Title I Unified Plan - orange.k12.nj.us
|NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION |
| |
|OFFICE OF TITLE I |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
|2013-2014 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: Orange |School: HEYWOOD |
|Chief School Administrator: |Principal: KAREN MACHUCA |
|Chief School Administrator’s E-mail: |Principal’s E-mail: MACHUCKA@mail.orange.k12.nj.us |
|Title I Contact: |Principal’s Phone Number: 973-677-4105 |
|Title I Contact E-mail: | |
| | |
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.
Mrs. Karen Machuca Mrs. Karen Machuca July 10, 2013
__________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ________________________
Principal’s Name Principal’s Signature Date
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 | |
|April Stokes |School Staff- ELA Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Daniel Goeller |School Staff-Math Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Ekua Sutton |School Staff-Primary Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Mary Beth Harrison |School Staff-Kdg. Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Gloria Stewart |Paraprofessional |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Nefertitti Scott |Social Worker-HIB Specialist |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Judy Lee Lopez-Suriel |School Staff-ESL Teacher |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Schuyler Fannell |School Staff- PE Specialist |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Valerie Vazquez |School Staff-Middle Sch. Reading Tchr |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Daniel Goeller |School Staff-Middle Sch. Math Tchr | | | | |
|Christopher Carson |Parent |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
|Jennifer Duncan |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.
List the dates of the meetings when the Stakeholder/Schoolwide Committee discussed the needs assessment and Schoolwide Plan development. *Add rows as necessary.
|Date |Location |Topic |Agenda on File |Minutes on File |
|Aug. 6-7, 2012 |Library-Heywood Ave. School |
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 2012-2013 Schoolwide Program
1. Was the program implemented as planned? The program was implemented as planned in the following areas. In regards to Math, additional support with EveryDay and Connected Math professional development for teachers in grades K-7 including Special Education and General Education was provided with embedded professional development such as one-to-one coaching sessions and debriefing sessions to strengthen the content area of math and instruction. English Language Arts Teachers in grades 3-7 received extra support with comprehension skills while connecting the expectations of Common Core State Standards to address the plan of increasing rigor of writing and reading. As stated in the plan, embedded professional development was provided early in the school year to assist with the implementation of best practices throughout the school year. One to one coaching sessions with debriefing sessions were included in the areas of English Language Arts.
2. What were the strengths of the implementation process? There was consistency with the Read 180 and Systems 44 Programs because students had exposure to both throughout the day, which increased their rate of success. Their successes throughout the year were tracked through a variety of reports. Benchmark assessments were analyzed at each grade level to ensure that CCSS were being addressed during the benchmark areas. An area of strength was the implementation of the Family Academic nights in which family members attended informational sessions in the areas of Math, English Language Arts, and Science. Families were provided with literature and take home activities to support the educational process at home.
3. What were the barriers or challenges during the implementation process? Some challenges included student apathy at the middle school levels, inconsistent attendance with students for the after school program support, and adequate common planning time for grades K-4 with data analysis time.
4. What were the apparent strengths and weaknesses of each step during the program(s) implementation? The use of benchmark tests was very valuable in allowing teachers to see where students are and what areas of common core standards needed improvement and support. The discussion about the timeframe between benchmark assessments was an area of concern and an area to monitor for future evaluation of data analysis. Pinpointing specific goals and expectations with data analysis is an area that needs support, guidance, and professional development.
5. How did the school obtain the necessary buy-in from all stakeholders to implement the programs? Sharing the data at Back-To-School night and during Coffee with the Principal provided information to the community about the programs and implementation of Common Core State Standards. The information was also posted on the school website with links for the community to peruse at their leisure. The faculty was informed of the programs though Faculty Academies, professional development readings, and district trainings to support the programs.
6. What were the perceptions of the staff? The staff at Heywood is very receptive to the changes in the curriculum and instruction because it allows teachers to have more autonomy in the classroom setting. Support is still needed with professional development to provide ongoing training to staff who need more guidance and support.
7. What were the perceptions of the community? Parents were receptive to see that the Extended Day Program was offered for 2 hours 3 days a week, which would give their children more of an opportunity to work with their teachers in a smaller group setting. During administrative meetings with parents, they were concerned with the Common Core State Standard expectations of their children and how they can support the changes.
