Title I Unified Plan - Keansburg School District



|NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION |

| |

|OFFICE OF TITLE I |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|2014-2015 TITLE I SCHOOLWIDE PLAN* |

| |

| |

| |

|*This plan is only for Title I schoolwide programs that are not identified as a Priority or Focus Schools. |

|DISTRICT INFORMATION |SCHOOL INFORMATION |

|District: Keansburg School District |School: Port Monmouth Road |

|Chief School Administrator: Gerald North |Address: 142 Port Monmouth Road |

| |Keansburg, NJ 07734 |

|Chief School Administrator’s E-mail: gnorth@keansburg.k12.nj.us |Grade Levels: K, 1st and 2nd |

|Title I Contact: Thomas Tramaglini |Principal: Joseph Jerabek |

|Title I Contact E-mail: ttramaglini@keansburg.k12.nj.us |Principal’s E-mail: jjerabek@keansburg.k12.nj.us |

|Title I Contact Phone Number: 732-787-2007 |Principal’s Phone Number: 732-787-2007 |

Principal’s Certification

The following certification must be made by the principal of the school. Note: Signatures must be kept on file at the school.

( I certify that I have been included in consultations related to the priority needs of my school and participated in the completion of Schoolwide Plan. I have been an active member of the planning committee and provided input to the school needs assessment and the selection of priority problems. I concur with the information presented herein, including the identification of programs and activities that are funded by Title I, Part A.

__________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ________________________

Principal’s Name Principal’s Signature Date

Critical Overview Elements

• The School had ____4______________ (number) of stakeholder engagement meetings.

• State/local funds comprised _____% of the school’s budget in 2013-2014.

• State/local funds will comprise _____$ of the school’s budget in 2014-2015.

• Title I funded programs/interventions/strategies/activities in 2014-2015 include the following:

|Item |Related to Priority Problem # |Related to Reform Strategy |Budget Line Item (s) |Approximate |

| | | | |Cost |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

ESEA §1114(b)(2)(B)(ii): “The comprehensive plan shall be . . . - developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the community to be served and individuals who will carry out such plan, including teachers, principals, and administrators (including administrators of programs described in other parts of this title), and, if appropriate, pupil services personnel, technical assistance providers, school staff, and, if the plan relates to a secondary school, students from such school;”

Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee

Select committee members to develop the Schoolwide Plan.

Note: For continuity, some representatives from this needs assessment stakeholder committee should be included in the stakeholder group planning committee. Identify the stakeholders who participated in the needs assessment and/or development of the plan. Signatures should be kept on file in the school office for review. Print a copy of this page to obtain signatures. *Add lines as necessary.

|Name |Stakeholder Group |Participated in Needs |Participated in Plan |Participated in Program|Signature |

| | |Assessment |Development |Evaluation | |

|Kristen Mignoli |Vice Principal |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

|Joseph Jerabek |Principal |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

|Lisa Leak |Teacher |Yes |No |Yes | |

|Lisa Nigro |Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

|Erin Maciorowski |Title 1 coordinator |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

|Ryan Sperring |Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

|Shondell Muniz |Parent |Yes |Yes |Yes | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee Meetings

The purpose of this committee is to organize and oversee the needs assessment process; lead the development of the schoolwide plan; and conduct or oversee the program’s annual evaluation.

Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee meetings should be held at different times of the year (e.g., fall and spring). List the dates of the meetings when the Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee discussed the needs assessment, Schoolwide Plan development, and the program evaluation below.

|Date |Location |Topic |Agenda on File |Minutes on File |

| | |

24 CFR § 200.26(c): Core Elements of a Schoolwide Program (Evaluation). A school operating a schoolwide program must—(1) Annually evaluate the implementation of, and results achieved by, the schoolwide program, using data from the State's annual assessments and other indicators of academic achievement;(2) Determine whether the schoolwide program has been effective in increasing the achievement of students in meeting the State's academic standards, particularly for those students who had been furthest from achieving the standards; and(3) Revise the plan, as necessary, based on the results of the evaluation, to ensure continuous improvement of students in the schoolwide program.

