number Operations		% Geometry	% Measurement		% Stats / Probability		% Algebraic Relationships
3		54.2	74.2		77.0	79.3		74.7		83.6
4		56.2	77.8		81.7	78.2		74.2		78.8
5		60.7	72.1		67.4	68.9		64.9		64.4
6		49.2	63.7		66.1	58.9		58.4		67.6
7		42.3	55.2		49.3	50.5		61.4		59.2
8		52.5	53.6		60.2	56.8		59.3		59.7

WKCE/WAA		continued
	Hypothesize: Why are certain content strand (i.e., objective) areas lower than others? Math Processes is the lowest strand, however we are higher than the district averages in all areas and higher than the state at 3^rd and 8^th grade. This strand may be consistently low, because we are putting more emphasis on computation than processes. What is your STAFF doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your WKCE math data? Focused professional development appears to be making a difference. Each year we have focused on a specific strand and seen improved scores in the following year. What is your STAFF not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your WKCE math data? Basic math lessons tend to continue to focus heavily on computation rather than higher mathematics skills. Are any groups outperforming other groups? Y / N; non-FRL; white; and non SPED perform better than other groups. Why might this be? Teachers need more support to work with the more challenging students. Are there differences in grade level trends? No Why might this be? Consistency of instruction and low mobility of students and staff. The entire school uses Montessori Currriculum and methods. Why haven’t certain student sub-groups met AYP? Fernwood Met AYP in all areas. What does this say about the effectiveness of your math curricula? Montessori Math curriculum is effective. What might this say about the instructional practices used in math? Montessori Instructional practices are effective for most students. How will this data inform your planning for next year? Strategies will focus on the lowest performing students. Is staff incorporating writing into math? Yes, through the use of CABS and Constructive Response If not, why might this be?

Value-Added
	Fill in your tier score for each year:	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08
	Tier-Scores	4.2	4.4	3.6	3.2
	What is your school’s trend in growth over time? Consistently high attainment, high value added. Trend in growth is a decline. How does your school’s growth compare to the district average? (District average is 3) Above the district average.
	Choose the correct quadrant for each year:	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08
	Quadrant^1	HH	HH	HH	HH
	^1 Quadrant values are: HH: High Value Added–High Attainment, HL: High Value Added–Low Attainment, LH: Low Value Added–High Attainment, LL: Low Value Added–Low Attainment What pattern do you observe in your quadrant data in Math? Consistently HH, a slight decline in the growth number. Hypothesize: What is your STAFF doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your mathematics Value-Added data?Montessori has a strong math curriculum. Teachers work hard on mathematics. MTL works effectively with teachers and students. What is your STAFF not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your mathematics Value-Added data? High level of work on computation. What might you need to do differently to alter your student “growth” rates in math? More attention to work with higher complexity math processes.

Parent and Family Involvement

What type of assistance/activities did you provide to families related to your school’s mathematics program? Parent education night related to math literacy. Describe the results of any surveys, checklists, interviews, face-to face feedback or other data sources from parents and/or community members about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of your efforts to engage them in the school’s math program. Teachers communicate effectively with parents regarding mathematics. The SGC has reviewed the math data. The MTL has met with the one parent who expressed concerns about her child’s progress in mathematics. Hypothesize: What is staff doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your Parent and Family Involvement data? Teachers communicate effectively with parents regarding mathematics. What is staff not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your Parent and Family Involvement data? Parents would like more information about the Montessori math curriculum, especially at the higher grades. What is staff doing/not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your other data sources? Staff collaborates to review classroom work and communicate with parents.

