Rootstown Local

Schools
SARA WHI NNI E- ED504
Vision and Mission Statement
Vision
"Building futures.... one child at a time
Across the district
Only location to find it posted is on the website
Not a focal point for the school or the elementary building
Mission Statement
The mission of the Rootstown Local School District, in collaboration with the community, is to prepare all students
to become productive citizens and life-long learners in a changing world.
Sounds good BUT
This mission is never mentioned or referred to in staff meetings, etc.
The data above implies that our school needs to take the vision/mission that has been written and set goals to align with the vision
so that it will be met.

Survey Data and Assessments
Several focus groups made up survey data:
Administration
Staff
Parents

Questions such as:
Do you feel that the mission of the school is
clearly stated?
Are subjects being taught sufficiently?
Are you made aware of rules, procedures, and
activities throughout the student handbook?
Are all students educational needs being met
daily?
Short Cycle Assessments
STAR reading
SLO ( Student Learning Objective)
Survey
One for staff about school academics,
environment, and community.
One for parents about academics, school/
community relations.
Interview of School Leaders
Discussion on school improvement, vision,
leadership and school culture.

Community
Involvement
Survey Results
School Culture Results
Led To
Falter of Trust Among Staff No Time to Properly Build Relationships
Due to
Omission of Social Time Employment Shift
Negative (Toxic) School Culture
Previous Principal Current Principal
Issues Needs Concern Issues Best Practice
Recommendations
Citation Activity to Improve
Weaknesses
No goals are in place to
reach set vision
Vision Observation, Assessment,
Reflection
Fridell, 2006

Bolman/Deal 2003
Create a community and
formulate a plan to reach
the vision.
Gaps in communication
between the school and
parents/community
Community Involvement
the involvement of families in
schools leads to overlapping
spheres of influence between
the home, school, and
community.
Epstein 1995
Schneider, Hollenczer,
2006

Set up a parent center in the
school as a way to offer
information as well as gather
information from the
parentsopen communication

Broken school culture between
teachers
School Culture Build a learning community Waddell, Lee 2008
Organize time for structured or
informal talk and texts with
teaching community
Make opportunities for teachers
to get together other than staff
meetings
Issues with Leadership
School Culture Policy and
Practice
Shared Leadership/
Communication, Participatory
Leader
Identifying the adaptive
challenge, regulating distress,
directing disciplined attention to
the issues, giving the voice back
to people, and protecting values
of leadership in the community.
(Heifetz, 1994)
Huber, 2004
Heifetz, 1994
Keep staff updated on the
continuous improvement
planform a committee to give
voice back to teachers.
Allow teachers to have an input
and minor say in changes
occurring within the school
culture.
Reflection
Administration change has shifted trust to the
positive.
Ability to use current technologies.
Subgroup achievement is now being met.
Grades are working together to keep all
students on track.
Teachers are making an effort to inform
parents.

Administration plays too much of the devils
advocate.
With new safety plan, community/ parents
feel left on the outside.
Communication among all grade levels
No gifted program- what can we do better?
Collaboration with community
Academics
Weaknesses Strengths
Currently no gifted program School wide programs are being
adopted to close gaps
Subgroups within the school
system are not getting needs met
Teachers are working within their
grade level to differentiate
instruction
Lack of fluidity between grade
levels
Data is being utilized to make
appropriate academic changes
Special Ed Program is not where
it should be
Teachers are pushing their
students to strive for higher goals
within the classroom and out
Survey Results
According to the 2011-12 School Report Card, Rootstown
Elementary received a rating of Excellent.

Upon further inspection of data, it was discovered that
Rootstown Elementary is struggling to meet the needs of their
subgroups:
Gifted
IEP/504
Free/ Reduced Lunch

During the 2013-14 school year data was analyzed and
procedures put in place in the hopes that growth would occur
among these groups.
Differentiation
i-ready Program
Pre/Post test in all subjects
More hands on assignments
Integration of writing and evidence based learning across all subjects
Did the Changes Work?
On the following slides are the results of two short cycle assessments used throughout the year
within the 5
th
grade.
STAR Reading
Student Learning Objective (SLO)

While all of the 5
th
grade took part in these assessments the grade is split into two teams.
Two teachers work with the gifted and on-track students
Two teachers work with on track/ below average students. These teachers also have a great deal of IEP/504.

The data utilized for this assignment was based on the two teachers who work with the gifted/on-
track students. Within this group are students who receive free/reduced lunches.
It was our goal this year to advance all students, but more specifically those within a crucial subgroup. Our
gifted students did not show enough growth on the last OAA, nor did those on free/reduced lunches.