Evaluation of 2013-2014 Schoolwide Program

(For schools approved to operate a schoolwide program prior to 2014-2015)

1. Did the school implement the program as planned?

Most of the initial plan was implemented as planned including the summer school programs, before school tutoring, reading coach provided professional development, and common assessments are now complete in K and 1 and almost complete in grade 2.

2. What were the strengths of the implementation process?

The strength was the professional development that was provided as well as the grade level work to develop common assessments.

3. What implementation challenges and barriers did the school encounter?

The before school tutoring attendance was not very good and staff lacked readily available and consistent resources causing an extensive amount of time to be dedicated to lesson planning.

4. What were the apparent strengths and weaknesses of each step during the program(s) implementation?

See # 2 and #3 above.

5. How did the school obtain the necessary buy-in from all stakeholders to implement the programs?

Staff were involved in the program development so helped implement it along the way as well.

6. What were the perceptions of the staff? What tool(s) did the school use to measure the staff’s perceptions?

An organizational climate and collective efficacy survey was completed anonymously by staff and staff scored all areas rather positive except for the areas related to student motivation, parent support, and available resources.

7. What were the perceptions of the community? What tool(s) did the school use to measure the community’s perceptions?

The perception of the community is that many family situations with drugs or mental health concerns greatly affects the educational achievement of children from those homes.

8. What were the methods of delivery for each program (i.e. one-on-one, group session, etc.)

The after school tutoring was small group as well as the professional development.

9. How did the school structure the interventions?

The school structured interventions during the day in pull-out or in-class RTI sessions or in the after school tutoring program.

10. How frequently did students receive instructional interventions?

Student interventions ranged from 1-3 days a week for a total of 30 to 90 minutes per week.

11. What technologies did the school use to support the program?

Laptops were used, on occasion, to support some interventions but much of the program did not call for technology support.

12. Did the technology contribute to the success of the program, and if so, how?

No, technology did not play an important role in the interventions.Evaluation of 2013-2014 Student Performance

State Assessments-Partially Proficient

Provide the number of students at each grade level listed below who scored partially proficient on state assessments for two years or more in English Language Arts and Mathematics, and the interventions the students received.

|English Language Arts |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |

|Grade 4 |75 (75%) |Not received | | |

|Grade 5 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 6 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 7 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 8 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 11 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 12 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Mathematics |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |

|Grade 4 |38 (38%) |Not received | | |

|Grade 5 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 6 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 7 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 8 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 11 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 12 |N/A |N/A | | |

Evaluation of 2013-2014 Student Performance

Non-Tested Grades – Alternative Assessments (Below Level)

Provide the number of students at each non-tested grade level listed below who performed below level on a standardized and/or developmentally appropriate assessment, and the interventions the students received.

|English Language Arts |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |

|Pre-Kindergarten |N/A |N/A | | |

|Kindergarten |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 1 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 2 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 9 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 10 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Mathematics |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions provided did or did not result in proficiency.|

|Pre-Kindergarten |N/A |N/A | | |

|Kindergarten |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 1 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 2 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 9 |N/A |N/A | | |

|Grade 10 |N/A |N/A | | |

Evaluation of 2013-2014 Interventions and Strategies

Interventions to Increase Student Achievement Implemented in 2013-2014

|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Interventions |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |

| | |Yes-No | |(outcomes must be quantifiable) |

|Differentiated instruction |ELA |Yes |DRA levels |86% of Kindergarten students |

| | | | |82% of Grade 1 students |

| | | | |63% of Grade 2 students were on or above grade level with their DRA levels. |

|Differentiated instruction |Mathematics |Yes |Final report card grades for Math |85% of Kindergarten students |

| | | | |90% of Grade 1 students |

| | | | |72% of Grade 2 students were on or above grade level with their Math levels. |

| | | | | |

|Differentiated instruction |Students with Disabilities |Yes |DRA levels and report card grades. |Overall 76% of our special education population was on or above grade level in |

| | | | |their DRA levels and Math levels. |

| |Homeless/Migrant | | | |

| |ELLs | | | |

Extended Day/Year Interventions Implemented in 2013-2014 to Address Academic Deficiencies