8. What were the methods of delivery for each program (i.e. one-on-one, group session, etc.) Small group instruction was used in daily instruction throughout the day and during the Extended Day Program. Teachers were expected to modify to meet the needs of all students and modifications had to be present in lesson plans weekly. Professional development about differentiated instruction was provided through professional literature during Faculty Academies.
9. How were the interventions structured? Teachers were required to implement guided reading and learning centers into their instruction weekly, which would allow them to do small group instruction with leveled readers. Students across all grade levels who tested into the Read 180 Program had instruction with the Read 180 teacher for 90 minutes a day for Language Arts and were also recommended to participate in the Systems 44 Program afterschool.
10. How frequently did students receive instructional interventions? Students received instructional interventions daily, whether they were in the Extended Day Program or not through the use of small group instructional time.
11. What technologies were utilized to support the program? Teachers were expected to use Spelling City weekly during learning centers, where teachers could organize the class page with important tier 2 and 3 vocabulary that students were being exposed to. Students also used the Storyworks website and Time for Kids. Middle school students created PowerPoint presentations and used Publisher to create documents. Study Island was also incorporated as a rotating center during Math and English Language Arts time.
12. Did the technology contribute to the success of the program, and if so, how? In regards to Read 180 and Systems 44, technology is a critical component of the success of the program as the software is programmed based upon student needs. Study Island provided additional practice and support based upon students’ interaction with the software program. SpellingCity provided an interactive program to address all types of learners through its’ use of multimedia, visual, and audio components.
Evaluation of 2012-2013 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 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |
|Grade 4 |22 |14 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK ELA Spring Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | |Read 180 |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | |Rosetta Stone for ELL |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 5 |27 |18 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK ELA Spring Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 6 |17 |10 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK ELA Spring Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 7 |24 |15 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK ELA Spring Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Mathematics |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |
|Grade 4 |16 |8 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | | |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 5 |18 |9 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | | |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 6 |16 |10 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK Winter and Spring Academies |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 7 |20 |16 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns were|
| | | |NJASK Winter and Spring Academies |able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate support. |
| | | |NJASK Saturday Academy |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school and Saturday |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |tutorial classes. However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students |
| | | | |on this list attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional development |
| | | | |in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative Classoom Walk |
| | | | |Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction being infused in |
| | | | |lessons. Continued professional development needs to continue to strengthen this|
| | | | |area of instructional practices. |
Evaluation of 2012-2013 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 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions did or did not result in proficiency. |
|Pre-Kindergarten |N/A |N/A |Refer to ECE Plan |Refer to ECE Plan |
|Kindergarten |N/A | |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Small group instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | | |support. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 1 |N/A |17 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | |Small group instruction |support. |
| | | | |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school classes. |
| | | | |However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students on this list |
| | | | |attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 2 |N/A |21 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | |Small group instruction |support. |
| | | | |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school classes. |
| | | | |However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students on this list |
| | | | |attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Mathematics |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |Interventions Provided |Describe why the interventions provided did or did not result in proficiency.|
|Kindergarten |N/A | |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Small group instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | | |support. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 1 |N/A |11 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | |Small group instruction |support. |
| | | | |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school classes. |
| | | | |However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students on this list |
| | | | |attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
|Grade 2 |N/A |28 |I&RS Services |The I&RS process was successful with some students as their needs were |
| | | |Extended Day Academy |identified, parental support was demonstrated, and student areas of concerns |
| | | |Differentiated Instruction |were able to be addressed through the appropriate process with adequate |
| | | |Small group instruction |support. |
| | | | |All students are offered applications to attend the after-school classes. |
| | | | |However, although strongly encouraged, not all of the students on this list |
| | | | |attend the program and some attended with irregularity. |
| | | | |Faculty Academies from September to December addressed professional |
| | | | |development in the area of Differentiated Instruction. During Administrative|
| | | | |Classoom Walk Throughs, there was evidence of differentiated instruction |
| | | | |being infused in lessons. Continued professional development needs to |
