The Single Plan for Student Achievement



The Single Plan for Student Achievement

District: Alview-Dairyland Union School District

County-District School (CDS) Code: 20-65177

Principal: Sheila Perry

Date of this revision: 6/15/2018

The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is a plan of actions to raise the academic performance of all students. California Education Code sections 41507, 41572, and 64001 and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require each school to consolidate all school plans for programs funded through the ConApp and ESEA Program Improvement into the SPSA.

For additional information on school programs and how you may become involved locally, please contact the following person:

Contact Person: Sheila Perry

Position: Superintendent/Principal (7/1/18)

Telephone Number: (559) 665-2394

Address: 12861 Avenue 18-1/2

Chowchilla, CA 93610

E-mail Address: sperry@adusd.k12.ca.us

The District Governing Board approved this revision of the SPSA on 6/26/18

District Vision and Mission

The Alview-Dairyland School District’s mission is to provide an exceptional setting for students to learn. We strive to maintain high academic standards within a positive, nurturing environment. We endeavor to inspire active learners that are challenged to their maximum potential. We want our students to become productive citizens with high moral character. We also believe that a strong line of communication between students, staff, parents, and community is imperative for children to reach their goals.

The vision of the Alview-Dairyland School District is to develop literacy in all students. Our goal is to help students develop into successful and responsible citizens in our society. We believe our vision is possible through the teaching of California State Standards along with differentiated instruction to reach individualized student needs.

District Profile

Alview-Dairyland School District is a small K-8 district in rural Madera County approximately 10 miles south of Chowchilla. Our district has provided an educational experience for students since 1915. This district is approximately 125 square miles in size. Currently, about 350 students are enrolled. The school operates on two campuses to utilize available classrooms, but the administration of the two campuses is one unit. Kindergarten through third grade students attend the Alview Campus and students in grades 4-8 attend the Dairyland Campus. Eighth grade graduates from Dairyland attend Chowchilla High School.

The district is administered by a five member Board of Trustees, a Superintendent/Principal, and a Vice Principal/Curriculum Director. The educational staff includes 17 classroom teachers, an RSP teacher, a library technician, and several paraprofessionals. One of our classroom teachers is a BTSA support provider.

Community and parent involvement is assured by the School Site Council, DELAC Committee, the Parent-Teacher Club (PTC), and many parent volunteers. A parent-child-teacher compact is distributed and discussed at conferences. A “Back to School Barbeque” prior to the start of the school year welcomes parents and community members to the school. Our district encourages English classes for non-English speaking parents and offers weekly instruction at both campuses during the school year.

Other programs include a GATE program for students in Grades 2-8 and tutoring to improve student achievement. Students may participate in community-supported minor league baseball teams, soccer teams, and 4-H. Students in grades 7-8 may also participate in school sponsored sports, and students in grades 4-8 have the opportunity to join our band program.

Students in 7-8 grades also participate in the Madera County Pentathlon as well as various essay and speech contests.

Our district has had strong community pride since the early 1900’s. Community residents gather at our school dinners and events. Our local high school teachers and staff recognize our students because of their high standards and academic excellence. Our small school district staff cares deeply for students and many teachers follow their development through graduation. Some families choose to return to our school community to raise their own children.

School Accountability Report Card:

The School Accountability Report Card is available at our school offices and on our District web site.

Analysis of Current Educational Practice:

The following statements characterize educational practice at this school:

1. Alignment of curriculum, instruction and materials to content and performance standards:

Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, and ELD curricula are aligned to California State Standards. We use state adopted research-based curricula in Language Arts, Math, ELD, and Intervention programs.

2. Availability of standards-based instructional materials appropriate to all student groups:

All groups use standards-based instructional materials. Students with specific needs are grouped at designated times each day to work at their appropriate level of instruction. Tutoring is also available before, during, and after school.

3. Alignment of staff development to standards, assessed student performance and professional

needs:

Staff development is focused on California State Standards, assessment, and the professional needs of our

teachers. Staff development for summer and fall of 2018 will center around student engagement and lesson delivery.

Other areas of staff development will focus on technology, STEM, and NGSS curriculum and instruction.

.

4. Services provided by the regular program to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:

Students that are identified as being at-risk are placed in intervention programs that use state-approved

intervention curriculum. These programs provide small group instruction at student ability levels. Groups

are taught by trained, experienced teachers and paraprofessionals. Frequent assessment enables

students to be moved to grade level programs when they are ready (RTI program). Teachers are working

toward 85% mastery of core curriculum by providing re-teaching and differentiated instruction.

Small group tutoring is also available

Additional technology and software programs including Study Island and Type to Learn have been implemented to

further support the learning needs of ADUSD students.

5. Services provided by categorical funds to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:

We operate a multiage reading intervention program for students in grades 1-3.

In addition, Dairyland provides further intervention with a 75 minute Language Arts class and two 60 minute math periods.

In both courses, grade level standards are taught in small group settings. Percent of teacher and paraprofessional

salaries spent in intervention as well as instructional supplies are funded with Supplemental / Concentration grants and Title I.

Also, at both campuses, tutoring is provided through LCFF funding. In addition, we use flexible title funding to implement an

anti-smoking/drug curriculum, “Too Good for Drugs”. The district has adopted a character education program, Project Wisdom,

which is also funded through LCFF grants. In addition, computers are used to accommodate student data analysis and

math benchmarking. Also, through LCFF funding, “Super Tutoring” has been implemented in March and

April each year to ensure student grade level subject mastery.

6. Use of state and local assessments to modify instruction and improve student achievement:

In addition to growth analysis from SBAC results, local assessments are key in evaluating student mastery.