| |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Interventions |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |

| | |Yes-No | |(outcomes must be quantifiable) |

|Before school tutoring |ELA |No |DRA levels and after school attendance in|Our attendance levels for our before school ELA program was terrible with only |

| | | |tutoring |between 35-40% attendance rates. |

| |Mathematics | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Students with Disabilities | | | |

| |Homeless/Migrant | | | |

| |ELLs | | | |

Evaluation of 2013-2014 Interventions and Strategies

Professional Development Implemented in 2013-2014

|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Strategy |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |

| | |Yes-No | |(outcomes must be quantifiable) |

|Literacy coach and instructional |ELA |Yes |Meeting minutes, grade level |Each Grade level met to review their literacy block components and came to agreement|

|supervisor meetings/PD sessions | | |instructional block designs, and common|on the core literacy instruction components and every grade except grade 2 now has |

| | | |assessments developed |completed common assessments. |

| |Mathematics | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Students with Disabilities | | | |

| |Homeless/Migrant | | | |

| |ELLs | | | |

Family and Community Engagement Implemented in 2013-2014

|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Strategy |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |

| | |Yes-No | |(outcomes must be quantifiable) |

|No measurable strategies were |ELA | | | |

|implemented | | | | |

| |Mathematics | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Students with Disabilities | | | |

| |Homeless/Migrant | | | |

| |ELLs | | | |

Principal’s Certification

The following certification must be made by the principal of the school. Note: Signatures must be kept on file at the school.

X I certify that the school’s stakeholder/schoolwide committee conducted and completed the required Title I schoolwide evaluation as required for the completion of this Title I Schoolwide Plan. Per this evaluation, I concur with the information herein, including the identification of all programs and activities that were funded by Title I, Part A.

__________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ________________________

Principal’s Name Principal’s Signature Date

ESEA §1114(b)(1)(A): “A comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school (including taking into account the needs of migratory children . . . that is based on information which includes the achievement of children in relation to the State academic content standards and the State student academic achievement standards . . . ”

2014-2015 Needs Assessment Process

Data Collection and Analysis

Multiple Measures Analyzed by the School in the Needs Assessment Process for 2013-2014 Interventions and Strategies

|Areas | Multiple Measures Analyzed |Overall Measurable Results and Outcomes |

| | |(Results and outcomes must be quantifiable) |

|Academic Achievement – Reading |DRA |86% of Kindergarten students |

| | |82% of Grade 1 students |

| | |63% of Grade 2 students were on or above grade level with their DRA levels. |

|Academic Achievement - Writing |Report card grades that were measured from class |80% of Kindergarten students |

| |assessments |85% of Grade 1 students |

| | |67% of Grade 2 students were on or above grade level with their writing levels. |

|Academic Achievement - Mathematics |Math report card grades |85% of Kindergarten students |

| | |90% of Grade 1 students |

| | |72% of Grade 2 students were on or above grade level with their Math levels. |

|Family and Community Engagement |N/A |N/A |

|Professional Development |N/A |N/A |

|Homeless |N/A |N/A |

|Students with Disabilities |DRA levels and report card grades. |Overall 76% of our special education population was on or above grade level in their DRA levels and Math|

| | |levels. |

|English Language Learners |N/A |N/A |

|Economically Disadvantaged |N/A |N/A |

|School Climate and Culture |N/A |N/A |

|Leadership |N/A |N/A |

|School-Based Youth Services |N/A |N/A |

2014-2015 Needs Assessment Process

Narrative

1. What process did the school use to conduct its needs assessment?

We have each grade level collaborate to decide what percent of students were considered below or on/above grade level in reading, writing and math. From there staff collaborated across grade levels to determine common areas of weakness so that building goal areas could be determined.

2. What process did the school use to collect and compile data for student subgroups?

With the majority of our students being economically disadvantaged we analyzed data from our whole population but then the special education subgroup. The overall end of the year academic progress of special education students reading DRA levels and overall Math grade was analyzed.

