Revised: 9/2014
CCES LINKAGES CHART 2014-2015
Student and Stakeholder Focus:
As a result of the root-cause analysis, it was determined that students need:



all staff to understand and use growth mindset and mindfulness in order to support students’ social emotional learning. This will be
achieved by encouraging students to learn from mistakes, take positive risks, build perseverance, and exhibit effective effort.
to develop literacy through consistent opportunities to comprehend complex, content-focused text in order to apply new knowledge in
their writing and discourse.
experiences, deeper understanding, and time for reflection with mathematics content and processes defined by UCARE (Understanding,
Computing, Applying, Reasoning, and Engaging).
The Root Cause Analysis Process and Findings:
Root Cause Analysis was derived from:
 School Progress Index 2013, 2014
 MyMCPS reports on Documentation of Interventions
 Team monthly and Leadership quarterly data chats
 attendance history
 behavior reports
 report card grades
 teacher informal observations and anecdotal notes
 parent conference notes
 MSA and 6th grade PARCC scores
 Gallup survey baseline data 2013 and 2014
 MAP-R and MAP-M scores
 WIDA scores
Revised: 9/2014
Leadership Focus:
Our path to excellence is paved with effective effort.
Vision: Chevy Chase Elementary School is a unique learning community of students, parents and staff that achieves a standard of excellence
through empowerment, meaningful work, collaboration, perseverance, innovation and reflection.
Mission: The mission of Chevy Chase Elementary School is to promote and celebrate the successful academic, social, emotional and personal
development of each student by:






Setting high expectations in all endeavors.
Instilling a desire to become life-long learners.
Providing a positive atmosphere which promotes collaboration, risk-taking and effective communication.
Developing a community of mutual respect through celebrating our diversity and unity.
Establishing accountability among students, parents and staff by reflecting on data, individual progress, and personal experiences to
measure progress and set goals.
Using technology appropriately to enhance global learning and creativity.
CCES leadership team, teachers, staff, along with PTA, parents, student SGA and other members of our community analyze school data to
determine the school’s instructional focus. Chevy Chase Leadership will communicate the vision and mission to be used to improve student
achievement to all stakeholders through: Staff Meetings, Parent Engagement Barrington Nights, Night of Excellence, Grade Level Data Chats, Team
Leader Meetings, Teacher-Parent Conferences, Family Math Nights, PTA Meetings, Email, CCES webpage, Edline and SchoolNotes, Parent Outreach,
Barrington Data Chats. Our vision and mission will be written on all communication to the public to show the connection to the alignment of our
work.
The vision and mission will continuously be shared through different types of communication devices (Twitter, Monthly Grade Level
newsletters/correspondence, Week at a Glance, Friday, Focus, Principally Speaking, CCES Cheetah Chat, Connect Ed, Monthly Instructional
Monitoring Calendar, The CCES Website, Schoolnotes, Distribution Lists, EdLine, emails, counselor lessons) in English and Spanish, when available.
Revised: 9/2014
Stakeholders will monitor and celebrate implementation of our focus through agendas, follow up notes, collaborative grade level planning, issue
bins, plus/deltas, surveys, data chat review notes, Town Hall meetings, parent-teacher conferences, cheetah chances, cheetah centers, data section
binders, CCNN daily news broadcasts, Brag Board, Student Recognition programs, Ambassadors, Student Voice opportunities, etc.
Strategic Planning Focus

As a result of our root cause analysis it was determined that focusing our efforts on the 75 FARMS students, 24 ESOL students, and our total
African American and Hispanic population of students who also are part of more than 1 school progress subgroup (most are in 2 or 3) would
have the greatest impact on our overall student achievement in closing the gap.
Goal:
To meet the Strategic Planning Framework Milestone Target for Grade 3 MAP Reading Proficient at 75% and Grade 3 MAP Reading Advanced at
23.5% by the end of the school year 2015.
To meet the Strategic Planning Framework Milestone Target for Grade 5 MAP Reading Proficient at 84% and Grade 5 MAP Reading Advanced at
41% by the end of the school year 2015.
To meet the Strategic Planning Framework Milestone Target for Grade 5 MAP Math Proficient at 80% and Grade 5 MAP Math Advanced at 29%
by the end of the school year 2015.
Faculty and Staff Focus:
Teachers will need professional development on:
1. Continuing to examine best practices for ELL students. Providing professional development demonstrating how to use ESOL strategies in
the classroom:
2. Implementation of Curriculum 2.0 in third, fourth and fifth grade including collaborative planning, plan and implement differentiation of
math small group instruction
3. Continuing to provide professional development on using critical thinking, Thinking and Academic Skills (TASS), the State required 8
Math Proficiency Standards and math discourse
4. Training with para educators on how to support at risk students within classrooms during whole group instruction and support staff
while classroom teacher works with targeted students in small group instructional sessions.
5. Utilizing best practices in literacy that will enable students to comprehend complex text such as close reading, developing textdependent questions, and vocabulary development
Revised: 9/2014
6. Building and maintaining positive relationships with students through a growth mindset
7. Continuing changes and consistency in MCPS grading and reporting especially dealing with ES opportunities within math and reading.
Process Management Focus:
As a result of root cause analysis, the following structures and processes are implemented and monitored to meet students’ needs:


