School Improvement Plan (SIP) Analysis

Amy Dherit

American College of Education

EL5703

Dr. Jacqueline O’Mara

May 31, 2021

Introduction
 Analyzing data and the systems in place in a school is an ongoing necessity to continually meet the

needs of the diverse learners that make up a student body. It is important for a school to have a

mission, vision, and goals that identify and drive how a school addresses specific needs and guide the

strategies to enable the school to meet the goals. Therefore, a school needs to create an Improvement

plan. It is a challenge that needs leadership who is able to get everyone on board to achieve the

school's goals. Improvement plans require a lot of communication, teamwork, and a solid action plan

(Isernhagen, 2012). The following analysis is based on the strengths and weaknesses of the school

Improvement plan for Shafer Elementary School. Shafer Elementary School’s report card data indicated

the school did not meet AYP for the third year in a row. After analyzing the data, the School

Improvement Team for Schafer Elementary School needed to identify the problem and develop a plan

to improve to a level of satisfactory for the state.

Title: School Improvement Plan Report for Shafer Elementary School

School Name and District: Schafer Elementary School

Grades Served: Grades 3-8

Vision, Mission, and Goals:

Does the school have a shared vision, mission, and goals? Unclear

State the school’s shared vision and mission statements.

Schafer Elementary School’s Mission, Vision, and Goals are not clearly defined in the SIP. Based on

what is included in the SIP, the school did have a goal of all students reaching 70% in both math and

reading, to provide intervention ISAT to communicate with parents in conferences or through

telephone calls (SIP, 2009, p.4). The data provided in the report card and the school came under a
federal improvement status provided a targeted goal of focusing their efforts on the subgroup of low

income students, therefore becoming part of the mission, vision, and goal.

Are the shared vision, mission, and goals supported by multiple measures of Unclear
data?

Do the shared vision, mission, and goals focus on equitable access, Unclear
opportunities, and outcomes for all students?

Are the shared vision, mission, and goals used to guide and monitor Unclear
decisions, actions, and outcomes?

Data Analysis:

What assessments are used in this example school? List the assessments.

❖ Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT)

❖ Fall 2009 AIMSweb Probes
❖ MAP Reading

The Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT) was a significant determinant for the Average Yearly

Progress (AYP) listed on Schaefer Elementary Schoo’s report card. AIMSweb Probes and MAP

Reading assessments were used as the local assessment tool to collect data. These two

assessments were used in order to estimate future ISAT scores. (SIP, 2009, p.22)

What are the assessment scores, and what do they tell you about this school’s weaknesses?

❖ Grade 3 low income students meeting or exceeding on the ISAT in reading was 48%.
❖ Grade 4 students meeting or exceeding on the ISAT in reading was 71%, compared to 52% of
grade 4 low income students.
❖ Grade 5 students meeting or exceeding on the ISAT in reading was 75% compared to 68% of
grade 5 low income students.
❖ 5th Grade LEP students dropped from 75% meeting standards in 2008 as 4th graders to 54%
meeting standards as 5th graders in reading
❖ In 3rd grade, only 3% of the students (n=2) received a 3 or 4 on the reading extended
responses
❖ In 3rd grade, our students scored lower than the state averages in all 4 standards for reading.
❖ 5th grade students classified as low income have been on a decline in reading achievement
for the past 3 years.)
 The ISAT assessment scores in reading for 2009, as listed on the school’s report card shows

weaknesses in multiple grades and within the specific subgroup of low income students. The 3rd

grade level students as a whole showed weaknesses in all four standards for reading and reading

extended responses. 4th grade students also showed a decline in score having dropped 19% from

the previous year. All three grades, 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students identified as low income showed

significant deficiency on the ISAT reading, with both 3rd and 5th grades declining 3 consecutive

years. The Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in 5th grade dropped 21% in reading from 2008

to 2009.

Does the SIP clearly identify the areas of weakness reflected in local, district, Yes
state, or national assessments or other data?

Objectives:

Are the objectives stated in the SIP directly related to low achievement? Yes

Provide an objective indicating low achievement.

● Reading Comprehension for low income students

○ While our current achievement in reading for the low income subgroup is 57%
meeting/exceeding for ISAT, this subgroup will make AYP of at least 77.5% in 2010 and
85% in 2011.
● Vocabulary Achievement for Economically Disadvantaged Students
○ We will use MAP vocabulary testing and common assessments to determine student
growth in vocabulary.
● Social Emotional Learning for Economically Disadvantaged Students
○ Using the social emotional learning standards, we will increase student engagement in
the learning process to increase students' reading achievement.