3. How does the school ensure that the data used in the needs assessment process are valid (measures what it is designed to measure) and reliable (yields consistent results)? [1]

The reading levels are based off of the often used DRA leveling evaluation system with grade level benchmarks utilized. The Math level data came directly from students district report cards due to benchmark assessments being piloted and adjusted this year.

4. What did the data analysis reveal regarding classroom instruction?

The data revealed that the majority of our K-2 students appear to be on or above grade level in reading, writing, and math.

5. What did the data analysis reveal regarding professional development implemented in the previous year(s)?

Although professional development was implemented on differentiated instructional strategies there was not a measuring system in place to specifically monitor implementation.

6. How does the school identify educationally at-risk students in a timely manner?

Our school moved from an I&RS (Intervention and referral services) process for at-risk student identification to the RTI method (Response to intervention) this year and that began with a whole school professional development session to begin the school year. Any concerned staff with student academic or behavioral performance concerns begins the process with an initial referral to the overseeing supervisor or guidance counselor.

7. How does the school provide effective interventions to educationally at-risk students?

With this being our first year using the RTI method it was an introductory year learning the new process for our RTI teachers. Going into year two in 2014-2015 we are looking to build a more consistent approach to the RTI instruction by looking at providing RTI staff with some consistent materials and strategy approaches.

8. How does the school address the needs of migrant students?

Not applicable.

9. How does the school address the needs of homeless students?

We have homeless liaisons that act as the point of contact for any displaced families to coordinate transportation or any additional services they may need to help the students continue as consistent of an education as possible.

10. How does the school engage its teachers in decisions regarding the use of academic assessments to provide information on and improve the instructional program?

We have used several professional development sessions throughout the 2013-14 school year to review and discuss student data as well as our current benchmark assessments. These reviews identified concerns with some of the existing benchmark assessments

which then sparked our supervisor of instruction and assessments to set up additional assessment review and revision meetings with the affected grade levels.

11. How does the school help students transition from preschool to kindergarten, elementary to middle school and/or middle to high school?

We hold a “Transition Day” each spring where students in every grade level have the opportunity to move up to meet their new teachers, spend time in their new class to hear about expectations and preview some of the general routines.

12. How did the school select the priority problems and root causes for the 2014-2015 school wide plan?

We have each grade level collaborate to decide what percent of students were considered below or on/above grade level in reading, writing and math. From there staff collaborated across grade levels to determine common areas of weakness so that building goal areas could be determined.

2014-2015 Needs Assessment Process

Description of Priority Problems and Interventions to Address Them

Based upon the school’s needs assessment, select at least three priority problems that will be addressed in this plan. Complete the information below for each priority problem.

| |#1 |#2 |

|Name of priority problem |Lack of writing program assessment structure |Math facts mastery |

|Describe the priority problem using at least |Although the data shows the majority of K-2 students appear on or above level |Although the data shows the majority of K-2 students appear on or above level |

|two data sources |in writing we are not basing that off of structured rubric scored writing |in Math we are not basing that off of structured math assessment data so that |

| |assessment data. |is the reason why we feel the need to develop a more consistent instruction |

| | |and assessment approach to math fact mastery. |

|Describe the root causes of the problem |We do not have regularly scheduled quick-writes where students are assessed |1. Lack of basic math fact mastery making longer multiplication and division a|

| |through the use of common rubrics. |struggle in Grades 2-4. |

|Subgroups or populations addressed |Whole school population |Whole school population |

|Related content area missed |N/A |N/A |

|Name of scientifically research based |Grade K-2 will develop a yearly calendar of consistent rubric scored writings|Weekly or biweekly fast facts assessments to practice and track students’ |

|intervention to address priority problems |that will assess the students’ mastery of each writing genre scheduled in each|basic math fact mastery. |

| |grade level curriculum calendar. | |

|How does the intervention align with the |In order to develop and strengthen the various forms of required writings we |In order for the students to correctly solve any higher level math problem in |

|Common Core State Standards? |must be able to clearly see how students are independently mastering the |grade 3 or 4 they need to have the solid foundation of basic math fact mastery|