K-8 students are evaluated with the RESULTS lexile reading assessment three times throughout the school year. Teachers have

been trained in this program and use the materials to determine instruction and placement.

In the area of math, teachers assess students at the beginning of the year with an initial publisher-provided assessment. Also

available is the Accelerated Math assessment,”STAR Math”. These local assessments are integral in determining student needs.

In addition, Accelerated Math and math facts practice programs are used to help students develop their skills by

mastering specific objectives. In both ELA and Math, local assessment data is analyzed by teachers and administrators to

differentiate instruction and provide focus to target needed areas of improvement.

7. Number and percentage of teachers in academic areas experiencing low student performance:

Teachers in each grade level experience low student performance in a small percentage of their students. In

grade level teams, teachers develop and implement learning plans for these students.

.

8. Family, school, district and community resources available to assist these students:

For students with academic or behavior concerns, student success teams are developed to include parents

and staff to collaborate about ways to improve achievement and/or behavior.

Students are also referred to medical and psychological services when needed. A resource teacher and trained

paraprofessionals work with students identified on IEPs. Students identified with speech needs receive weekly services.

Vision and hearing screenings are scheduled and conducted at required grade levels and when a student is referred.

. After-school tutoring is also available.

9. School, district and community barriers to improvements in student achievement:

English literacy is a barrier for some of our parents. Evening ELD classes are offered weekly through LCFF funding.

Translators are available at each campus to improve parent-school communication. Spanish speaking parents are also encouraged to attend

DELAC meetings during which a translator is available to report on district events and develop ELD plans.

10. Limitations of the current program to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:

No real limitations are in place to prevent Underperforming students to meet standards.

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE

| The content of this school plan is aligned with school goals for improving student achievement. School goals are based upon an analysis of verifiable state data, including Dashboard data, and include local |

|measures of pupil achievement. The School Site Council analyzed available data on the academic performance of all students, including English learners, educationally disadvantaged students, gifted and talented|

|students, and students with exceptional needs. The Council also obtained and considered the input of the school community. Based upon this analysis, the Council has established the following performance |

|improvement goals, actions and expenditures. |

|LEA GOAL # 1 for Improving Student Achievement: All students will meet or exceed standards in ELA and Math by June of 2019. |

|School Goal #1(Alview and Dairyland) : Prepare students for success in high school and higher education and/or vocational job market. |

|Student groups participating in this goal: All Students including Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and English Learners |

|Performance gains expected for these students: Grade level standards mastery |

|Means of evaluating progress toward this goal: Annual Smarter Balanced Test Results / Local Assessments |

|Group data needed to measure academic gains: Smarter Balanced results, Local Math and Reading Assessments |

|Description of Specific Actions to Improve Educational Practice |Implementers/ |Related Expenditures |Estimated |Funding |

| |Timeline | |Cost |Source |

|Alignment of instruction with California State Standards: |Teachers and | | | |

|Teachers will improve instruction differentiating to student needs. Paraprofessionals |Paraprofessionals |None |None |None |

|will be trained to support instruction. |(Ongoing) | | | |

| | | | | |

|Weekly classroom monitoring for EDI use by site administrators. | | | | |

| |EDI implementation | | | |

|DataWorks coaching for new teachers and those not meeting engagement goals | |None |None |None |

| |Administration/ | | | |

| |Ongoing |Daily Rate for DataWorks coaching staff |$4000.00 |C & S Grants / |

| | | | |Title II |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Infuse technology into all curriculum components. |2018-19 |devices for all students have been implemented—2 |$25,000 |C&S Grants |

| | |replacement laptop labs will be added . | | |

| | | | | |

| | |Salaries / Benefits of additional staff | | |

| | | | |C&S Grants |

|Continue to employ one paraprofessional at Alview and two at Dairyland to enhance |2018-19 | |$30,000 | |

|intervention and small group instruction | |Salaries/Benefits | | |

| | | | |C&S Grants |

|Continue to employ one additional teacher at Dairyland to minimize class sizes in grades| | | | |

|4-6 |2018-19 | |$72,000 | |

| | |Costs for traveling teacher, presenters, | | |

| | |transportation, etc. | |C&S Grants |

|Field Trips, Assemblies, and Traveling Teachers to enhance curriculum | | | | |

| |Teachers / | | | |

| |2018-19 | |$18,000 | |

| | | | |C&S Grants |

| | |Teacher stipend and materials | | |

|After-School Arts Program | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Various teachers/ 2018-19 | | | |

| | | |$6,000 | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Increased educational opportunity: |Various Teachers/ | Salaries |$15,000 |

|-After school tutoring |2018-19 | |C&S Grants |

| | | | |

|-Study Hall at Dairyland |Teachers/Paras | | |

|-Lunch recess tutoring at both campuses |Teachers/Paras | |$3,900 |

|-During school day: Essential Skills software |(Throughout the school year |Annual Renaissance Maintenance Fee |Title I, Title III |

|Math Facts in a Flash, and Timed Readings, Accelerated Reader programs (Renaissance) |–as needed) | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Description of Specific Actions to Improve Educational Practice |Implementers/ |Related Expenditures |Estimated |Funding |

| |Timeline | |Cost |Source |

|Staff development and professional collaboration: | | | | |

| | | | | |

|-Regular grade level meetings that include focus on scaffolding students to standards |All teachers throughout year | | | |

|mastery | |None |None | |

|-Analysis of student work | | | | |

|- Standards development peer coaching in Language Arts | | | | |

| |Fall 2018 | | | |

|Training on California State Standards Implementation | |Publisher and County Office Training |$10,000 |C&S Grants |

