Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program

Individualized Learning Plan (ILP)

Revised 6.1.17
Directions: The ILP should be completed with Mentor input. Complete blue cells prior to classroom implementation. Complete orange cells after POP Cycle is completed. Cells will expand as
needed. When submitting completed ILP to instructor, please include copies/images of pre/post assessments/directions and the Pre/Post Assessment Data Table.
Section 1: New Teacher Information
New Teacher Email Subject Area Grade Level
Jade Sammy jsammy@serraschool.org Multiple-Subject Kindergarten
Mentor Email School/District Date
St. Junipero Serra Catholic
Ellen Burrola eburrola@serraschool.org 3/1/2019
School/Diocese of Orange
Section 2: CSTP Areas of Inquiry
Directions: Identify 2-3 CSTP elements for ILP focus, including at least one as required: Semester 2 – CSTP 1/2/3; Semester 3 – CSTP 4/5/6; Semester 4 -all. Use most recent CSTP Assessment for
Initial Rating. Identify both teacher and student rating for CSTP 1 and 2. See example.
CSTP Element Initial Rating Description Goal Rating Description
Using a variety of instructional T - Creates, adapts, and integrates a broad range of strategies, resources,
T - Refines the flexible use of an extensive repertoire of strategies, resources,
strategies, resources, and and technologies into instruction designed to meet students’ diverse
T – Integrating T – Innovating and technologies to meet students’ diverse learning needs.
1.4 technologies to meet learning needs.
S – Applying S - Innovating S- Students take responsibilities for using a wide range of strategies,
students’ diverse learning S - Students participate in instruction using strategies, resources, and
resources, and technologies that successfully advance their learning.
needs technologies matched to their learning needs.
Incorporates differentiated instructional strategies into ongoing planning Plans instruction incorporating a repertoire of strategies specifically meet
Plan instruction that
that addresses culturally responsive pedagogy, students’ diverse students’ diverse language and learning needs and styles to advance learning
incorporates appropriate
4.4 Applying language, and learning needs and styles. Uses assessments of students’ Innovating for all. Facilitates opportunities for students to reflect on their learning and
strategies to meet the
learning and language needs to inform planning differentiated the impact of instructional strategies to meet their learning and language
learning needs of all students
instruction. needs.

Section 3: Inquiry Focus and Planning (Attach Pre/Post Assessments to ILP)

Inquiry Focus Inquiry question Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment Expected Results
Based on your selected CSTP elements, Pose measurable and observable question
What will you use as your baseline What will you use as your final How do you expect student performance
identify a focus of inquiry (e.g., group in terms of students (e.g., what impact will
assessment of student assessment of student to change? Use percentages to describe
discussion, differentiation, strategy X have on student performance
actions/performance? actions/performance? anticipated growth.
motivation…) as measured by Y?)

What impact will targeted daily small group There will be a 15% increase in the average score
Small group learning to differentiate and
learning have on student performance as Previous unit examination scores New unit cumulative assessment for students who participated in daily small group
deepen understanding
measured by unit assessment? learning.

Focus Students
Directions: Identify three focus students for your inquiry. Identify special characteristics of the students and include performance data. Explain why you have selected them for this inquiry focus.
Do not use actual names of students. (Note: At least one focus student should be an English learner and at least one must have an ILP/504 accommodation. The third is your choice, but please
identify someone that poses an instructional challenge.) Identify expected results for each focus student.
Focus Student 2: Student with
Focus Student 1: English Learner Focus Student 3: Your Choice
ILP/504
This student has been selected as their scores are very low. The
This student has been selected as their scores change student has difficulty focusing, and inconsistent retention. This student
This student has been selected as a focus student as he is my
Performance erratically and do not often reflect her true learning has also recently started a program to improve his abilities to focus
only English learner. His scores on the last 3 unit examinations
Data ability. Her scores on the last 3 unit examinations and work independently, wet no change has been observed in
are: 10/13, 12/13, 12/13.
are: 11/13, 10/13, 12/13. learning. His scores on the last 3 unit examinations are: 9/13, 9/13,
8/13.