Has the SIP team considered how broad or narrow weaknesses are? Yes

Are the objectives measurable? Yes

Does each area of weakness involve many students or a few?

 The areas of weaknesses involve a subgroup of students identified as low income or economically

disadvantaged. This subgroup makes up 42.6% of the student population at Schafer Elementary.

Therefore, the objectives target nearly 43% of the school population.

Key Factors:

What does the school think is causing each weakness?

According to Schafer Elementary’s Improvement Plan, the contributors to the areas of weakness

associated with students from low income families could possibly include that the students come to

school and are not ready to learn, being unprepared and unable to focus on learning, or 65% of the

low income students are considered limited English proficient, thus accounting for the struggle with

vocabulary development. Other factors that were addressed inclus\ded the lack of access to

interventions and reading curriculum along with interventions were not consistently carried out. (SIP,

2009, p.21)

What factors have contributed to each area of weakness? Of these factors, has the school prioritized
ones that can be influenced or controlled?

43% of the school’s student body is identified as being students living in poverty. 65% of those

students identified as living in poverty are also from homes with limited English proficiency. Since

more than half of the students living in poverty struggle with English proficiency, vocabulary

development was targeted as a weakness that should be addressed. (SIP, 2009, p.21)

Do these key factors indicate what the school thinks has caused or contributed to low student
achievement?

According to Snow et al., factors seemed to correspond to the identified weaknesses based on

knowledge derived from numerous studies identifying that children from low socioeconomic

backgrounds come from families that often have little with less education (Snow et al., 2013). Children

from low income families are also known to have limited health care and suffer from proper nutrition.

Students from limited English proficient families often use their parents native language at home
rather than English. Therefore English Language Learners (ELL) have limited exposure to expanding

and practicing their vocabulary.

Strategies and Activities of the Action Plan:

Is there a strong relationship among the key factors, strategies, and activities? Yes

Is technology integrated into the strategies and activities? Yes

Are strategies and activities in the action plan clearly focused on what students, Yes
teachers, and parents will do to impact student achievement?

Are the measures of success toward achieving objectives clear? Yes

Have all weaknesses been sufficiently addressed? No

Would the effect of implementing these strategies and activities most likely cause Yes
the school to attain its achievement goals?

Overall Plan:

How do the shared vision, mission, and goals emphasize the expectation that all students will meet
content and performance standards?

The Schafer Elementary School School Improvement Plan never clearly identifies the school’s

vision, mission, and goals. The plan does identify the areas addressed on the school report card

which consist of assessment data that identifies two sub groups, students from low income families

and English Language Learners. However, nothing in the plan indicates the school’s specific vision,

mission, or objectives that guide the school’s purpose. The Improvement Plan does hint towards

aligning their goals to the state’s goal of a minimum of 70% students score within the parameters of

meeting or exceeding standard in reading and mathematics. (SIP, 2009, p.4) Another goal was to

continue to refine the RTI intervention. The only other area that seemed to lend towards a mission,

vision, and goal was the intent of the teachers' willingness to call parents that are unable to attend
parent conferences and other school meetings. However, the inclusion of this statement seems to

also portray that little effort is made to bridge the gap to offer more inviting and beneficial resources to

support parental involvement.

Does this plan have a chance of successfully improving student achievement?

Provided the school adheres to the next steps for improvement as indicated in the plan, there is

reasonable opportunity for students to grow academically. Schafer Elementary School states that

students will be assessed by assessment tools that are already in place at the school to determine

appropriate levels, so that struggling students will receive the proper invention (SIP, 2009, p.30). The

school’s plan also states that vocabulary development will be a focus of all grades, with grades K

through 2nd grade prioritizing strengthening of vocabulary skills, however specific strategies were not

identified in the scholl’s Action Plan (SIP, 2009, p.21). Students from low economic households will

receive direct instructional strategies from the “reading specialists and Special Education teachers,

and/or the ELL teachers” (SIP, 2009, p.30). Although the Improvement Plan specifically listed

instructional strategies being directed towards all students who were on the verge of meeting and

exceeding the standards by using a specific five point scale to identify the students within the that

margin of being on the verge, the action plan did not include this specific target group. Assurance

was also stated that there would be accountability towards “Houghton Mifflin Reading Series being

taught regularly (SIP, 2009, p.21). The action plan did declare that students would be required to read

at home and record their reading. The SIP noted that teachers will administer the Houghton Mifflin

Reading, combined with “the Illinois Assessment Frameworks with guidance from the Reading

Specialists to ensure that all students have access to the core curriculum to improve their reading

comprehension. Last of all, a conclusion was made that the school will work to refine the RTI process

(SIP, 2009, p.24).