| |Fall 2018 |Technology Implementation Trainer |combined | |

|Continuing Staff Collaboration on Technology | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Involvement of staff, parents and community: |Evenings |None | | |

|-DELAC Meetings |Monthly |None |None | |

|Parent Teacher Club Meetings |Monthly |None | | |

|Site Council Meetings |Monthly(Approx) |None | | |

| | | | | |

|Auxiliary services for students and parents: | | | | |

| | | | | |

|English Classes for parents |2018-19 |Cost of teacher and materials |$5,000 |C&S Grants |

|Monitoring program implementation and results: |Ongoing Program Renewals: | | | |

| | | | | |

|Local assessments (Language Arts and Math) |All teachers | |None | |

| | | | | |

|SBAC results |Teachers in 3-8 | | | |

| | | |None | |

|Study Island |Teachers in 2-8 | | | |

| | | |$4,150 |Title I |

|California ELPAC Test Results Analysis |All teachers | | | |

|Software student reports: Accelerated Reader, STAR Reader, Fluent Reader, STAR Math, | | |None | |

|Accelerated Math, Math Facts in a Flash, Accelerated Vocabulary, Essential Skills Marks |All teachers | | | |

|Manager | |Renewal of Renaissance Learning | | |

| | | |$3,900 |Title I, Title III |

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE

The content of this school plan is aligned with school goals for improving student achievement. The School Site Council analyzed available data on the academic performance of all students, including English learners, educationally disadvantaged students, gifted and talented students, and students with exceptional needs. The Council also obtained and considered the input of the school community. Based upon this analysis, the Council has established the following performance improvement goals, actions and expenditures.

|LEA GOAL # 2 for Improving Student Achievement: All students will meet or exceed standards in ELA and Math by June of 2019. |

|School Goal #2 (Alview and Dairyland): English learners to increase one ELPAC level annually |

|Student groups participating in this goal: Students identified as English Learners |

|Performance gains expected for these students: One ELPAC level each year |

|Means of evaluating progress toward this goal: Annual ELPAC test |

|Group data needed to measure academic gains: ELPAC test data |

|Description of Specific Actions to Improve Educational Practice |Implementers/ |Related Expenditures |Estimated |Funding |

| |Timeline | |Cost |Source |

|Alignment of instruction with content standards: | | | | |

| | | | |Title I, General |

|Teachers will teach Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies, incorporating ELD into aligned | | | |Fund, Title III, |

|standards. Teachers will deliver core instruction differentiated to support student |-Continuing implementation |Ongoing use of existing curriculum (consumables) |$10,000 annual |C&S Grants |

|learning needs. | | | | |

| | | | |Title I |

|Study Island, a standards-mastery program has been implemented to further scaffold grade| |Study Island—program renewal |$ 4,150 | |

|level curriculum. | | | |Title I, Title III|

| | |Renaissance Learning—program renewal |$ 3,900 | |

|Renaissance Learning products including Accelerated Reader are used in an ongoing effort| | | | |

|to increase English fluency and comprehension. | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE (continued)

|Description of Specific Improvements to be Made in Educational Practice |Implementers/ |Related Expenditures |Estimated |Funding |

| |Timeline | |Cost |Source |

| | | | | |

|Increased educational opportunity: | | | | |

| | | | | |

|At-risk students will be provided tutoring after-school. |60-240 min. per week |Tutoring expenses |$15,000 |C&S Grants |

| | | | | |

|For reading, students that are identified as below grade level will be taught in |90 min. per day for Language | | | |

|intervention programs. Small group instruction with research-based, state adopted |Arts/45 additional in | | |Title I, |

|curriculum will provide the intensified teaching needed to accelerate student learning. |afternoon for at-risk |Teacher/paraprofessional salaries |TBD |Title III, C&S |

|K-6 McGraw-Hill Intervention Program, Various classroom novel sets | | | |Grants |

| | | | | |

| |45 min. per day for | | | |

|Intervention English-Writing classes are available for some grade levels. Guided |English-Writing daily | | |C&S Grants |

|writing strategies are used to teach various genres in grades 6-8. | |Teacher/paraprofessional salaries | | |

| | | |$102,000 | |

| | | | | |

| |daily | | | |

|Math intervention for grades 5-8. |daily | | | |

|Study Island online standards practice | | | | |

| | |Cost or Program Renewal | | |

| | | | | |

| | | |See above | |

|Maintenance and implementation of technology to support English Learners 1-1 laptops in |2018-19 |Cost of maintaining computers and implementing |$54,000 |C&S Grants |

|K-8 | |digital curriculum components. | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Staff development and professional collaboration: |2018-19 | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Title II, C&S |

|Training on California State Standards Implementation | |Various Publisher and County Office Training | |Grants |

| | | |$10,000 |. |

|Continuing Staff Collaboration on Technology | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Involvement of staff, parents and community: | | | | |

| |Approximately 6 per school | | | |

|Regular DELAC meetings for EL parents |year | |None | |

| | | | | |

|ELD classes for parents learning English |Weekly |Cost of Teachers/Curriculum |$5,000 |C&S Grants |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|School Site Council w/ DELAC Representative |Monthly (approx) | |None | |

| | | | | |

|Parent Teacher Club |Monthly | |None | |

|Auxiliary services for students and parents: | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Early Start for preschool students | | | | |

| |None |MSOS Cost |None | |

|After school tutoring | | | | |

| |60-240 minutes per week |Tutoring Costs |$30,000 |C&S Grants |

| | | | | |

|Monitoring program implementation and results: | | | | |

|ELA & Math SBAC Assessment Data |Annually |None | | |

| | | | |General Fund |

|RESULTS K-8 reading assessment program |Tri-annually/ |Annual maintenance fee |$3,900 | |

|Accelerated Reader Star Reading Assessment |Monthly | | |General Fund |

| | | | | |

|Aeries Software for student data analysis |Daily |Annual maintenance fee |$7,000 | |

Form C: Programs Included in this Plan

Check the box for each state and federal program in which the school participates. Enter the amounts allocated for each program in which the school participates and, if applicable, check the box indicating that the program’s funds are being consolidated as part of operating a schoolwide program (SWP). The plan must describe the activities to be conducted at the school for each of the state and federal programs in which the school participates. The totals on these pages should match the cost estimates in Form A and the school’s allocation from the ConApp.

