Schools may choose to describe up to two additional pieces of information about how their school is supporting students. These self-reported indicators are not factored into school accountability calculations but provide the opportunity for schools to highlight successful programs or practices in addition to the indicators included in school accountability.


Student Progress Monitoring

Teachers who use instructional strategies appropriately help students become more independent, strategic learners. When students are met at their current level of understanding and are challenged with support, they are able to excel and make growth. PPES utilizes the iReady Program to measure student understanding in reading and math and creates individualized target growth goals for each child. The goal of the program is to help students address learning gaps while also enabling students to access grade-level learning. Throughout the year, students take an adaptive diagnostic assessment designed to provide teachers with insight into each student’s needs. Using this information, teachers are able to tailor their instruction to meet the needs of their learners. Each week, grade-level teachers meet for a PLC to discuss student data, what instructional strategies are working, and what areas they still need to reinforce. From these discussions, teachers are able to implement and adapt the strategies in place in order to meet the individual needs in their classroom. Based on the assessment results from the beginning of year diagnostic to the middle of year diagnostic, 92% of the school made typical growth to meet their goal in reading and 57% of the school made the typical growth in math. Typical growth is the average annual growth for a student at their grade and placement level. This shows that through effective instructional strategies and frequent PLC's, growth occurs.


Tier 2 & Tier 3 Outcomes

Students not reading on grade level by the end of 3rd grade are at a higher risk for failure throughout their schooling. Among other interventions, Data Dives were conducted weekly. Data Dives consisted of teachers, coaches, interventionists, and the principal met for a 3-hour block of time to discuss student achievement and growth. Discussions centered on high-quality literacy instruction for all with a focus on students not meeting proficiency. Interventionists were consulted and each teacher received coaching in evidence-based practices to ensure that the majority of students were achieving at high levels. The team also focused on closing the achievement gap, ensuring a year’s worth of growth. Data were analyzed to understand what intervention and evidence-based practices should be implemented in the classroom during small group time. Interventionists, building coaches, and the principal discussed the specific needs of students achieving below proficiency and how to use student strengths to diminish weaknesses in literacy. Students at greatest risk, as well as teaching efforts being made to eliminate skill deficits, were discussed. Results from the beginning of the year compared to the middle of the year indicated that the percentage of students below proficiency in K-3 went from 28% to 19%. It can be assumed growth would have continued and the percentage of students below proficiency would have lessened further if data dives and assessments would have continued.