Professional Practice
	Professional Development MPS will record the number of mathematics-related professional development sessions attended by staff and total number of hours, as it relates to district and school level professional development.
	Mathematics Professional Development	2008-09		2009-10
		# of Sessions	# of Actual Hours	# of Sessions	# of Actual Hours
	District Level
	School Level
	What was the focus of the trainings? Cognitively Guided Instruction and Descriptive Feedback. MTL did modeling and coaching with teachers. How did staff share and use their new math knowledge and skills in the classroom? Direct application in instruction is evident. How did staff share and use their new knowledge to build knowledge of other staff members at the school? Two Collaborative Planning times focused on math, the Math Action Plan included collaborative work on Constructed Response, and teachers met on mathematics in grade level meetings twice during the year. Did your school provide professional development on how to use formative assessment practices in mathematics? Formative assessment is integral to Montessori mathematics. PD dealt specifically with descriptive feedback. How did the school monitor whether or not the skills learned at the training were, in fact, implemented by teachers at the school? MTL observations and student work portfolios. Instructional Practices Survey (IPS) – Key Area Analysis Highest Instructional Practice Key Area: Strategic Instruction Choices and Differentiation Fernwood Score =65 Lowest Instructional Practice Key Area: Routine use of a variety of assessments; Fernwood = 49.65 How does your Instructional Practices Survey data relate to your mathematics professional development focus? PD focus was on strategies for challenging and engaging student workers. Hypothesize: How has the school helped the development of content knowledge in mathematics with staff? Content sessions under the guidance of the MTL: and MTS. What professional development needs does your staff have as it relates to developing math skills in students? Strategies for working with the lowest performing students.

Professional Practice		Continued
	INITIAL EDUCATOR NEEDS: If you have initial educators on staff, what unique professional development needs do they have with regard to teaching mathematics as contrasted with veteran staff? All of our initial educators have extensive experience working in private schools. They do not have unique professional development needs. They have attended the PD offered to the entire staff. How will you provide these initial educators with site based support around instruction, management, and parent and family involvement? None needed.

Summary

What should STAFF do differently to promote student success in mathematics? Do more in-depth lessons for all students. Provide more support for the lowest performing students. How can you increase the mathematical content knowledge required of staff to move students forward academically in math? Continued PD with emphasis on national standards. How can you improve the instructional practices (of staff) required to move students forward academically in math? More classroom modeling by MTL. PD sharing best practices. What could you do that might improve family services around the topic of mathematics? More parent education opportunities such as Parent Math Night, ….. How can you integrate writing into mathematics? We are implementing writing at the upper grades. This could be expanded more to the primary grades (1-3). What barriers exist that may hinder your efforts? A few teachers are resistant to change. How will you overcome these barriers? Continue to model and share best practices. Review of data to determine specific instructional needs.

MATHEMATICS SECTION: Our Current Reality

Proficiency:	71.4% of all students are proficient/advanced in mathematics as measured by the WKCE.
Urgent Fact:	28.6% of all students are NOT proficient/advanced in mathematics as measured by the WKCE.

MATHEMATICS SECTION: Goal, Measurable Objective and Progress

Supports Strategic Goal #1:

Students meet and exceed Wisconsin academic standards and graduate prepared for higher education, careers and citizenship.

Mathematics Measurable Objective	Baseline		Long Term Target	Annual Key Targets
	2008-09			2009-10	2010-11	2011-12
By 2012, 70% of our students will be on grade level in mathematics as measured by the WKCE.	WKCE	71.4%	75%	52%	61%	70%
	AYP	58%	100%	58%	68.5%	89.5%

Benchmark Progress: Fernwood did not implement Benchmarks in 2008-2009.

Enter data results that show your ongoing progress toward the goal from district benchmarks and local assessments.	Benchmark Progress
	2009-10				2010-11				2011-12
	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
Report Benchmark Progress:
Performance Monitoring Data Source:	CABS Portfolio for non-proficient students.