| | | | |continue to strengthen this area of instructional practices. |
Evaluation of 2012-2013 Interventions and Strategies
Interventions to Increase Student Achievement Implemented in 2012-2013
|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |
|Interventions |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |
| | |Yes-No | | |
|Job embedded Professional |ELA |Yes |Positive Evaluation by Teachers; Coaching|Increase in student achievement in all areas of language arts as measured by |
|Development for ELA | | |Logs; Observations |pre- and post-Study Island tests. |
| | | | |Increased use of “Best Practices” Instructional Techniques. |
| | | | |Increase in use of data used to drive instruction. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Job embedded Professional |Mathematics |Yes |Positive Evaluation by Teachers; Coaching|Grade |
|Development for Mathematics | | |Logs’ Observations |Level |
| | | | |Math Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Grade Level Common Planning |All Content Areas |Yes |Benchmark Assessments; Study Island; |Grade |
|Schedule | | |Model Assessments; |Level |
| | | | |Math Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Learning Centers |All Content Areas |Yes |Benchmark Assessments; Study Island; |Grade |
| | | |Model Assessments; |Level |
| | | | |Math Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Daily Journal Writing, Daily |ELA |Yes |Benchmark Assessments; Study Island; |Grade |
|Problem Solving and Read Alouds |Mathematics | |Model Assessments; Journals |Level |
| | | | |Math Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic]. |
|Guided Reading |ELA |Yes |Benchmark Assessments; Study Island; |[pic] |
| | | |Model Assessments; Running Records, | |
|Writer’s Workshop |All Content Areas |Yes |Benchmark Assessments; Writing Portfolios|Increased student achievement on classroom performance and benchmark |
| | | | |assessments. |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Study Island |ELA |Yes |Pre- and Post-Tests |[pic] |
| |Mathematics | | | |
| |Science | | | |
|Extended Day Academic Academy |Reading, Writing, Math, and|Yes |Pre- and Post-Tests |Increased student achievement on classroom performance and benchmark |
| |Science | | |assessments. |
|Saturday Academic Academy |Reading, Writing, Math, and|Yes |Pre- and Post-Tests |Increased student achievement in Study Island and Benchmarks through the use of|
| |Science | | |ongoing exposure to model test questions. |
|Read 180 |Students with Disabilities |Yes |Pre and Post SRI assessments |Data reports showed .5 growth with students using Read 180 program over the |
| | | | |course of the year. |
|Rosetta Stone |ELLs |No |Rosetta Stone software data reports |Student usage with the program was low due to the mid year implementation of |
| | | | |the program so it has been budgeted to increase the usage of the program for |
| | | | |the 2013-2014 school year. |
Extended Day/Year Interventions Implemented in 2012-2013 to Address Academic Deficiencies
| |2 |3 |4 |5 |
|Interventions |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |
| | |Yes-No | | |
|Students in Grades 1-7 attended |ELA |Yes |Pre and Post Assessment for Study Island |Grade |
|60 minute ELA extended day | | | |Level |
|session 3 times a week | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
|Students in Grades 1-7 attended |Mathematics |Yes |Pre and Post Assessment for Study Island |Grade |
|60 minute math extended day | | | |Level |
|session 3 times a week | | | |Math Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Systems 44 |Students with Disabilities |Yes |SPI Pre and Post Assessments |Increase of .5 growth over the year using the SPI data was analyzed. |
| |and ELLs | | | |
| | | | | |
Evaluation of 2012-2013 Interventions and Strategies
Professional Development Implemented in 2012-2013
|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |
|Strategy |Content/Group |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |
| |Focus |Yes-No | | |
|Common Core for Grades |ELA |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |[pic] |
|K-12 PE; World Languages; | | |Evidence of implementation in | |
|Kindergarten; S.S. | | |instruction through Teacher | |
| | | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
|Math K-7 |Mathematics |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island. |
| | | |Evidence of implementation in |[pic] |
| | | |instruction through Teacher |[pic] |
| | | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
|HIB |General |Yes |Implementation of Positive |Addressed areas of students’ concerns to increase focus and attention on academics. Conduct incidents |
| |Education, | |Actions Work behavior system of |decreased from 26% from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. Decreasing student conduct incidents will decrease by 10%|
| |Special | |PAW slips; data reports from |during the 2013-2014 school year as measured by incidents recorded into Genesis data base. |
| |Education, and | |Genesis data base of conduct and | |
| |ELL students | |HIB reports. |2011-2012 |
| | | | |Conduct Reports |
| | | | |2012-2013 |
| | | | |Conduct Reports |
| | | | |Difference |
| | | | |% Difference |
| | | | | |
| | | | |134 |
| | | | |98 |
| | | | |Decrease 36 incidents |
| | | | |26% decline in incidents |
| | | | | |
|Reading and Writing |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island, and|
|Informational Text GE, |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in |Student Growth Objectives. |
|ESL, SE. |Special | |instruction through Teacher |[pic] |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
| |ELL students | | | |
|A constructive Approach to|General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island. |
|the Base 10 Numeration |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in | |
|System Gr. 3-5 GE, SE, ESL|Special | |instruction through Teacher | |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
| |ELL students | | | |
| |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island. |
|Journeys |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in | |
| |Special | |instruction through Teacher | |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
| |ELL students | | | |
|Teaching Algebraic |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island. |
|Concepts through |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in | |
|Student-Centered |Special | |instruction through Teacher | |
|Activities Gr.5-7 GE, |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
|ESL, SE |ELL students | | | |
| |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Increased student achievement on benchmark assessments, Model Curriculum Assessments and Study Island. |
|Coaching sessions with |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in | |
|Master Teachers and |Special | |instruction through Teacher | |
|Consultants |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations | |
| |ELL students | | | |
|APA Teacher Training |Special |Yes |Evaluation Sheets |State assessment results. |
| |Education | |Teacher/Staff Feedback | |
| |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Grade |
|Common Core PLC meetings |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in |Level |
| |Special | |instruction through Teacher |Math Study |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations; |Island Averages |
| |ELL students; | |CCSS Benchmark assessments | |
| |All Content | | | |
| |Areas | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Study Island Training |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |More data analysis and the effectiveness of Study Island needs to continue. |
| |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in |Grade |
| |Special | |instruction through Teacher |Level |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations |Math Study |
| |ELL students; | | |Island Averages |
| |Math and ELA | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Writers Workshop Gr. 1-7 |General |Yes |Teacher / Staff Feedback, |Grade |
|SE, GE, and ESL |Education, | |Evidence of implementation in |Level |
| |Special | |instruction through Teacher |Math Study |
| |Education, and | |Lesson Plans and Observations |Island Averages |
| |ELL students | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct |
| | | | |2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |43 |
| | | | |70 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |33 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |13 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |38 |
| | | | |48 |
| | | | |12 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |58 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |73 |
| | | | |15 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |64 |
| | | | |86 |
| | | | |21 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |74 |
| | | | |11 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Grade |
| | | | |Level |
| | | | |ELA Study |
| | | | |Island Averages |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Oct 2012 |
| | | | |June |
| | | | |2013 |
| | | | |Avg. |
| | | | |Point |
| | | | |Gain |
| | | | | |
| | | | |1st Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |55 |
| | | | |59 |
| | | | |3 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2nd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |29 |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |3rd Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |37 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |27 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |4th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |57 |
| | | | |78 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |5th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |49 |
| | | | |61 |
| | | | |9 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |42 |
| | | | |62 |
| | | | |17 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |7th Gr |
| | | | | |
| | | | |39 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |4.5 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |System |
| | | | |44 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |36 |
| | | | |50 |
| | | | |14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[pic] |
|Teachscape-Danielson |All Content |Yes |Evaluations Sheets |Extensive use of professional development terminology and the use of best practices instruction within |
| |Areas | |Teacher/Staff Feedback |classrooms. |
|Unpacking the Common Core |All Content |Yes |Implementation in Instruction as |Extensive use of high-quality cross-curricular techniques across grade levels. |
| |Areas | |evidenced through teacher lesson | |
| | | |plans and observations | |
|Rosetta Stone ESL |ELLs |Yes |Rosetta Stone software data |Student usage with the program was low due to the mid year implementation of the program so it has been |
| | | |reports |budgeted to increase the usage of the program for the 2013-2014 school year. |
Family and Community Engagement Implemented in 2012-2013
|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |
|Strategy |Content/Group Focus |Effective |Documentation of Effectiveness |Measurable Outcomes |
| | |Yes-No | | |
|Family Academic Evenings |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Surveys and Parent Sign in sheets |Increased parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Winter/Spring Concerts |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Attendance |Increased parental attendance based upon attendance. |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Science Fair |Science |Yes |Attendance |Parental attendance. |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Kindergarten Orientation |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Open House |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Career Day & College Awareness |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
|Week |Guardians | | | |
| |Students | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Marking Cycle Awards Assembly |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Attendance |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Art Shows within School and local|Visual Art/ |Yes |Attendance |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
|Community setting |Parents | | | |
| |Guardians | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Mother/Daughter Evening & |Priority Areas/ Parents |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
|Father/Son Evening |Guardians | | | |
| |Students | | | |
| |Students with Disabilities | | | |
| |ELLs | | | |
|Special Parent Meetings |Conduct and HIB incidents |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
|Coffee with the Principal |Priority Areas |Yes |Sign in Sheets |Parental attendance based upon sign in attendance sheets. |
|Parental Feedback |Priority Areas and |Yes |At Home Surveys |Based on parent surveys, 66% of respondents noted that they attend PTA meetings. 78%|
| |Community Awareness | | |of respondents stated that they feel encouraged to visit the school, and 83% of |
| | | | |respondents noted having a say in school matters. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Open houses and parents’ conference sessions gave parents information regarding |
| | | | |their teacher, curriculum focus, and general information about their classroom. Our |
| | | | |Open House event attracted approximately 90% of our student population. |
| | | | |Approximately 75% of parents attended our parent conferences. The addition of the |
| | | | |Middle School Awards Ceremony that served as a celebration of student success |
| | | | |allowed for additional parental involvement with an average of approximately 50 |
| | | | |school community members attending the quarterly events. |
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 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.