Note: For many of the funding sources listed below, school districts may be exercising Categorical Program Provisions options (flexibility), which are described at .

Of the four following options, please select the one that describes this school site:

This site operates as a targeted assistance school (TAS), not as a schoolwide program (SWP).

This site operates a SWP but does not consolidate its funds as part of operating a SWP.

This site operates a SWP and consolidates only applicable federal funds as part of operating a SWP.

X This site operates a SWP and consolidates all applicable funds as part of operating a SWP.

|State Programs |Allocation |Consolidated in the SWP|

| |Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) – Base Grant |$2,916,074 |x |

| |Purpose: To provide flexibility in the use of state and local funds by LEAs and schools | | |

| |LCFF – Supplemental Grant |$400,706 | |

| |Purpose: To provide a supplemental grant equal to 20 percent of the adjusted LCFF base | | |

| |grant for targeted disadvantaged students | | |

| |LCFF – Concentration Grant |$160,204 |x |

| |Purpose: To provide an additional concentration grant equal to 50 percent of the | | |

| |adjusted LCFF base grant for targeted students exceeding 55 percent of an LEA’s | | |

| |enrollment | | |

| |California School Age Families Education (Carryover only) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Assist expectant and parenting students to succeed in school | | |

| |Economic Impact Aid/State Compensatory Education (EIA-SCE) (Carryover only) |$0 |x |

| |Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students succeed in the regular program | | |

| |Economic Impact Aid/Limited English Proficient (EIA-LEP) (Carryover only) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Develop fluency in English and academic proficiency of English learners | | |

| |Peer Assistance and Review (Carryover only) |$ | |

| |Purpose: Assist teachers through coaching and mentoring | | |

| |Professional Development Block Grant (Carryover only) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Attract, train, and retain classroom personnel to improve student performance | | |

| |in core curriculum areas | | |

| |Pupil Retention Block Grant (Carryover only) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Prevent students from dropping out of school | | |

| |Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Funds are available for use in performing various specified measures to improve| | |

| |academic instruction and pupil academic achievement | | |

| |School and Library Improvement Program Block Grant (Carryover only) |$      | |

| |Purpose: Improve library and other school programs | | |

| |School Safety and Violence Prevention Act (Carryover only) |$1,646 |x |

| |Purpose: Increase school safety | | |

| |Tobacco-Use Prevention Education |$      | |

| |Purpose: Eliminate tobacco use among students | | |

| |List and Describe Other State or Local Funds (e.g., Career and Technical Education |$70,570 |x |

| |[CTE], etc.) |(Lottery) | |

|Total amount of state categorical funds allocated to this district |$3,549,200 |

|Federal Programs |Allocation |Consolidated in the SWP|

| |Title I, Part A: Allocation |$126,085 |x |

| |Purpose: To improve basic programs operated by local educational agencies (LEAs) | | |

| |Title I, Part A: Parental Involvement (if applicable under Section|$      | | |

| |1118[a][3][c] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) | | | |

| |Purpose: Ensure that parents have information they need to make | | | |

| |well-informed choices for their children, more effectively share | | | |

| |responsibility with their children’s schools, and help schools | | | |

| |develop effective and successful academic programs (this is a | | | |

| |reservation from the total Title I, Part A allocation). | | | |

| |For Program Improvement Schools only: Title I, Part A Program |$      | | |

| |Improvement (PI) Professional Development (10 percent minimum | | | |

| |reservation from the Title I, Part A reservation for schools in PI| | | |

| |Year 1 and 2) | | | |

| |Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality |$9,948 |x |

| |Purpose: Improve and increase the number of highly qualified teachers and principals | | |

| |Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Students |$14,217 |Title III funds may not|

| |Purpose: Supplement language instruction to help LEP students attain English | |be consolidated as part|

| |proficiency and meet academic performance standards | |of a SWP[1] |

| |Title VI, Part B: Rural Education Achievement Program |$52,146 |x |

| |Purpose: Provide flexibility in the use of ESEA funds to eligible LEAs | | |

| |For School Improvement Schools only: School Improvement Grant (SIG) |$      | |

| |Purpose: to address the needs of schools in improvement, corrective action, and | | |

| |restructuring to improve student achievement | | |

| |Other federal funds (IDEA) |$0 | |

| |Other federal funds (list and describe) |$      | |

| |Other federal funds (list and describe) |$      | |

|Total amount of federal categorical funds allocated to this district |$202,936 |

|Total amount of state and federal categorical funds allocated to this district |$3,751,596 |

Note: Other Title I-supported activities that are not shown on this page may be included in the SPSA Action Plan.