Math Improvement Strategies for All Students

Category	Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
Extended Learning Time (Block)	__60minutes mathematics PreK-3 _x_60 minutes mathematics Grades 4-8 __80-90minutes high school block scheduling __Extended learning day		Principal, MTL and Learning Team	__ Not Initiating _x_ Initiating __ Implementing __ Institutionalizing
Aligned Curriculum	__Use curriculum pacing guides __Identify big math ideas for each lesson prior to teaching __Identify and align lessons with assessments prior to teaching with appropriate depth of knowledge __Share & post learning intentions & success criteria with students __Integrate cross-curricular content __Utilize the Milwaukee Math Partnership lesson planning _x_Use frequent formative assessments based on standards __Implement Comprehensive Mathematics Framework attributes __Use research-based mathematics program __Use lesson refining and and tuning protocols (FTF) __Early Learning Standards (K3/K4) __Use Standards/MPS Learning Targets (K-12)	MMP funding	Principal, MTL and Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _x_ Implementing __ Institutionalizing
High Yield Instructional Strategies	_x _Utilize MMP Protocol: Looking and Analyzing Student Work __Embed and use timely Descriptive Feedback __Embed and use Academic Vocabulary __Employ “I Can” Math Benchmarking System (FTF) __Embed Instructional Strategies across the curriculum __Frequent formative assessment __Employ the Comprehensive Math Framework	MMP funding	Principal, MTL and Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _x_ Implementing __ Institutionalizing
Differentiated Instruction	__Use tiered approach/scaffolding __Use instructional technology __Employ flexible grouping based on readiness _x_Use tiered, small group instruction		Principal, MTL and Learning Team	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _x_ Implementing __ Institutionalizing
Data Analysis	__Analyze and use formative data to identify needs and monitor progress _x_Analyze and use CABS data to monitor progress __Use data in student conferences __Analyze summative data to identify needs	Board	Principal, MTL and Learning Team	__ Not Initiating _x_ Initiating __ Implementing __ Institutionalizing

Math Interventions for Non-Proficient Students

Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
__Intervention using ThinkLink probes __Employ flexible small group instruction __Use Math Centers _x_Use Extended Learning Time __Intervention resources from chosen math program __Explicit instruction connected to identified student needs __Strategic tutoring __”I Can” Math Benchmarking System Café (FTF)	MMP	MTL	__ Not Initiating __ Initiating _x_ Implementing __ Institutionalizing

Parent and Family Involvement in Math

Schools must help teachers, principals, and other staff work well with parents.

Standard 1: Communicating—Communication between home and school is regular, two-way, and meaningful.

Standard 2: Parenting—Parenting skills are promoted and supported.

Standard 3: Student Learning—Parents play an integral role in assisting student learning.

Standard 4: Student Volunteering—Parents are welcome in the school, and their support and assistance are sought.

Standard 5: School Decision-Making and Advocacy—Parents are full partners in the decisions that affect children and families.

Standard 6: Collaborating with Community—Community resources are used to strengthen schools, families, and student learning.

Strategies/Activities	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
_x_Family math night __Family mathematics training __Parent classes __Explanation and review of assessment data __Communication about math through newsletters, websites, etc. __Parents math trainings to explain math standards, assessments, and to demonstrate math topics and skills __Articles, newsletters by students and math teachers on interesting math topics and skills __Parents as volunteer as math tutors __Weekly interactive math activities connecting home math skills __Partner with businesses for donations for After-school programs in math	Teachers need to be paid for extra hours outside of their work day.	MTL, Implementer, Literacy Coach	__ Not Initiating _x_ Initiating __ Implementing __ Institutionalizing