Teamwork is a major component of school success. Is there evidence of teamwork in the SIP?

The SIP specified that professional development would be provided for teachers to increase

awareness on instructional strategies and activities to support the needs of the students. Additional
support for teachers will include providing teachers with training that increases their awareness and

sensitivity for students from households identified as low income. The SIP identified an excellent plan

in regards to the school’s Reading Specialists working with teachers in a collaborative effort for

teachers to receive coaching from the Reading Specialists. This type of collaboration will increase

needed communication amongst all involved.

The SIP was constructed as a team effort that included the school’s Principal, Assistant Principal,

Reading Specialist, ELL Interventionist, Special Education Teacher, combination of core and

exploratory teachers, a parent, and Differentiation and Writing Coach (SIP, 2009, p.40). The team

worked together to create a plan for all stakeholders to the betterment in students’ academic growth

and closing the achievement gap.

How well did the school establish a critical relationship among its problem areas or weaknesses, the
presumed causes of these weaknesses, and the plan for improved student achievement?

Schafer Elementary analyzed the Illinois Report Card to distinguish two subgroups, LEP and low

income scores, to have been consistently low in reading over several years (SIP, 2009, p.16). The SIP

team also recognized that more than half of the students identified as low income also were English

Language Learners. Understanding the barriers that both subgroups struggled with, the team was

able to identify areas of weaknesses and the underlying reasons for the weaknesses. The team put

together a plan that will provide the extra needed support for students and teachers to work towards

closing the achievement gap for these young stakeholders.

How is technology integrated into the plan?

● MAP and AIMSWEB benchmark testing

● Surveys
● Study Island Program
● Professional Development for Teachers in Technology Instruction

How is technology used to prepare, implement, and collect/analyze data used in the plan?District provides

● Services and resources for each year’s building goals including help with collecting and
analyzing data
● Staff will continue to collect and analyze student data from AimsWEB, MAP, common
assessments, and guided reading assessments to assess student progress and the
effectiveness of our strategies and activities.
 ● Parent participation will be monitored and satisfaction surveys will be administered.
● Teachers will monitor student progress in Study Island.

Conclusion

According to Hirch, a school improvement committee must discuss and consider all aspects in order to

develop an action plan (Hirch, 2006). After careful analysis, it appears that the school leadership, Improvement

Plan Team, and other stakeholders of Schafer Elementary School developed an effective plan that will lead to

academic improvement of the two identified subgroups. It appears they have incorporated research based

strategies and initiatives which is an important piece of SIP ( US Dept of Education, 2016). Overall, all of the

effort, time, and resources that are necessary to analyze, develop and implement a SIP is key for the process

to succeed. Ultimately, the end goal of a student is that they reach their achievement goal.
Reference

Gassenheimer, C. (2019, August 29). "Stunningly Powerful" School Improvement Begins by Sharpening Our

Focus. A+ Alabama Best Practices Center. https://aplusala.org/best-practices-center/

2019/08/29/stunningly-powerful-school-improvement-begins-by-sharpening-our-focus/.

Hirsh, S. (2006). Consider These Critical Questions to Strengthen Your School Improvement Plan.

Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 59-60. Retrieved from https://go.openathens.net/redirecto r/ace.

edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/211508694?accountid=31683

I. (2009). Schafer Elementary School School Improvement Plan [PDF]. Northern Illinois

University.

Office of State Support, US Dept of Education (2016). U.S. Department of Education.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oss/technicalassistance/evidencebasedpracticesschl.pdf.

Schmoker, M. (2011). Planning for Failure? Or for School Success? http://mikeschmoker.com/planning-for-

failure.html.

Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, S. (2013, November 7). Socioeconomics and Reading Difficulties.

ReadingRockets.org. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/socioeconomics-and-reading-difficulties.