Continuous School Improvement Plan

Schedule bi-weekly professional learning opportunities embedded in Classroom Focused Instructional Planning, K-3 teachers in encoding and decoding, and 4-5 teachers in encoding and morphology.  Grade-levels meet bi-weekly to plan with the coaching staff. They utilize the comprehension framework planning protocol to collaboratively plan tier 1 instruction. 

Teachers will participate in Coaching Cycles to effectively implement instructional strategies as part of their Classroom Focused Improvement Plans. Coaches work with the teachers to implement strategies to help support student learning.  

Special Education teachers will engage in four professional learning sessions on specially designed instruction in Reading with the Special Education Supervisor. These are to be scheduled. 

Conduct non-evaluative Literacy WalkThroughs.  Non-evaluative walkthroughs are currently being conducted.  The next area of focus will be to provide feedback to support instructional improvements.  

Monitor literacy walkthrough and student reading plan data every 4-6 weeks, fall and mid-year VALLS data utilizing structured data analysis and student work samples. Reading plans have been created and implemented.  Parents had the opportunity to come to school to collaborate on the reading plans starting the week of October 27, 2025.  Kindergarten reading plans were created on November 6, 2025.  Students have begun to work with the interventionists on the goals. Reading plan data meetings will be scheduled for the week of December 8, 2025, to go over the progress monitoring data and to make needed adjustments. 

Baseline data from the VALLSS assessment. For the fall VALLS assessment, the following percentage of students were in the low-risk band, moderate-risk band, and the high-risk band.  

In Kindergarten, 20% were low risk, 52% were moderate risk, and 28% were high risk.  In First Grade, 48% were low risk, 27% were moderate risk, and 25% were high risk. In Second Grade, 54% were low risk, 32% were moderate risk, and 14% were high risk.  In Third Grade, 46% were low risk, 23% were moderate risk, and 31% were high risk.

Schedule bi-weekly professional learning opportunities embedded in Classroom Focused Instructional Planning, K-3 teachers in encoding and decoding, and 4-5 teachers in encoding and morphology.  Grade-levels meet bi-weekly to plan with the coaching staff. They utilize the comprehension framework planning protocol to collaboratively plan tier 1 instruction. 

Teachers will participate in Coaching Cycles to effectively implement instructional strategies as part of their Classroom Focused Improvement Plans. Coaches work with the teachers to implement strategies to help support student learning.  

Special Education teachers will engage in four professional learning sessions on specially designed instruction in Reading with the Special Education Supervisor. A session was scheduled and then it had to be cancelled; however, our Special Education Supervisor is working on rescheduling. 

Conduct non-evaluative Literacy WalkThroughs.  Non-evaluative walkthroughs are currently being conducted.  The TNTP visited our school on February 26, 2026, which will help our leadership team to calibrate our walkthroughs.  For the remainder of the year, we will continue to calibrate and provide feedback to teachers. 

Monitor literacy walkthrough and student reading plan data every 4-6 weeks, fall and mid-year VALLS data utilizing structured data analysis and student work samples. The mid-year VALLSS was given and reading plans have been revised.  Some students were able to move into the low-risk band and moderate-risk bands.  If students moved into the high-risk bands, a reading plan is being created and parents are being notified.  The updated plans and progress reports went sent home on February 20, 2026. Students continue to work with interventionists on the goals. 

Baseline data from the VALLSS assessment

For the fall VALLS assessment, the following percentages of students were in the low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk bands.  

In Kindergarten, 20% were low risk, 52% were moderate risk, and 28% were high risk.  In First Grade, 48% were low risk, 27% were moderate risk, and 25% were high risk. 

In Second Grade, 54% were low risk, 32% were moderate risk, and 14% were high risk.  In Third Grade, 46% were low risk, 23% were moderate risk, and 31% were high risk. 

Midyear data from the VALLS assessment 

For the midyear VALLS assessment, the following percentages of students were in the low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk bands. 