___Mrs. Karen Machuca_______________ _____Mrs. Karen Machuca____________________________ _____July 10, 2013_________
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 . . . ”
2013-2014 Needs Assessment Process
Data Collection and Analysis
Multiple Measures Analyzed by the School in the Needs Assessment Process for 2013-2014 Interventions and Strategies (Results and outcomes must be measurable.)
|Areas | Multiple Measures Analyzed |Overall Measurable Results and Outcomes |
|Academic Achievement – Reading |NJASK 3-7, Journeys Assessment, Model Curriculum Assessments, Study Island, Written Assessments & Projects |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| | |proficiency areas (Proficient and Advanced Proficient). |
|Academic Achievement - Writing |NJ Holistic Scoring Rubric, Study Island, District Summative Writing Assessment, Portfolios, Pride Essay |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| |Contest, Model Curriculum Assessments |proficiency areas (Proficient and Advanced Proficient). |
|Academic Achievement - Mathematics |NJASK 3-7, Model Curriculum Assessments, Study Island, Every Day Math, Connected Math |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| | |proficiency areas (Proficient and Advanced Proficient). |
|Professional Development |Surveys related to 2012-2013 job embedded and workshop staff development |Continuing with a 2013-2014 survey will measure the |
| |[pic] |teacher’s perception of the amount of results-driven |
| | |professional learning, research-based standard, job-embedded|
| | |structure, team learning, content-based pedagogy, and focus |
| | |on student work, and results orientation provided. Both |
| | |ongoing job-embedded professional development and specific |
| | |workshops will continue to provide teachers with assistance |
| | |in delivering instruction. Results will be measured through|
| | |teacher discourse during grade level meetings, through |
| | |lesson plans that include elements of the Professional |
| | |Development, through observations of teachers infusing the |
| | |new information into instruction, and student scores on |
| | |benchmark assessments in the particular content areas. |
| | |Common Planning times will increase for grades K-4 from 45 |
| | |minutes to 90 minutes per week. A 10% growth in student |
| | |achievement is expected in the proficiency areas (Proficient|
| | |and Advanced Proficient). |
|Family and Community Engagement |Parent Climate Survey, Event Participation Rates, PTA Sign in Sheets, Open House and Parent Conference | |
| |Sign-In Sheets | |
|Students with Disabilities |CCSS Benchmark Assessments; NJASK 2012; Study Island Pre/Post Assessment; Read 180 |Student Growth Objectives (SGO) will be monitored and |
| | |documented with data pertaining to this particular subgroup.|
| | |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| | |proficiency areas. |
|English Language Learners |CCSS Benchmark Assessments; NJASK 2012; Study Island Pre/Post Assessment |Student Growth Objectives (SGO) will be monitored and |
| | |documented with data pertaining to this particular subgroup.|
| | |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| | |proficiency areas. |
|Economically Disadvantaged |NJASK 2012 subgroup data; Study Island Pre/Post Assessment |Student Growth Objectives (SGO) will be monitored and |
| | |documented with data pertaining to this particular subgroup.|
| | |A 10% growth in student achievement is expected in the |
| | |proficiency areas. |
|School Climate and Culture |Parent Survey; “Conduct” incidents data; Faculty survey |The amount of conduct incidents will be monitored and |
| | |analyzed to identify areas of specific behaviors that must |
| | |be addressed. Based upon previous data analyzed, teasing |
| | |and tattling are high on the incidents which prompts HIB or |
| | |physical altercations. Therefore, professional development |
| | |using the Study Guide to Teasing, Tattling, Defiance and |
| | |More... Positive Approaches to 10 Common Classroom Behaviors|
| | |(2013) (Wilson) is planned for the 2013-2014 Faculty |
| | |Academies. A 10% decrease in student incident reports is |
| | |anticipated for the 2013-2014. |
|Leadership |Staff communications; staff surveys; data reports |Documented Data analysis at grade levels and school |