•
•
•
•


To support daily collaborative planning sessions by the staff development teacher, reading specialist, special educator, ESOL teacher and
administration
to share the 4 growth mindset messages during classes and share with students to think about effective effort as a positive, constructive force
to analyze data documented on MyMCPS during weekly team meetings, weekly collaborative team planning meetings, and daily informal
hallway conversations to make sure student needs, such as intellectual skills, could be cultivated through effective effort, are being met and to
discuss ways to help them achieve higher goals through a growth mindset – a belief that cherished qualities can be developed creates a passion
for learning
to explicitly instruct students through a growth mindset – challenge students to grow and stretch - failures do not define them and there are
many paths to success in learning
to empower students to ask for their accommodations, use their accommodation cards, or access their resources when they need it.
to form flexible instructional groups in mathematics and reading after mini lesson.
to present challenging acceleration, enrichment tasks, ES opportunities and appropriate homework to students
to work with students who need additional support through specific research based interventions (Reading Assistant, SOAR to Success, Phonics
for Reading, L

to work with parents on how to support student math instruction at home through parent data chats, help sessions, website links for home
practice, resources on math discourse

to differentiate the professional learning opportunities for staff so that they can study and examine the instructional focus on complex text in
their content areas.

Focused observations by administration with reflective feedback conversations
Revised: 9/2014
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management Focus:
Student Data Points:
 Fall, Winter and Spring Map-R and MAP-M scores
 Review assessment summary data and error analysis of student scores with math teachers
 Review check for understanding data to determine proficiency in informal assessments through the grade on the measurement topic
 Attendance Reports monthly from Attendance Secretary.
 Review of report card grades through the use of MyMCPS ES grades, distribution of N, I, P and ES per grade looking at specific measurement
topics
 Student Gallup survey results for grades 5 and 6
 WIDA scores
 Running Records
 MyMCPS DOI
 Individual student intervention data sheets
Teacher Data Points