Form D: School Site Council Membership

Education Code Section 64001(g) requires that the SPSA be reviewed and updated at least annually, including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the through the Consolidated Application, by the school site council. The current make-up of the school site council is as follows:[2]

| |Principal |Classroom |Other |Parent or |Secondary |

| | |Teacher |School |Community |Student |

|Names of Members | | |Staff |Member | |

|Sheila Perry |X | | | | |

|Robin Walton | |x | | | |

|Maryanne Parreira | |x | | | |

|Sherrie Trost | |x | | | |

|Carolyn Simon | | |x | | |

|Maggie Diaz | | | |x | |

|Karen Upton | | | |x | |

|Terrianne Silveira | | | |x | |

|Linda Cederlof | | | |x | |

|Melanie Stretch | | | |x | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| Numbers of members of each category |1 |3 |1 |5 | |

Form E: Recommendations and Assurances

The school site council recommends this school plan and proposed expenditures to the district governing board for approval and assures the board of the following:

1. The school site council is correctly constituted and was formed in accordance with district governing board policy and state law.

2. The school site council reviewed its responsibilities under state law and district governing board policies, including those board policies relating to material changes in the school plan requiring board approval.

3. The school site council sought and considered all recommendations from the following groups or committees before adopting this plan (Check those that apply):

___ School Advisory Committee for State Compensatory Education Programs

__x_ English Learner Advisory Committee

___ Community Advisory Committee for Special Education Programs

___ Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory Committee

___ Other (list)

4. The school site council reviewed the content requirements for school plans of programs included in this Single Plan for Student Achievement and believes all such content requirements have been met, including those found in district governing board policies and in the LEA Plan.

5. This school plan is based on a thorough analysis of student academic performance. The actions proposed herein form a sound, comprehensive, coordinated plan to reach stated school goals to improve student academic performance.

6. This school plan was adopted by the school site council at a public meeting on: 5/25/17

Attested:

Sheila Perry

_________________________ _______________________ ________

Typed name of school principal Signature of school principal Date

Maryanne Parreira

_________________________ _______________________ ________

Typed name of SSC chairperson Signature of SSC chairperson Date

Resources

This section contains the following appendices that will assist a school site council in completing the Single Plan for Student Achievement and in maintaining a cycle of continuous improvement:

← Appendix A: Programs Funded through the Consolidated Application

← Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for the Single Plan for Student Achievement

← Appendix C: School and Student Performance Data Forms

← Appendix D: Analysis of Current Instructional Programs

← Appendix E: Use of Resources

← Appendix F: Acronyms and Specialized Terms

← Appendix G: SPSA Evaluation

← Appendix H: SPSA Budget

Appendix A: Programs Funded through the Consolidated Application

The following programs are reported in the Consolidated Application. Information on the Consolidated Application and program profiles are available at .

State Programs

• Local Control Funding Formula

o Supplemental Grants

o Concentration Grants

Federal ESSA Programs

Information and CDE contacts for ESSA programs are available at .

• Title I, Neglected or Delinquent

• Title I, Part A, Basic Grant

• Title II, Part A, Teacher & Principal Training & Recruiting

• Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (Formula)

• Title III LEP Students

• Title IV, Part A, Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities

• Title V, Part A, Innovative Programs

• Title VI, Part B, Rural Education Achievement

Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for The Single Plan for Student Achievement

|REQUIREMENTS |

|Involve parents and community in |

|Single, comprehensive plan |

|Plan includes proposed |

|Comprehensive assessment and |

|Provide staff development |

|Describe instruction for at-risk students |

|Goals based on performance |EC 64001(f) |X |X |X |X |

|All Students |2433 |19.4 |27.8 |33.3 |19.4 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2408 |25 |40 |30 |5 |

|White not Hispanic |2452 |14.3 |14.3 |42.9 |28.6 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2407 |28.6 |33.3 |33.3 |4.8 |

|English Learners |2406 |31.3 |37.5 |18.8 |12.5 |

Fourth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2465 |32.7 |24.5 |22.5 |20.4 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2426 |52 |24 |20 |4 |

|White not Hispanic |2504 |13 |26 |21.7 |39 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2424 |50 |28.6 |17.9 |3.6 |

|English Learners |2420 |50 |33.3 |16.7 |0 |

Fifth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2509 |23.3 |20.9 |41.9 |13.9 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2487 |24 |36 |36 |4 |

|White not Hispanic |2538 |25.5 |0 |47 |29.4 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2500 |22.2 |29.6 |40.7 |29.4 |

|English Learners |2449 |41.7 |50 |8.3 |0 |

Sixth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2532 |14.6 |41.5 |26.8 |17.1 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2511 |21.7 |43.5 |26 |8.7 |

|White not Hispanic |2551 |6.2 |43.8 |25 |25 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2525 |18.5 |40.7 |22.2 |18.5 |

|English Learners |2485 |23.1 |61.5 |15.4 |0 |

Seventh Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2557 |13.3 |36.7 |40 |10 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2540 |17.4 |44.5 |26 |13 |

|White not Hispanic |N/A* | | | | |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2532 |20 |45 |25 |10 |

|English Learners |N/A* | | | | |

Eighth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2569 |17.7 |35.3 |38.2 |8.8 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2547 |22.2 |44.4 |33.3 |0 |

|White not Hispanic |2596 |13.3 |20 |46.7 |20 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2541 |27.3 |45.5 |27.3 |0 |

|English Learners |N/A* | | | | |

*Group is not numerically significant

Conclusions from the Data:

All subgroups except white students fell behind the grade level mean score. More intervention, ELD, and tutoring needs to be targeted to all other subgroups.