| |required state writing standards and skills. |for application purposes. |

2014-2015 Needs Assessment Process

Description of Priority Problems and Interventions to Address Them (continued)

| |#3 |#4 |

|Name of priority problem |Higher level Math word problem mastery and critical thinking. | |

|Describe the priority problem using at least |Based on teacher observation and math benchmark data K-2 students need more | |

|two data sources |assistance in learning to master higher level math word problems. | |

|Describe the root causes of the problem |We are noticing our students have improved with decoding and some basic math | |

| |skills but their literal thinking has hindered their ability in critical | |

| |thinking. | |

|Subgroups or populations addressed |Whole school population | |

|Related content area missed |Reading | |

|Name of scientifically research based |Grades K-2 will develop consistent practices and resources for word problem | |

|intervention to address priority problems |instruction and data collection. | |

|How does the intervention align with the |Ties to the students need to master higher level open ended math problems that| |

|Common Core State Standards? |go beyond basic computation. | |

ESEA §1114(b) Components of a Schoolwide Program: A schoolwide program shall include . . . schoolwide reform strategies . . . “

Plan Components for 2013

2014-2015 Interventions to Address Student Achievement

|ESEA §1114(b)(I)(B) strengthen the core academic program in the school; |

|Name of Intervention |Content Area Focus |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of Success |Research Supporting Intervention |

| | | | |(Measurable Evaluation Outcomes) |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |

|*Use of consistent, fast |Mathematics |All students |Administration |80% or more of our students will grow one |IES practice guide assisting students struggling with |

|math facts practice & | | |Teachers |attainment level from a pre to post math |mathematics: |

|assessments | | | |facts assessment from September to June. | |

| | | | | |_guides/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf |

|*Higher level Math word |Critical thinking/Problem |All students |Administration |80% or more of our students will grow one |Assisting students struggling with Mathematics. |

|problem mastery and critical|solving | |Teachers |attainment level from a pre to post math | |

|thinking | | | |problem solving assessment from September to |PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=2 |

| | | | |June. | |

|Same as ELA whole population| |Homeless | | | |

| | |Migrant | | | |

|Same as ELA whole population| |ELLs | | | |

|Same as ELA whole population| |Students with | | | |

| | |Disabilities | | | |

*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.

2014-2015 Extended Learning Time and Extended Day/Year Interventions to Address Student Achievement

|ESEA §1114(b)(I)(B) increase the amount and quality of learning time, such as providing an extended school year and before- and after-school and summer programs and opportunities, and help provide an |

|enriched and accelerated curriculum; |

|Name of Intervention |Content Area Focus |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of Success |Research Supporting Intervention |

| | | | |(Measurable Evaluation Outcomes) |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works |

| | | | | |Clearinghouse) |

|Summer school |Mathematics |All who attend |Summer school |Students who have over a 90% attendance rate will |What works “Structuring out of school time” |

| | | |coordinators |maintain or increase their math levels. | |

| | | | | |PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=10 |

| | | | | | |

| | |Homeless | | | |

| | |Migrant | | | |

| | |ELLs | | | |

| | |Students with | | | |

| | |Disabilities | | | |

*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.

2014-2015 Professional Development to Address Student Achievement and Priority Problems

|ESEA §1114 (b)(1)(D) In accordance with section 1119 and subsection (a)(4), high-quality and ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals and, if appropriate, pupil |

|services personnel, parents, and other staff to enable all children in the school to meet the State's student academic achievement standards. |

|Name of Strategy |Content Area Focus |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of Success |Research Supporting Strategy |

| | | | |(Measurable Evaluation Outcomes) |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works |

| | | | | |Clearinghouse) |

|Professional learning |Mathematics |All staff |Administrators |We will achieve the measurable outcomes in our noted |Using Student Achievement Data to Support |

|communities | | |Teachers |intervention and strategy areas in the 2014-15 plan. |Instructional Decision Making |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | |PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=12 |

| | | | | | |

| | |Homeless | | | |

| | |Migrant | | | |

| | |ELL | | | |

| | |Students with | | | |

| | |Disabilities | | | |

*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.