In Kindergarten, 59% were low risk, 20% were moderate risk, and 20 percent were high risk. 

In First Grade, 56% were low risk, 22% were moderate risk, and 22% were high risk. 

In Second Grade, 69% were low risk, 15% were moderate risk, and 15% were low risk. 

In Third Grade, 32% were low risk, 30% were moderate risk, and 38% were high risk. (Only the high-risk and moderate-risk students from the fall were assessed this time, which was 37 students.  Fifteen students moved down a risk band, 3 moved from high to low.)

Schedule bi-weekly professional learning opportunities embedded in Classroom Focused Instructional Planning, K-5 teachers will focus on understanding the importance of building conceptual knowledge using the C-R-A model. Grade-levels meet bi-weekly to plan with the coaching staff. They utilize iReady lessons, Math Forward VA resources, and the math planning protocol to collaboratively plan tier 1 instruction. 

Teachers will participate in Coaching Cycles to effectively implement instructional strategies as part of their Classroom Focused Improvement Plans. Coaches will work with the teachers to implement strategies to support student learning.

Special Education teachers will engage in four professional learning sessions on specially designed instruction in Math with the Special Education Supervisor. These are to be scheduled.

Conduct non-evaluative Math WalkThroughs. Non-evaluative walkthroughs are currently being scheduled. Administration has completed a round. They will continue to work with the leadership team to schedule and calibrate the process.  

Monitor math walkthrough and student math data every 4-6 weeks, utilizing iReady lesson data, progress monitoring data, standards-mastery data, and diagnostic data.  Beginning of the year Math iReady Diagnostic data has been reviewed. Teachers will begin utilizing common assessments to monitor student progress towards goals.

VKRP Data for Kindergarten Fall 

74% of kindergarteners are at or above the benchmark for the beginning of the year.  26% of kindergarteners are below the benchmark for the beginning of the year.

The following are the results from Diagnostic 1 on iReady

First Grade: 

• 22% were two grade levels below. 
• 71% were one grade level below. 
• 4% were early on grade level. 
• 4% were mid or above grade level. 

Second Grade: 

• 26% were two grade levels below. 
• 66% were one grade level below
• 6% were early on grade level 
• 2% were mid or above grade level 

Third Grade: 

• 10% were three or more grade levels below
• 27% were two grade levels below
• 47% were one grade level below
• 11% were early on grade level 
• 4% were mid or above grade level 

Fourth Grade: 

• 19% were three or more grade levels below
• 19% were two grade levels below 
• 46% were one grade level below 
• 10% were early on grade level 
• 6% were mid or above grade level 

Fifth Grade: 

• 13% were three or more grade levels below
• 15% were two grade levels below 
• 45% were one grade level below
• 20% were early on grade level 
• 7% were mid or above grade level

Teachers will deliver whole group and small lessons, using the Math Workshop model and explicit instruction using concrete and semi-concrete representations to support students' learning of mathematical concepts and procedures. Grade-level teams plan bi-weekly with coaches to support the implementation of Tier 1 strategies and resources to support small group lessons. The iReady Teacher Toolbox lessons are used to support differentiated instruction.

Schedule bi-weekly professional learning opportunities embedded in Classroom Focused Instructional Planning, K-5 teachers will focus on understanding the importance of building conceptual knowledge using the C-R-A model. Grade-levels meet bi-weekly to plan with the coaching staff. They utilize iReady lessons, Math Forward VA resources, and the math planning protocol to collaboratively plan tier 1 instruction. 

Teachers will participate in Coaching Cycles to effectively implement instructional strategies as part of their Classroom Focused Improvement Plans.

Coaches will work with the teachers to implement strategies to support student learning.

Special Education teachers will engage in four professional learning sessions on specially designed instruction in Math with the Special Education Supervisor. These are to be scheduled.

Conduct non-evaluative Math WalkThroughs.