Table 2: Academic Performance by Grade Level / Significant Subgroup

SBAC 2017 Mathematics Results

Third Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2442 |16.7 |33.3 |30.6 |19.4 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2429 |20 |40 |25 |15 |

|White not Hispanic |2455 |14.3 |28.6 |35.7 |21.4 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2408 |28.6 |33.3 |33.3 |4.8 |

|English Learners |2426 |25 |37.5 |25 |12.5 |

Fourth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2475 |18.3 |38.8 |24.5 |18.4 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2448 |28 |48 |20 |4 |

|White not Hispanic |2500 |8.7 |30.4 |30.4 |30.4 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2424 |50 |28.6 |17.9 |3.6 |

|English Learners |2448 |27.8 |44.4 |27.8 |0 |

Fifth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2502 |18.6 |51.2 |20.9 |9.3 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2479 |28 |48 |20 |4 |

|White not Hispanic |2533 |5.9 |41.2 |35.3 |17.7 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2501 |22.2 |29.6 |40.7 |7.4 |

|English Learners |2470 |41.7 |41.7 |27.8 |0 |

Sixth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2537 |21.4 |38.1 |23.8 |16.7 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2516 |25 |41.7 |29.2 |4.2 |

|White not Hispanic |2556 |18.8 |37.5 |12.5 |31.3 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2526 |18.5 |40.7 |22.2 |18.5 |

|English Learners |2508 |23.1 |53.9 |23.6 |0 |

Seventh Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2545 |26.7 |33.3 |20 |20 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2526 |34.8 |34.8 |13 |17.4 |

|White not Hispanic |N/A* | | | | |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2533 |20 |40 |25 |10 |

|English Learners |N/A* | | | | |

Eighth Grade

|Subgroups* |Mean Score |% Not Met |% Nearly Met |% Met |% Exceeded |

|All Students |2597 |8.8 |50 |9 |32 |

|Hispanic or Latino |2555 |11.1 |72.2 |5.6 |11.1 |

|White not Hispanic |2650 |6.61 |20. |13.3 |60 |

|Economically Disadvantaged |2541 |27.3 |45.4 |27.3 |0 |

|English Learners |N/A* | | | | |

Conclusions from the Data:

As with Language Arts, all subgroups in mathematics except white students fall behind the grade level mean score. More intervention, ELD, and tutoring needs to be targeted to all other subgroups.

Math scores for all groups are markedly higher than Language Arts scores in 3rd grade. This information is indicative of the progression of Hispanic and EL students in English Language acquisition.

Table 3: California English Language Development (CELDT) Data

Alview Elementary 2015-16 (Last available data—ELPAC due in fall of 2018)

|Percent of Students at Performance Levels |

| |Grade 2 |Grade 3 |

|Proficiency |2014 |2015 |2014 |2015 |

|Advanced |0% |0% |9% |0% |

|Early Advanced |14% |0% |27% |15% |

|Intermediate |52% |100% |59% |80% |

|Early Intermediate |34% |0% |5% |5% |

|Beginning |0% |0% |0% |0% |

|Number Tested |21 |13 |22 |20 |

|1. At Alview, most English Learners were in the Intermediate category for 2nd and 3rd grades. |

|2. Tables indicate that the majority of students are moving one CELDT level each year. |

| |

| |

|Table 3: California English Language Development (CELDT) Data |

|Dairyland Elementary (Latest Available Scores) |

|Percent of Students at Performance Levels |

| |

| |

|Grade 4 |

|Grade 5 |

|Grade 6 |

|Grade 7 |

|Grade 8 |

| |

|Proficiency |

|2014 |

|2015 |

|2014 |

|2015 |

|2014 |

|2015 |

|2014 |

|2015 |

|2014 |

|2015 |

| |

|Advanced |

|10% |

|7% |

|0% |

|0% |

|0% |

|0% |

|34% |

|10% |

|17% |

|14% |

| |

|Early Advanced |

|40% |

|33% |

|54% |

|60% |

|38% |

|45% |

|44% |

|80% |

|50% |

|57% |

| |

|Intermediate |

|40% |

|53% |

|30% |

|33% |

|54% |

|36% |

|11% |

|10% |

|33% |

|29% |

| |

|Early Intermediate |

|5% |

|7% |

|8% |

|0% |

|8% |

|9% |

|11% |

|0% |

|0% |

|0% |

| |

|Beginning |

|5% |

|0% |

|8% |

|7% |

|0% |

|9% |

|0% |

|0% |

|0% |

|0% |

| |

|Number Tested |

|20 |

|15 |

|13 |

|15 |

|13 |

|11 |

|9 |

|10 |

|6 |

|7 |

| |

| |

| |

|1. Most students at Dairyland are in the Early Advanced level |

|2. Tables indicate that the majority of students are moving one CELDT level each year. |

|3. Number of English Learners decreases as student progress through the grade levels as reclassification criteria are met. |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Page Left Blank Intentionally |

Local Assessments:

Reading RESULTS Assessments

Reading

2017-18

Grades two through six have lexile reading assessments that are given three times each year. Student scores in each grade level have been averaged.

|Grade Level: |Benchmarks |Benchmarks | |Beginning |End |

| |Accuracy/ |Fluency | |Of Year |Of Year |

| |Comprehension | | |Acc. Fl. Comp. |Acc. Fl. Comp. |

|2 |95 80-100% |85-95 | |92% 54 78% |92% 92 85% |

|3 |95 80-100% |105-115 | |95% 78 64% |96% 127 86% |

|4 |95 80-100% |115+ | |96% 119 82% |97% 120 86% |

|5 |95 80-100% |120+ | |98% 121 95% |99% 166 98% |

|6 |95 80-100% |125+ | |95% 136 83% |99% 140 90% |

|Grade | Accuracy |Fluency |Comprehension |

|2nd | +0% | + 38 words |+7% |

|3rd | +1% | + 49 words | + 22% |

|4th | +1% | +1 word | +4% |

|5th | +1 % | + 45 words | +3% |

|6th | +4% |+4 words | +7% |

• Conclusions: All grade levels have shown growth in reading fluency. Second and third grades almost doubled from beginning to year-end. Weekly timed readings (grades 2-3 and 4-6 intervention) have strengthened fluency in all grade levels. Some grade levels showed little to no progress in comprehension due to higher level end-of-year passages. All grades need to focus on the Accelerated Reader program and timed reading practice to enhance overall reading skills and strategies for growth in the 2018-19 school year.