Expected Results Student AC will show a small increase of less than 5%. Student AJ’s scores will not change dramatically. Student CF will increase score 20% or more.

Inquiry Lesson Implementation Plan

Administer Post-
Administer Pre-Assessment Deliver Lesson(s) Analyze Results Discuss Results with Mentor
Assessment
Identify dates for activities.
3/5/2019 Mar. 5–21 3/22/2019 Mar. 23-24 Mar. 26th
Provide 1-2 sentence My plan is to have 3 rotations of 4 ELA centers each week. The centers will provide targeted skills practice for each of the homogenous
summary of your lesson plan. groups based on their ability levels.
The student formal assessments will be given in the same whole-group manner with our “castle walls” up to decrease the possibility of
Summarize process for copying another student’s work. The teacher follows the script and the students will follow the directions circling their choice of
administering and analyzing answer for each question. The questions are based on the phonological recognition and use activities we will be completing in our
pre- and post-assessments. small groups. The assessment analysis will be completed by gathering the results and comparing which questions/skills students were
able to answer correctly and which common misconceptions there were based on incorrect answers.
Section 4: Inquiry Research and Exploration
Research/Professional Learning (Identify two articles that have informed inquiry focus. Provide title, URL or citation, and statement of what was learned.)
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2002, December 22). Critical Elements of Classroom and Small‐Group Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008, April 1).
Instruction Promote Reading Success in All Children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4). Effects of Small-Group Reading Instruction and Curriculum Differences for Students Most at Risk in
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00020 Kindergarten: Two-Year Results for Secondary- and Tertiary-Level Interventions. SAGE Journals,
41(2), 101-114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313412
This article focused specifically on reading success stating that explicit instruction by the classroom
teacher shows remarkable reductions in reading failure. And to address the needs of struggling readers Results indicated that students in the more directed, explicit intervention groups generally out-
working in small groups or one-to-one formats are most effective. performed students in the comparison group.

Individualized Learning Plan, Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program (FOTIP), 2017 Page 1 of 4
 Colleagues (Summarize how two colleagues have addressed this issue in their classroom. Identify grade level, subject, and summary of ideas.)
Colleague #2 teaches SPED for grades 4-6. Both reading and math are small group as he is
tackling 3 different grade levels in one classroom. Even then he has noticed that he needs
to make many accommodations based on where each individual student is. Each student
Colleague #1 teaches 2nd grade and utilizes daily reading centers 3 rotations a week. Her 3
has their own folder for their individual needs. Students work at their own pace and the
groups are heterogenous, as the advanced and students needing accommodation go to pull-out
folders are checked and updated weekly. For science and social studies, he will pick the
classes.
primary information units for each grade level and rotate accommodating for the different
grade levels, as he will have these students ideally for 3 years. Most information is shared
through discussion and grade leveled projects.
Special Emphasis: Instructional Strategy, ISTE Standards, NBPTS Core Propositions
Special Emphasis Focus How Special Emphasis will be Incorporated

Section 5: Results and Reflection

Directions: Record Pre- and post- assessment data into Pre/Post Assessment Data Table (see end of document). Include copies/images of pre/post assessments/directions and the Pre/Post
Assessment Data Table with submission.
Pre/Post Assessment Data Analysis Findings for Whole Class Pre/Post Assessment Data Analysis Findings for Three Focus Students
AC – Assessment score remained the same
The average class score did increase. However, the most noticeable difference was the deeper
AJ – Assessment score 8% increase, at times this student had difficulty working in smaller
understanding demonstrated by the students in day-to-day activities and discussion. The
groups, due to behavior issues and failed to complete work during allotted time.
students work was neater and detailed, whereas past work did not show as much effort. Several
of my lower students increased their scores by 2 points (about 26%). Most scores remained the
CF – Assessment score 8% increase compared to retake score and a 39% increase from
same or increased, only one score fell a point below.
initial score. This student had significant increase in understanding shown in day-to-day
activity.