| | |management team meetings must be evident and documented to |
| | |indicate student growth objectives are being addressed and |
| | |inventions are being addressed based upon data. Using the |
| | |Study Guide to Using Data to Focus Instructional Improvement|
| | |(2013) (James-Ward, Fisher, Frey, Lapp), professional |
| | |development is scheduled to be addressed for the 2013-2014 |
| | |Faculty Academies. |
2013-3014 Needs Assessment Process
Narrative
1. What process did the school use to conduct its needs assessment?
During the 2012-2013 school year, Heywood Avenue Elementary School administrators, teachers, support staff, students, and parents completed comprehensive needs assessment surveys in the areas of school climate, time on task, facilities and resources, empowerment, leadership, community engagement, professional development, new teacher support, mentoring, curriculum, instruction, and formative and summative assessments. The summary of the results identified the priority areas of the school.
2. What process did the school use to collect and compile data for student subgroups?
The principal, Small Learning Communities, AfterSchool Administration, and master teachers analyzed the data from the NJASK subgroup reports. Each subgroup either had its own report, or the report was disaggregated in a section of a report. Subgroup results, as well as Study Island and Model Curriculum Benchmark Assessment results, were compared and analyzed for areas of weaknesses and strengths.
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 collection methods for NJASK data, Study Island, and Model Curriculum Assessment were statistically sound because they were inclusive and data reporting was based upon the approved software program or state approved assessment.
4. What did the data analysis reveal regarding classroom instruction?
The data were compiled by taking the raw scores and responses from the surveys and converting them into percentages. A comparison of test data from previous years was generated and reviewed by staff members at the start and end of the school year to establish specific instructional goals for teachers to follow as well as ways to facilitate the delivery of such goals.
5. What did the data analysis reveal regarding professional development implemented in the previous year(s)?
Professional Learning took place as a combination of job embedded and out of district learning opportunities. Job embedded opportunities were provided at the building level through professional consultants, district level workshops, workshops provided by content area staff such as Language Arts Literacy Master Teacher, Classroom Teachers and the Technology Coordinator. These learning opportunities were successfully implemented in teachers’ classrooms as evidenced by teacher observations conducted by administration. Staff need continuous support to assist with differentiating instruction and technology integration for all students’ styles of learning, as well as for the subgroup populations (Special Education and ELL). Staff continue to express the need to see best practices in action and value the embedded professional development with debriefing sessions and one-to-one specific guidance and feedback.
6. How does the school identify educationally at-risk students in a timely manner?
At-risk students are identified through a variety of methods early in the school year. Newly enrolled students’ previous records and standardized scores are reviewed to determine if additional support is needed. Staff review student standardized test data at the beginning of the school year and as needed throughout the school year for newly enrolled students. Extended Day, Saturday, and Summer Programs are designed around assisting the students in meeting the CCSS. NJSMARTS is reviewed in the beginning of the school year to identify areas of typical, high, and low growth students within the data base and those students are monitored for academic support.
7. How does the school provide effective interventions to educationally at-risk students?
Teacher anecdotal notes, CCSS benchmark assessments, and weekly assessments assist with determining interventions for students who are at-risk. Staff review student standardized test data at the beginning of the school year to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses for effective planning and small group interventions. Extended Day and Saturday Programs are designed around assisting the students in meeting and achieving the CCSS. Additionally, students who continue to struggle after receiving extended services are referred to the I&RS team for additional recommendations.
8. How does the school address the needs of migrant students? N/A
9. How does the school address the needs of homeless students? N/A
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?