Administrative observations on implementation of professional development focus with monitoring tool created by principal
Weekly Team Data meetings with SDT and reading specialists – notes
Collaborative planning session feedback: Lesson plans/artifacts
Review of Intervention Feedback Summaries by intervention support personnel and MYMCPS Documentation of Intervention notes
Leadership Team Meetings will review report card data, Proficiency levels in Grade book for third grade, fourth, and fifth grade, MAP-M and
MAP-R results, and WIDA scores
Monitoring of Academic Interventions each Friday – Monitoring of Mentor notes and Mentee Feedback
Team/Grade level Action Plans and quarterly updates
School Improvement Team Committee will reflect and adjust goals and action plans based on any changes in root cause data.
Parent input and surveys from Barrington/Summit Hills/Rosemary Hills community ( Math Nights, Reading Night, PTA mtgs)
Staff Development Plan Survey results
Goal 2 and Goal 3 PLC Reflections
Revised: 9/2014
Organizational Performance Results:
AYP
Mathematical
Proficiency Trend
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2014 MSA Mathematics
By Proficiency Levels
Percent Proficient
Total School
89.3
94.0
96.2
93.0
95.4
93.7
94.6
90.8
92.3
91.4
88.3
78
2014 MSA Proficiency Levels: Mathematics Number
Students /Total Students and Percent
Grade
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
3
21/115
18%
11/171
7%
12/142
9%
12/98
12%
64/115
56%
55/167
33%
48/142
34%
44/98
45%
30/115
26%
101/167
61%
82/142
57%
49/98
43%
4
5
6
Spring 2014 Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics (MAP-M)
The Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics scores are currently 30% aligned to the CCSS. MCPS has not yet set benchmarks for the
assessment. When we compare CCES performance to the national norms determined by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) for each
grade level, there were over 20% of students who did not meet the national norm. The chart below reveals the specifics for grades 3-5.
Revised: 9/2014
2014 Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics (MAP-M)
Spring Scores
Grade
MAP-M Spring Scores
Number Students /Total Students
and Percent
Did Not Meet National Norms
3
4
5
38/106
35%
38/171
22%
21/86
24%
School-wide MAP-R and MAP-M for 2013 - 2014 study was completed by administration and IDA by student, by class, by grade and by school analyzing scores
from fall to winter, winter to spring and fall to spring growth or decline. The study to determine relationship to performance in the classroom, report card grades
and MSA performance.
Two years of WIDA scores were analyzed in relationship to ESOL levels, MSA proficiency levels, MAP scores to determine if there is a correlation to performance
within the classroom and high-stakes testing. Due to “lack of appropriate instruction by a master teacher” ESOL scores show very little growth over this year.
Spring 2014 Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics (MAP-M)
The Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics scores are currently 30% aligned to the CCSS. MCPS has not yet set benchmarks for the
assessment. When we compare CCES performance to the national norms determined by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) for each
grade level, there were over 20% of students who did not meet the national norm. The chart below reveals the specifics for grades 3-5.
Revised: 9/2014
2014 Measures of Academic Progress – Mathematics (MAP-M)
Spring Scores
Grade
3
4
5
MAP-M Spring Scores
Number Students /Total Students
and Percent
Did Not Meet National Norms
38/106
35%
38/171
22%
21/86
24%
Maryland School Assessment - Reading
MSA reading scores show that students are achieving at high levels at CCES. Although some students are not included in the grade six scores
because they participated in the PARCC assessment, the hard work and dedication of the staff at CCES is evident in the MSA scores.
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) Reading
Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient
Trend Data
Year
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
2014
91
≤ 95
≤ 95
94
2013
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
93
2012
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
2011
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
2010
94
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
2009
94
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
2008
94
≤ 95
95
≤ 95
Revised: 9/2014
Year
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Grade 3
92
93
≤ 95
90
73
Grade 4
≤ 95
94
≤ 95
92
82
Grade 5
93
89
86
80
76
Grade 6
≤ 95
≤ 95
≤ 95
90
-
In 2014, the proficiency gap is not as wide in reading. Eighty-two percent of the Hispanic students in 3rd grade scored proficient or advanced and
63% of AA students did. In grade 4, there were only two Hispanic students who did not score proficient or advanced. In grade 5, 12 of the 15
Hispanic students scored either advanced or proficient. The chart below outlines the data for proficiency levels.
2014 MSA Reading Scores
By Proficiency Levels
2014 MSA Proficiency Levels: Reading
Number Students /Total Students and Percent
Grade
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
3
10/114
71/14
33/114
8%
62%
29%
4
4/167
54/167
109/167
2%
32%
65%
5
4/143
13/143
126/143
2%
9%
88%
6
2/33
10/33
12/33
6%
30%
62%
Measures of Academic Progress - Reading
When we review the Measures of Academic Progress – Reading (MAP-R) scores, nineteen grade three students did not meet the end of year target
on MAP-R. Eight of these students also scored basic on MSA. A review of the reading levels and end of year reading grade reveals that four of the
Revised: 9/2014
students who scored Basic on MSA were reading on grade level at the end of the year. Six out of the nine students had an average reading grade of
proficient on the report card. This makes sense given that students can demonstrate proficiency of a standard on their instructional level text
which in these cases, was below grade level.
Nine students in grade four did not meet the end of year target on MAP-R. One of the students also scored basic on MSA. Of the four students who
did score Basic on MSA, only one was reading on grade level at the end of the year. All but one student earned proficient for their average reading
grade at the end of the year.
In grade five, thirteen students did not meet the end of year target on MAP-R. Four of those students also scored basic on MSA. Only one of the
students who scored Basic on MSA was reading on grade level at the end of the year. Three of the four students were in progress on grade level
standards. The table below reveals the MAP-R RIT scores for the spring.
2014 Measures of Academic Progress – Reading
Spring Scores
Grade
3
4
5
MAP-R Spring Scores
Number Students /Total Students and Percent
Not Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
19/114
61/114
34/114
17%
54%
30%
9/146
67/146
70/146
6%
46%
48%
13/143
22/143
108/143
9%
15%
76%
When we disaggregate the MAP-R data by race, although the numbers are low, we see that the majority of students who did not meet proficiency
are AA and Hispanic students. These students were also identified in the FARMS and/or LEP subgroups.
Spring 2014 MAP-R Not Proficient Scores
Number of Students by Race
Grade
African
American
Hispanic
White
Asian
American
Indian
Revised: 9/2014
3
4
5
10/20
2/22
4/10
2/7
3/14
4/7
6/72
4/126
4/112
1/14
0/9
1/14
0/1
-
In progress: Staff Development PLC revisions based on new Strategic Planning Framework Milestones for Goal 2 and Goal 3.