Appendix D: Analysis of Current Instructional Programs

The following statements are adapted from Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title I, Part A and the California Essential Program Components (EPC). These statements will be used to discuss and develop findings that characterize the instructional program at Alview-Dairyland Union School District for students:

• Not meeting performance goals

• Meeting performance goals

• Exceeding performance goals

Special consideration should be given to any practices, policies, or procedures found to be noncompliant through ongoing monitoring of categorical programs.

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

1. Use of state and local assessments to modify instruction and improve student achievement (ESSA)

2. Use of data to monitor student progress on curriculum-embedded assessments and modify instruction (EPC)

Staffing and Professional Development

3. Status of meeting requirements for highly qualified staff (ESSA)

4. Principals' Assembly Bill (AB) 75 training on State Board of Education (SBE) adopted instructional materials (EPC)

5. Sufficiency of credentialed teachers and teacher professional development (e.g., access to AB 466 training on SBE-adopted instructional materials) (EPC)

6. Alignment of staff development to content standards, assessed student performance, and professional needs (ESSA)

7. Ongoing instructional assistance and support for teachers (e.g., use of content experts and instructional coaches) (EPC)

8. Teacher collaboration by grade level (K-8) and department (9-12) (EPC)

Teaching and Learning

9. Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and materials to content and performance standards (ESSA)

10. Adherence to recommended instructional minutes for reading/language arts and mathematics (K-8) (EPC)

11. Lesson pacing schedule (K-8) and master schedule flexibility for sufficient numbers of intervention courses (EPC)

12. Availability of standards-based instructional materials appropriate to all student groups (ESSA)

13. Use of SBE-adopted and standards-aligned instructional materials, including intervention materials, and for high school students, access to standards-aligned core courses (EPC)

Opportunity and Equal Educational Access

14. Services provided by the regular program that enable underperforming students to meet standards (ESSA)

15. Research-based educational practices to raise student achievement at this school (ESSA)

Involvement

16. Resources available from family, school, district, and community to assist under-achieving students (ESSA)

17. Involvement of parents, community representatives, classroom teachers, other school personnel, and students in secondary schools, in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of consolidated application programs. (5 CCR 3932)

Funding

18. Services provided by categorical funds that enable underperforming students to meet standards (ESSA)

19. Fiscal support (EPC)

Appendix E: Use of Resources

The following fiscal practices apply to the use of funds generated through the Consolidated Application:

The state fiscal year is the period from July 1 to June 30. Funds not spent during the period become “carryover funds”, to be budgeted for use the following fiscal year. Districts may allow carryover to remain at the school that generated the funds or may aggregate unspent funds from all schools and redistribute them according to the formula appropriate for each program. State law does not limit the amount of carryover funds.

The federal fiscal year is the period from October 1 through September 30. However, we are allowed to expend federal funds beginning the previous July 1. Thus, the period of allowable expenditure extends for 15 months. Title I law limits the amount of funds that may be carried over from the previous fiscal year to 15 percent, except for agencies that receive less than $50,000. n A waiver of this restriction may be requested from the State Board of Education once every three years.

Eighty-five percent of the funds from certain programs must be used for direct educational services at schools. This limitation applies to:

• Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs

Up to 15 percent may be spent for administrative costs incurred at the school and district office in support of these programs.

Expenditures are allowable if they:

• Provide an effective means of achieving the purposes of program funding source

• Are a reasonable use of limited resources

• Are necessary to achieve the goals of the plan

• Provide supplementary services for eligible students

• Do not fund services required by state law

• Do not pay for what, in the absence of these categorical funds, would be provided by the general fund.

This definition meets the federal requirement that expenditures of funds “supplement, and not supplant” state and local expenditures.

The district must reserve funds from Title I, Part A, Basic Grant Program for:

• Costs of parent involvement (1 percent minimum) and professional development (5 percent to 10 percent)

• Program Improvement schools, whatever is needed for costs of public school choice, transportation, and supplemental educational services, up to 20 percent of the district allocation

The district may reserve funds from Title I, Part A, for:

• Serving community day school students

• Capital expenses for Title I programs operated at private schools

• Salary differentials

• Preschool

• Summer school

• Before school, after school, and school year extension programs

• Neglected students

• Homeless students

• Assistance to schools

The district may also reserve funds for:

• Indirect costs of administering state and federal programs

• Repayment of disallowed expenditures

Funds received through the Consolidated Application must be used to reach school goals for improving the academic performance of all students to the level of state standards. In so doing, care must be exercised to ensure that each funding source is used for the purposes for which the funds are allocated, and for eligible students.