For the middle school areas of grades 5-7, content area teachers review student data and adjust instructional practices and strategies based upon the needs of the students. Also, articulation occurs at grade level meetings between kindergarten through fourth grade teachers to determine the appropriateness of the scope and sequence based on the assessment results. Teachers in Grades 3 and 4 utilize the formative assessments of Study Island and the Model Assessments to provide information to each other. Kindergarten through second grade teachers utilize unit assessments and data from the Model Assessments to provide information to each other. Staff are encouraged to participate in district-wide committees as school representatives to assist with the input and collaboration of curriculum and assessment review. Such staff are then charged with the responsibility to turn-key pertinent information to their colleagues during Faculty Academies and during Common Planning Time.
11. How does the school help students transition from preschool to kindergarten, elementary to middle school and/or middle to high school?
Preschools in the Township of Orange visit the school’s kindergarten classes at the beginning of May. The kindergarten teachers are provided High/Scope Curriculum to transition children from the pre-school to kindergarten with the appropriate professional development and materials. Kindergarten Orientation is provided for the parents of students entering kindergarten. Parents are introduced to the teachers and the curriculum during this time. They are given a tour of the school and are shown the kindergarten classrooms. For elementary to middle school transitions, departmentalizing classes beginning at the 3rd grade level, provide an organization transition for students to get accustomed to switching classes two years prior to the middle school years. Family Advocacy also provides a supportive element for incoming 5th graders with supportive staff who will assist with challenges of transitioning with middle school. In regards to Middle school students continuing into the larger middle school, students visit the Middle school in January and take a tour of the area of the building with information presented to them about the Small Learning Communities. Middle school students are also part of the Family Advocacy program which addresses concerns about transition towards the end of the school year.
12. How did the school select the priority problems and root causes for the 2013-2014 schoolwide plan?
The Needs Assessment for the 2013-2014 Title 1 Unified Plan is based upon subgroup NJASK data and benchmark assessments analysis. The root causes are identified from common planning discussions, minutes, staff observations, and I&RS common areas of academic areas of concern.
2013-2014 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 |CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP – Grades 3-7 LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY AND STUDENTS |CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP – GRADE 3- 7 MATHEMATICS AND STUDENTS WITH |
| |WITH DISABILITIES AND ELLs. |DISABILITIES AND ELLs. |
|Describe the priority problem using at least |Students are not mastering the CCSS in ELA in Grade 3-7 as measured by NJASK |Students are not mastering the CCSS in Mathematics in Grade 3- 7 as measured |
|two data sources |and Benchmarks. |by NJASK and Benchmarks. |
|Describe the root causes of the problem |Continuous need for job-embedded coaching, demonstration, and mentoring in |Continuous need for job-embedded coaching, demonstration, and mentoring in |
| |best practices English language arts instructional techniques. |best practices mathematics instructional techniques. |
|Subgroups or populations addressed |Partially Proficient – General Education, Special Education Students, ELL |Partially Proficient – General Education, Special Education Students, ELL |
|Related content area missed |Language Arts |Mathematics |
|Name of scientifically research based |Balanced Literacy (Reader’s Workshop, Word Study, Writer’s Workshop) |EveryDay Math |
|intervention to address priority problems |Learning Centers |Connected Math |
| |Differentiated Instruction |Math 180 |
| |Literacy Workshops |Cooperative Learning |
| |Reading Comprehension Strategies |Hands-On/Manipulative Based Learning |
| |6+1 Traits of Writing |Learning Centers |
| |Study Island |Differentiated Instruction |
| |Read 180 | |
| |Systems 44 | |
| |Model Curriculum Benchmark Assessments | |
|How does the intervention align with the |All programs and strategies are directly aligned with CCSS indicators at the |Everyday Mathematics, Connected Math and Math 180 are focused curricula, with |
|Common Core State Standards? |appropriate grade level. |each standard being fully developed and mastered at the appropriate grade |
| | |level according to the CCSS. |
2013-2014 Needs Assessment Process
Description of Priority Problems and Interventions to Address Them (continued)
| |#3 |#4 |