Initial Evidence/Rational for Rating

CSTP Element Revised Rating Suggestions for Moving Forward
Rating (Summarize from POP Section 3)
Promoting critical To move to INNOVATING level: Consider how to increase
Teacher asked questions of analysis and evaluation.
thinking through T – Applying T – Integrating complexity of task beyond a single lesson so that there are
1.5 Students answered questions that included all levels of Bloom’s.
inquiry, problem S – Exploring S - Integrating continuing opportunities for students to engage in inquiry in
Students created their own math problems.
solving, and reflection complex problem. How could you extend lesson into PBL?

Using a variety of To move to INNOVATING level:

instructional
strategies, resources, Teacher asked questions of analysis.
experienced teacher observation to
T – Integrating T – Integrating
1.5 and technologies to
S – Applying S – Applying
Students are actively engaged in instruction. Students used see how to be more flexible with
meet students’ the information to create their own writing.
diverse learning strategies to meet instructional
needs
levels
To move to INNOVATING level: give
Plan instruction that students a way to reflect on their
incorporates
4.4
appropriate
Applying Applying
Teacher plans instruction using a wide range of strategies.
Teacher plans supports and challenges for different learning
learning…wait didn’t I try to do that
strategies to meet
the learning needs of groups. by asking – C & E told me Kinders
all students
don’t really get it….Create a system
for more flexible grouping?

Special Emphasis (Skills, Themes, ISTE Standards·Teachers, NBPTS Core Propositions (if applicable)
Results of Incorporation into Lesson Key Learnings and New Skills/Knowledge Developed by Teacher

Action Items
Use small group for specific skill tasks with flexible grouping:
For curriculum design, lesson  Printing
planning, assessment  Guided reading
planning  Fix It Up – capitalization, punctuation, spaces between words
 Blending

For classroom practice Teaching students how to transition between centers – develop routine so that students are ready to work when they arrive at new center.

For teaching English learners,

students with special needs,
Flexible small groups are key to meet individual needs of each learner.
and students with other
instructional challenges
For future professional
Observe an experienced teacher for guided reading focus
development

Individualized Learning Plan, Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program (FOTIP), 2017 Page 2 of 4
 For future inquiry/ILP Using daily assessment strategies (ex. Exit tickets)

For next POP cycle Math centers – observing math center routine, classroom environment

Other

Other Notes

Pre-/Post- Assessment Data Table follows this document.

Include copies/images of pre-/post- assessments/directions and the Pre/Post Assessment Data Table with submission.

Individualized Learning Plan, Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program (FOTIP), 2017 Page 3 of 4
 Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program
Individualized Learning Plan (ILP)
Revised 5.1.17
Directions: Record student pre and post scores in this table. Do not use student’s actual names.
New Teacher Email Subject Area Grade Level

Jade Sammy jsammy@serraschool.org ELA Kindergarten

Pre-Assessment Data Range and Average Post-Assessment Data Range and Average
February 28, 2019 Data Range: 8-13 March 21, 2019 Data Range: 10-13
Average: 12.19 Average: 12.52
PRE-/POST- ASSESSMENT DATA TABLE
Student Pre-Assessment Score Post-Assessment Score Comments
1. Focus Student: EL – A C 12 12
2. Focus Student: 504/IEP –A J 12 13 +1
3. Focus Student: – C F 12 13 Original Score on Pre-Assessment = 8
4. E A 12 12
5. L B 13 13
6. K B 12 13 +1
7. R C 13 13
8. E D 13 12
9. K D 12 12
10. L F 13 13
11. E F 11 11
12. E G 11 13 +2
13. G G 13 13
14. H H 11 13 +2
15. M H 13 13
16. G K 13 13
17. A M 13 12 -1
18. A M 12 12
19. S R 12 12
20. C S 13 13
21. F U 10 12 +2
22.
23.
24.
25.
26. Class Avg: 12.19 Class Avg: 12.52
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
910111 21314 1516

Individualized Learning Plan, Fullerton Online Teacher Induction Program (FOTIP), 2017 Page 4 of 4