A ppendix F: Acronyms and Specialized Terms

Listed below are acronyms most often associated with programs funded through the ConApp. Most of the acronyms are "hot-linked" to information on the topic of the acronym:

|ACRONYM |STANDS FOR |WEB ADDRESS |

|ADA |Average Daily Attendance | |

|ADA |Americans with Disabilities Act | (Outside Source) |

|API |Academic Performance Index | |

|APS |Academic Program Survey |. |

|BTSA |Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment | |

|BTTP |Bilingual Teacher Training Program | |

|CAHSEE |California High School Exit Examination | |

|CAPA |California Alternative Performance Assessment |

| | |query=California%20Alternate%20Performance%20Assessment%20&submit=GO |

|CBEDS |California Basic Educational Data System | |

|CBEST |California Basic Educational Skills Test | (Outside |

| | |Source) |

|CDE |California Department of Education | |

|CELDT |California English Language Development Test | |

|CMA |California Modified Assessment |

| | |query=California%20Modified%20Assessment&submit=GO |

|COE |County Office of Education | |

|COP |Committee of Practitioners (Title I) | |

|CPM |Categorical Program Monitoring | |

|CSAM |California School Accounting Manual | |

|CSCS |California School Climate Survey | (Outside Source) |

|CSIS |California School Information Services | |

|CSR |Comprehensive School Reform | |

|CST |California Standards Tests | |

|CTC |Commission on Teacher Credentialing | (Outside Source) |

|DAS |District Assistance Survey |. |

|DSLT |District/School Liaison Team | |

|EC |Education Code | |

|EDGAR |U. S. Department of Education General Administrative | (Outside |

| |Regulations |Source) |

|EL |English Learner | |

|ELA |English Language Acquisition | |

|ELAP |English Language Acquisition Program | |

|ELD |English Language Development | |

|ELSSA |English Learner Subgroup Self Assessment |. |

|EO |English-Only (Monolingual English) | |

|EPC |Essential Program Components | |

|ESEA |Elementary and Secondary Education Act | (Outside Source)|

|ESL |English as a Second Language | |

|ESLRs |Expected School wide Learning Results | (Outside Source) |

|FEP |Fluent-English-Proficient | |

|FOL |Focus on Learning | (Outside Source) |

|FTE |Full-Time-Equivalent | |

|GATE |Gifted and Talented Education | |

|GED |General Educational Development | |

|IDEA |Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) |. |

|IEP |Immigrant Education Program (NCLB, Title III) | |

|IEP |Individualized Education Program | (Outside Source) |

|ISSSD |Inventory of Supports and Services for Students with |. |

| |Disabilities | |

|II/USP |Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program | |

|LC |Language Census | |

|LD |Learning Disabled | |

|LEA |Local Educational Agency | |

|LEP |Limited English Proficient | |

|NAEP |National Assessment of Educational Progress | (Outside Source) |

|NCE |Normal Curve Equivalent | |

|NCLB |No Child Left Behind | |

|NRT |Norm-referenced Test | |

|PI |Program Improvement | |

|PSAA |Public Schools Accountability Act | |

|PTA |Parent Teacher Association | (Outside Source) |

|R-FEP |Redesignated Fluent-English-Proficient | |

|ROPC |Regional Occupational Program and Centers | |

|RSDSS |Regional System for District and School Support | |

|SARC |School Accountability Report Card | |

|SBCP |School-Based Coordinated Programs | |

|SEA |State Education Agency | |

|SESM |Special Education Supports Module | (Outside Source) |

|STAR |Standardized Testing and Reporting | |

|UCP |Uniform Complaint Procedures | |

|WASC |Western Association of Schools and Colleges | (Outside Source) |

Appendix G: SPSA Annual Evaluation May 2018 (Reviewed with SSC)

|Plan Priorities |

| |

|Priorities were two identified goals: |

|Prepare students for success in high school and higher education and/or vocational job market. |

|Move English Learners up one level in English proficiency as measured by ELPAC. |

| |

|See attached budget (appendix H) for expenditures |

|Strategies and Activities |

|Strategies to achieve goals were all implemented as per plan |

|Most effective strategies included: Explicit Direct Instruction, Infusion of Technology, Common Core Curriculum Implementation and Tutoring |

| |

|Ineffective strategies |

|PAC/DELAC meetings were not well-attended; Migrant parents were informed but showed |

|a lack of interest. |

| |

|Based on an analysis of the impact of the strategies/activities, what appears to be the reason they were ineffective in improving student achievement? |

| |

|Not appropriately matched to student needs/student population |

|Declining migrant population due to revised eligibility |

|Migrant parents did not see value in topics presented; they also rely on |

|home to school communication for their students’ academic progress and |

|school events |

| |

|Based on the analysis of this practice, the School Site Council recommends: |

|Continuing with the following modifications: |

|Join with Chowchilla Elementary Pac DELAC meetings after consulting with migrant parents on their areas of interest for guest speakers and meeting topics |

|Use local DELAC meetings as means of communicating with EL parents |

|Better communication of meeting dates and times—make personal phone calls to migrant parents to encourage attendance. |

|Outcomes |

|The identified academic goal for ALL students to meet or exceed standards by June of 2018 was not achieved. As measured by SBAC results, however, all |

|student subgroups showed academic growth from the prior year as they progress toward standards mastery. |

Appendix H: SPSA District Budget 2017-18

[pic]

-----------------------

.

[1] At elementary schools, the school site council must be constituted to ensure parity between (a) the principal, classroom teachers, and other school personnel, and (b) parents of students attending the school or other community members. Classroom teachers must comprise a majority of persons represented under section (a). At secondary schools there must be, in addition, equal numbers of parents or other community members selected by parents, and students. Members must be selected by their peer group.

** This program must be included in the Single Plan For Student Achievement if funds are provided to the school from the district's entitlement [EC 64001(d)]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download