Non-evaluative walkthroughs are being conducted. As we continue through the third and fourth quarters, walkthroughs will focus on looking for students working through the CRA model and how small group instruction is being utilized.  Feedback will be given to teachers. 

Monitor math walkthrough and student math data every 4-6 weeks, utilizing iReady lesson data, progress monitoring data, standards-mastery data, and diagnostic data.  

After the December iReady Diagnostic was given, teachers met with the Math specialist to look at the data, how iReady grouped the students, and what implications it had for the instruction. 

VKRP Data for Kindergarten Fall 

• 74% of kindergarteners are at or above the benchmark for the beginning of the year. 
• 26% of kindergarteners are below the benchmark for the beginning of the year. 

VKRP Data for Kindergarten Mid-Year

All students did not take the Mid-Year Assessment.  Only the students who were below benchmark at the BOY took the MOY assessment. 

With the updated results from the MOY Assessment: 

• 87% of kindergarteners are at or above the benchmark for the middle of the year. 
• 13% of kindergarteners are below the benchmark for the middle of the year. 

The following are the results from iReady Diagnostics 

August First Grade: 

• 22% were two grade levels below. 
• 71% were one grade level below. 
• 4% were early on grade level. 
• 4% were mid or above grade level. 

December First Grade: 

• 6% were two grade levels below 
• 71% were one grade level below
• 12% were early on grade level 
• 12% were mid or above grade level 

August Second Grade: 

• 26% were two grade levels below. 
• 66% were one grade level below
• 6% were early on grade level 
• 2% were mid or above grade level 

December Second Grade 

• 15% were two grade levels below
• 59% were one grade level below 
• 15% were early on grade level 
• 11% were mid or above grade level 

August Third Grade: 

• 10% were three or more grade levels below
• 27% were two grade levels below
• 47% were one grade level below
• 11% were early on grade level 
• 4% were mid or above grade level 

December Third Grade:

• 9% were three or more grade levels below 
• 12% were two grade levels below 
• 60% were one grade level below 
• 9% were early on grade level 
• 10% were mid or above grade level 

August Fourth Grade: 

• 19% were three or more grade levels below
• 19% were two grade levels below 
• 46% were one grade level below 
• 10% were early on grade level 
• 6% were mid or above grade level 

December Fourth Grade: 

• 10% were three or more grade levels below 
• 20% were two grade levels below 
• 28% were one grade level below
• 23% were early on grade level 
• 10% were mid or above grade level 

August Fifth Grade: 

• 13% were three or more grade levels below
• 15% were two grade levels below 
• 45% were one grade level below
• 20% were early on grade level 
• 7% were mid or above grade level 

December Fifth Grade 

• 9% were three or more grade levels below 
• 11% were two grade levels below 
• 42% were one grade level below 
• 18% were early on grade level 
• 21% were mid or above grade level 

Teachers will deliver whole group and small lessons, using the Math Workshop model and explicit instruction using concrete and semi-concrete representations to support students' learning of mathematical concepts and procedures.

Grade-level teams plan bi-weekly with coaches to support the implementation of Tier 1 strategies and resources to support small group lessons. The iReady Teacher Toolbox lessons are used to support differentiated instruction. Additionally, teachers are utilizing resources from the two curriculum choices that we are evaluating for the upcoming adoption.

Teachers will dedicate time in their schedules to teach Science content and vocabulary with fidelity. The Instructional coach is working with teachers to implement Science content vocabulary with fidelity. 

Teachers will plan lessons to teach the grade-level science vocabulary explicitly.  Instructional coach is supporting grade level teams with planning lessons to address Science content and vocabulary.  During lesson plan reviews, teachers are planning for science; however, when students are working on through invetigations, explicit instruction on vocabulary is not present in the lesson plans. 

Conduct non-evaluative WalkThroughs for science, using the SCOT tool. Non-evaluative WalkThroughs will be scheduled.