What the Data Shows
SLO ( Student Learning Objectives): indicates that all
subgroups within the gifted/on-track team shows
positive changes to student learning.
5
th
Grade Subgroup Summarization
10.81
13.45
10.00 10.32
15.00
19.50
11.08 10.63
6.50
41.68
41.00
41.83 41.78
34.00
44.50
42.32
39.13
40.00
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Average Score Gifted Not Gifted No IEP/504 504 Speech No Free/Reduced
Lunch
Free Lunch Reduced Lunch
Pre-Test Avg Score Post Test Avg Score
Fifth Grade SLO
Pre vs. Post Average Test Scores
STAR Reading Data
Students were tested in the fall and spring on STAR Reading and Math. These results listed on
the following slides are taken from the STAR Reading results.

The results of the following slide show students Instructional Reading Level (IRL): calculated
after a student completes a STAR Reading test; it is criterion referenced score that is the highest
reading level at which a student is 80% proficient (or higher) at comprehending material with
assistance.

These results show that all students including all subgroups showed positive changes from the
fall to spring.
5
th
Grade Subgroup Summarization
5.87
7.37
5.45
5.99
4.10
5.55
5.96
5.76
4.70
7.63
9.25
7.13
7.66
5.20
8.00
7.50
7.96
8.65
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Average Gifted Not Gifted No IEP/504 504 Speech No Free/Reduced
Lunch
Free Lunch Reduced Lunch
Fall Spring
Instructional Reading Level
Fifth Grade Students
STAR Reading Data
Grade Equivalent (GE): is a numeric representation of a students grade level, based on the
specific month in which a student takes a STAR Reading test.

Star Reading considers standards school year to run from September through June and assigns
increment values of 0.0 through 0.9 to these months.

Results: The results show that all students including subgroups went up at least 1 grade level
based on fall spring testing.
5
th
Grade Subgroup Summarization
6.57
8.15
6.11
7.82
4.60
6.35
6.62 6.66
5.40
8.45
10.18
7.92
8.50
5.80
8.55
8.28
8.89
9.75
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Average Gifted Not Gifted No IEP/504 504 Speech No Free/Reduced
Lunch
Free Lunch Reduced Lunch
Fall Spring
Average Grade Equivalent
Fifth Grade Students
STAR Reading Data
Scaled Score (SS): is useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. A
scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of questions and the number of correct
responses.
Because the same range is used for all students, scaled scores can be used to compare student
performance across grade levels.
Results: The results indicate that all students including those in subgroups showed positive
changes from the fall testing to the spring.
Summarization of Data
708
860
665
714
498
695
717
703
576
899
1,066
847
904
626
908
888
925
992
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Average Gifted Not Gifted No IEP/504 504 Speech No Free/Reduced
Lunch
Free Lunch Reduced Lunch
Fall Spring
Average Scaled Score
All Fifth Grade Students
STAR Reading Data
The graph shows the percentage from fall to spring.

Results show that the change was positive for all subgroups.
Changes are Occurring Slowly
26.85%
24.04%
27.50%
26.70%
25.70%
30.67%
23.84%
31.73%
72.37%
28.52%
24.86%
29.51%
8.72%
26.09%
34.65%
25.16%
33.40%
80.56%
29.81%
25.40%
30.81%
28.02%
26.83%
44.14%
25.75%
38.18%
84.04%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Average
Gifted
Not Gifted
No IEP/504
504
Speech
No Free/Reduced Lunch
Free Lunch
Reduced Lunch
Instructional Reading Level Average Grade Equivalent Average Scaled Score
Fifth Grade Star Percent Change
Reflection
Strengths Opportunities for Growth
With the integration of new programs such as
iready, students in subgroups are getting more
individualized attention on areas of trouble.
Students in subgroups are asked to take part in
iready; however, many complain the program is
boring and/or feel singled out as different
With the integration of more cross-curriculum
learning students are showing a better
understanding of the Common Core
Strategies that are working within grade levels
should be continued from grade to grade. More
communication among grades would be helpful
Teachers are now using more pre/post test and
analyzing data results regularly to help guide their
instruction
Teachers need more opportunities to learn how to
properly dissect and keep data on student progress
Differentiation of lessons and activities within the
classroom helps students feel they are being
challenged daily
While differentiation is utilized teachers still feel
they can challenge some students more. Teachers
need more support for the gifted