Math Professional Development

Strategies/Activities	Targeted Groups	Funding Considerations	Responsible Leadership	Implementation of Strategies
__Math curriculum pacing guides __Integrating cross-curricular content __Milwaukee Math Partnership lesson planning __Research-based mathematics program __Early Learning Standards (K3/K4) __Standards/MPS Learning Targets (K-12) __Descriptive Feedback _x_Academic Vocabulary _x_Instructional Strategies across the curriculum __Flexible grouping based on readiness __Tiered approach/scaffolding __Instructional technology __Formative assessment __Comprehensive Math Framework __Build mathematical knowledge __Analyzing student work __Facilitating mathematical discourse __Differentiation Techniques __WKCE depth of knowledge framework __I “Can Do” Math Benchmarking System (FTF) __Lesson planning protocol (FTF) __Lesson tuning protocol (FTF)	All teachers	MMP Action Plan Money	MTL, Implementor and Learning Team.	__ Not Initiating _x_ Initiating __ Implementing __ Institutionalizing

SCHOOL CLIMATE SECTION: Needs Assessment

Current Ed Plan Strategies

Were the Safe/Consistent Learning Environment (i.e. Climate) strategies outlined in the 2008-09 implemented? Fernwood’s 2008-2009 Strategies were all implemented at some level. The strategies were: Teachers will use a variety of intervention strategies to accommodate students’ learning styles and learning environment needs. Referrals for Guidance/Counseling Increase collaboration between regular and special education staff to address academic and social concerns. Frequent consistent communication with parents to reinforce positive behaviors. Increase use of functional behavioral analysis to identify antecedent behaviors likely to lead to suspension. What data was collected on the effectiveness of the 08-09 school climate strategies? How was the data used to inform instruction or modify practices? Hypothesize: What worked and why? Use of a wide variety of intervention strategies was effective in creating an environment that was conducive to students with a broad range of learning needs and styles. What did not work and why? Increased collaboration between regular and special education staff remains a goal. It is challenging to find time for meaningful collaboration. Also, implementation of the Language! program removed students from classrooms for extended periods of time and reduced collaboration.

Climate Survey – KAMS
	Climate Survey	2007-08				2008-09
		#	Response Rate	Highest KAMS^1	Lowest KAMS^1	#	Response Rate	Highest KAMS^1	Lowest KAMS^1
	Students			Rigor 3.3	Governance 2.8			Rigor 3.3	Governance 2.8
	Parents		NA	Environment 3.5	Governance 3.2		NA	Environment 3.5	Safety and Governance 3.3
	Staff			Environment 3.6	Safety and Governance 3.4			Rigor and Environment 3.6	Safety 3.4
	^1 KAMS Areas are: Environment, Rigor, Safety, Governance What trends do you observe in your climate data? High, stable, and consistent across years. How does your current data compare to previous years? No significant change. Hypothesize: What is your school community (staff, administration, parents, students) doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your school climate data? Strong emphasis on communication and collaboration among staff, parents and community. What is your school community (staff, administration, parents, students) not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your school climate data? There is no student representative on the SGC.

Attendance Rate Data
	Categories	Attendance Rates
		2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
	All	95.3	95.2	95.4
	Pre-K	95.6	95.7	95.6
	Grades 1-5	95.0	94.9	95.6
	Grades 6-8	95.5	94.4	94.1
	How has your attendance rate changed from the previous year? No change. Which subgroups, if any, are experiencing the best attendance rate? All groups are quite consistent. Students who qualify for free or reduced lunch have a slightly lower attendance rate. Which subgroups, if any, are experiencing the greatest attendance problems? All groups are quite consistent. Hypothesize: What is your school community (staff, administration, parents, students) doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your attendance data? Fernwood’s academic program is rigorous. The school works with parents to emphasize the importance of regular attendance. This is stressed at conferences, open houses and information in the weekly parent bulletins. The social worker visits families when there are attendance concerns. What is your school community (staff, administration, parents, students) not doing that may have contributed to the results you are observing in your attendance data? Teachers need to consistently monitor excessive absences and make contacts with parents. To what do you attribute to the change or lack of change noted in attendance? Attendance is not a major concern at Fernwood. What impact does attendance have on your school’s climate for learning? Attendance is not a major concern at Fernwood.

Suspensions
	Suspension Rate Data by Incident Category
	Subgroups