Monitor data every 4-6 weeks utilizing structured data analysis and student work samples. Common assessments are currently being created to monitor student data. 

Teachers will dedicate time in their schedules to teach Science content and vocabulary with fidelity.

The Instructional coach is working with teachers to implement Science content vocabulary with fidelity. Additionally, some teachers are leveraging the integration of science content into their language arts block. 

Teachers will plan lessons to teach the grade-level science vocabulary explicitly. 

Instructional coach is supporting grade level teams with planning lessons to address Science content and vocabulary.  During lesson plan reviews, teachers plan for science; however, when students are working on investigations, explicit instruction on vocabulary is not included in the lesson plans. 

Conduct non-evaluative WalkThroughs for science, using the SCOT tool.

Administration is working on creating a walkthrough tool that embeds components of the SCOT to focus on the discourse that is occurring in science. 

Monitor data every 4-6 weeks utilizing structured data analysis and student work samples.

This process is still being planned and working towards implementation. 

Teachers will participate in weekly collaborative planning cycles, focused on reading and math, to utilize the HQIM to create explicit instructional plans.  Starting August 18, 2025, grade-level teams have met weekly to plan reading and math.  They plan together with the coaches (Literacy, Math, and Instructional), utilizing the comprehension framework and the English Standards of Learning for reading and language arts and the framework for math that includes math-forward lessons.

Teachers will participate in weekly collaborative planning cycles, focused on reading and math, to utilize the HQIM to create explicit instructional plans. 

Grade-level teams continue to meet weekly to plan reading and math.  They plan together with the coaches (Literacy, Math, and Instructional), utilizing the comprehension framework and the English Standards of Learning for reading and language arts, and the framework for math that includes math-forward lessons.

Develop and deliver quality professional learning in the areas of reading and math during collaborative planning. Grade-level teams meet weekly with instructional coaches to engage in professional learning that supports collaborative planning. 

Complete coaching cycles. Instructional coaches meet with teachers to support teachers’ professional knowledge in reading and math. 

Plan and deliver professional learning on the division-wide professional learning days.  Instructional coaches delivered professional development on Foundational Reading and Writing Skills for reading and resources and structures for math workshop.

Develop and deliver quality professional learning in the areas of reading and math during collaborative planning. 

Grade-level teams meet weekly with instructional coaches to engage in professional learning that supports collaborative planning. 

Complete coaching cycles.

Instructional coaches meet with teachers to support teachers’ professional knowledge in reading and math. 

Plan and deliver professional learning on the division-wide professional learning days. 

Instructional coaches delivered professional development on Foundational Reading and Writing Skills for reading and resources and structures for math workshops.

The January 5th PD day, delivered division-wide, focused on high-impact instruction, including maximizing time, planning and designing learning experiences, using high-quality instructional materials, and fostering a conducive learning environment.  As we continue to evaluate current structures and make shifts, teachers have received feedback on their lesson plans.  We are also conducting walkthroughs to monitor how time is being used and how the lessons are being delivered in the classroom.

Develop and implement a PBIS House System, revising the PBIS handbook. The Climate committee is working on developing houses which are student clusters filled with K-5 students and staff members. Each house will have a slogan and theme and the kick off will be in January. The committee has updated the staff on the house names.  They will be meeting on November 20, 2025 to continue to working on the implementation plan. 

Staff refresher sessions on the school-wide PBIS system. In the process of planning staff refresher of the school wide PBIS system. It will align with the house system kick off in January. Professional learning will be embedded in the faculty meetings in December and January and will continue throughout the remainder of the year.

Develop and implement a PBIS House System, revising the PBIS handbook.

The Climate Committee has decided, after analyzing data, to pause the launch of the house system. During the planning stages, it became evident that the current PBIS handbook and structures are not fully understood or implemented by all teachers and staff members. The PBIS Handbook is being revised and updated.

Therefore, we are changing our goal that by the end of the year, 100% of staff and students will be able to communicate the PBIS expectations.