24 CFR § 200.26(c): Core Elements of a Schoolwide Program (Evaluation). A school operating a schoolwide program must—(1) Annually evaluate the implementation of, and results achieved by, the schoolwide program, using data from the State's annual assessments and other indicators of academic achievement;(2) Determine whether the schoolwide program has been effective in increasing the achievement of students in meeting the State's academic standards, particularly for those students who had been furthest from achieving the standards; and(3) Revise the plan, as necessary, based on the results of the evaluation, to ensure continuous improvement of students in the schoolwide program.

Evaluation of Schoolwide Program

(For schools approved to operate a schoolwide program beginning in the 2014-2015 school year)

All Title I schoolwide programs must conduct an annual evaluation to determine if the strategies in the schoolwide plan are achieving the planned outcomes and contributing to student achievement. Schools must evaluate the implementation of their schoolwide program and the outcomes of their schoolwide program.

1. Who will be responsible for evaluating the schoolwide program for 2014-2015? Will the review be conducted internally (by school staff), or externally? The administration (principal, vice-principal, and supervisor) along with the teachers and title 1 review team will be responsible for evaluating the 2014-15 school-wide plan progress.

2. What barriers or challenges does the school anticipate during the implementation process?

The possible barriers we anticipate during the implementation process are:

- Poor student attendance and lack of parental support for at-risk students with chronic absenteeism

- Lack of student motivation to want to work harder

-Lack of available and consistent resources/materials to support core instruction leading to very time consuming lesson planning

3. How will the school obtain the necessary buy-in from all stakeholders to implement the program(s)?

The buy-in with staff already happened through involving them in the process to identify the school’s top three areas they feel focus needs to be on to improve student learning. Improved buy-in from parents we hope to achieve through general conversations and tips on how their support will help their child’s academic achievement.

4. What measurement tool(s) will the school use to gauge the perceptions of the staff?

An anonymous staff survey will be used once again.

5. What measurement tool(s) will the school use to gauge the perceptions of the community?

We will look to implement a parent survey.

6. How will the school structure interventions?

We will continue to offer in-class interventions through ICR classes with co-teachers but then through general differentiated interventions. We will also continue year two with our RTI design.

7. How frequently will students receive instructional interventions?

RTI students will receive interventions between 30 to 90 minutes per week in Math or Reading.

8. What resources/ technologies will the school use to support the schoolwide program?

No particular technology is required for the 2014-15 noted goals to be implemented but we are looking to purchase some of the following resources to support our goals:

- Common core aligned Lucy Calkins writers workshop units

- Resources for grammar, mechanics/word work

- Possible resources to support our math facts mastery goal if grade levels do not find resources they all currently have that will work as well as problem solving goal.

9. What quantitative data will the school use to measure the effectiveness of each intervention provided?

|We will see 70% or more of our students achieve an initial proficient rubric score on end of the genre quick-writes or after one opportunity to revise errors and resubmit. |

|80% or more of our students will grow one attainment level from a pre to post grammar and mechanics assessment from September to June. |

10. How will the school disseminate the results of the schoolwide program evaluation to its stakeholder groups?

We will look to share the evaluation through a newsletter as well as our final title 1 review and development meeting.

ESEA §1114 (b)(1)(F) Strategies to increase parental involvement in accordance . . . such as family literacy services

Research continues to demonstrate that successful schools have significant and sustained levels of family and community engagement. Therefore, it is important that schoolwide plans contain strategies to involve families and the community, especially in helping children do well in school. In addition, families and the community must be involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the schoolwide program.

2014-2015 Family and Community Engagement Strategies to Address Student Achievement and Priority Problems

|Name of Strategy |Content Area Focus |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of Success |Research Supporting Strategy |

| | | | |(Measurable Evaluation Outcomes) |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |

|*Check and connect |Mathematics |Any at-risk students|Teachers |Academically at-risk students (below grade |What works clearinghouse “Check and Connect” program: |

| | | |Support staff |level in reading and math) are identified after| |

| | | |Administration |marking period 1 progress reports and whether |_reports/WWC_Check_Connect_092106.pdf |

| | | | |parent support is evident. We will then | |

| | | | |measure the progress of those at-risk students | |

| | | | |in May and look for an increase in on/above | |

| | | | |grade level status and improved parent support.| |

| | | | | | |

| | |Homeless | | | |

| | |Migrant | | | |

| | |ELL | | | |

| | |Students with | | | |

| | |Disabilities | | | |

*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.

2014-2015 Family and Community Engagement Narrative

1. How will the school’s family and community engagement program help to address the priority problems identified in the comprehensive needs assessment?

We will be looking to help assist families through individual meetings to continue to provide parents with strategies on how best to support and encourage their children in their basic reading, writing, and math skills.

2. How will the school engage parents in the development of the written parent involvement policy?

We previously received input from parents through parent conferences and the parents who typically support their children feel parents play an important role in a child’s academic success versus the parents who tend to not support their children feel the school should be doing more.

3. How will the school distribute its written parent involvement policy?

Through beginning of the year important information newsletters/handouts.

4. How will the school engage parents in the development of the school-parent compact?

We will utilize the feedback we received and noted in number 2 above regarding parent involvement.

5. How will the school ensure that parents receive and review the school-parent compact?

Through beginning of the year important information newsletters/handouts.

6. How will the school report its student achievement data to families and the community?

We typically share student achievement data at an October Board meeting.

7. How will the school notify families and the community if the district has not met its annual measurable objectives for Title III?

We will share it through a newsletter/notice format and/or online.

8. How will the school inform families and the community of the school’s disaggregated assessment results?

We typically share student achievement data at an October Board meeting.

9. How will the school involve families and the community in the development of the Title I Schoolwide Plan?

Parents are typically invited to participate if they would like to through notices.

10. How will the school inform families about the academic achievement of their child/children?

We send home four report cards throughout the year but teachers know the importance of keeping parents informed in between those especially for struggling students.

11. On what specific strategies will the school use its 2013-2014 parent involvement funds?

We will continue to invite parents in to visit classrooms for a variety of academic based sessions such as writing celebrations, career sharing, etc.

ESEA §1114(b)(1)(E) Strategies to attract high-quality highly qualified teachers to high-need schools.

High poverty, low-performing schools are often staffed with disproportionately high numbers of teachers who are not highly qualified. To address this disproportionality, the ESEA requires that all teachers of core academic subjects and instructional paraprofessionals in a schoolwide program meet the qualifications required by section 1119. Student achievement increases in schools where teaching and learning have the highest priority, and students achieve at higher levels when taught by teachers who know their subject matter and are skilled in teaching it.

Strategies to Attract and Retain Highly-Qualified Staff

| |Number & |Description of Strategy to Retain HQ Staff |

| |Percent | |

|Teachers who meet the qualifications for HQT, consistent with |22 | |

|Title II-A | | |

| |100% | |

|Teachers who do not meet the qualifications for HQT, consistent |0 | |

|with Title II-A | | |

| |0% | |

|Paraprofessionals who meet the qualifications required by ESEA |5 | |

|(education, ParaPro test, portfolio assessment) | | |

| |100% | |

|Paraprofessionals providing instructional assistance who do not |0 | |

|meet the qualifications required by ESEA (education, ParaPro test,| | |

|portfolio assessment)* | | |

| |0% | |

* The district must assign these paraprofessionals to non-instructional duties for 100% of their schedule, reassign them to a school in the district that does not operate a Title I schoolwide program, or terminate their employment with the district.

Although recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers is an on-going challenge in high poverty schools, low-performing students in these schools have a special need for excellent teachers. Therefore, the schoolwide plan must describe the strategies it will use to attract and retain highly-qualified teachers.

|Description of strategies to attract highly-qualified teachers to high-need schools |Individuals Responsible |

| | |

[pic][pic][pic][pic]

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

[1] Definitions taken from Understanding Research Methods” by Mildred Patten

Patten, M. L. (2012). Understanding Research Methods. Glendale, California: Pyrczak Publishing

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download