|Name of priority problem |CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP – GRADE 5- 7 LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY AND STUDENTS | |
| |WITH DISABILITIES | |
|Describe the priority problem using at least |Grade 5-7 Read 180 and System 44 Special Education students’ Lexile Scores are| |
|two data sources |below grade level based upon the SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) and NJASK | |
| |data. | |
|Describe the root causes of the problem |Expectations for number of pages read per day have not been established. | |
| |Student written accountability needs more organization and requires better | |
| |implementation. | |
|Subgroups or populations addressed |Special Education Students Grades 5-7 | |
|Related content area missed |English Language Arts | |
|Name of scientifically research based |Read 180 | |
|intervention to address priority problems |System 44 | |
|How does the intervention align with the |READ 180 Next Generation includes rigor, writing, nonfiction, and independent | |
|Common Core State Standards? |practice with text in order to ensure that struggling readers have an explicit| |
| |and accelerated path to college and career readiness. The Common Core State | |
| |Standards call for a carefully calibrated “staircase” of text complexity. Each| |
| |student should be reading text that grows in complexity as the school year | |
| |progresses, and grows in complexity from grade to grade. Read 180 addresses | |
| |this staircase scaffolding. | |
|ESEA §1114(b) Components of a Schoolwide Program: A schoolwide program shall include . . . schoolwide reform strategies . . . “ |
|Plan Components for 2013 |
|2013-2014 Interventions to Address Student Achievement |
|*Use an asterisk to denote new programs. |
|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 |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |
| | | | |Outcomes) | |
|Prentice Hall Reading Program|ELA |6-7 |Grade 6-7 Teachers, ELA |Teacher Evaluations, | |
| | | |Supervisor, |Teacher Assessments, |What Works Clearinghouse Database |
| | | |Administration |Project-based Learning | |
| | | | |Opportunities; Student | |
| | | | |Growth Objectives | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Connected Mathematics |Math |6-7 |Grade 6-7 Teachers, Math|Benchmark Assessments; |What Works Clearinghouse Research Database |
| | | |Supervisor, |On-going program | |
| | | |Administration |assessments; Student | |
| | | | |Growth Objectives | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Every Day Mathematics |Math |K - 5 |Kindergarten through 5th|Text and Benchmark |What Works Clearinghouse Research Database |
| | | |grade teachers |Assessments; Student | |
| | | | |Growth Objectives | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|NJDOE Model Curriculum |ELA |K-7 |Grade K-7 Teachers, |Unit 1-5 Benchmark |Aligned to Model Curriculum and Common Core Standards. |
|Assessments |Math | |Supervisors of Math and |Assessments; Student | |
| | | |ELA, Administration |Growth Ojbectives | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Learning Centers |ELA |K-7 |Grade K-7 Teachers |Project-Based Learning – | |
| |Math | |Supervisors of ELA, |Outcomes | |
| | | |Administration | | |
|Study Island |ELA |K-7 |Kindergarten and Gr. 1-7|Blue Ribbon Reports |Aligned to the CCSS |
| |Math | |Teachers, Technology |Expected Growth 10% | |
| | | |Coordinator | |The International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Students which is |
| | | | | | . |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |· The International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Teachers |
| | | | | | |
|6+1 Writing Traits |ELA |K-7 |Grade K-7 Teachers, |Teacher Evaluations, | |
| | | |Supervisors of ELA, |Teacher Assessments, |International Reading Association – Journal Publications, Principal Evaluation/Observation |
| | | |Administration |Student Work Samples, | |
| | | | |Running Records, Writing | |
| | | | |Folders | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Data Analysis to Drive |All |All teachers; |Grade K-7 Teachers, |Lesson Plans, Program |“Digging Deeper into the Data” Tracey Severns (2009) |
|Instruction | |monthly September |Supervisors of ELA, |Assessments, |Using Data to Focus Instructional Improvement (2013) (James-Ward, Fisher, Frey, Lapp) |
| | |2013-June 2014 |Math, Science, & Social |CCSS Benchmark | |
| | |All students |Studies, Administration |Assessments, | |
| | | | |Project-based Assessments,| |
| | | | |Formative Assessments; | |
| | | | |Student Growth Objectives | |
|Qwizdom Student Response |All |K-7 |Grade K-7 Teachers, |Pre/Post Assessments | |
|Systems | | |Technology Coordinator |Qwizdom Software Test |University of Wisconsin Study of Clickers |
| | | | |Question Results | |
|Read 180 |ELA |Students with |Special Education |APA, System 44, NJASK | |
| | |Disabilities |Teachers |Pre/Post Assessments, |What Works Clearinghouse |
| | | | |SRI reports | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Work Sampling Assessment |ALL |Early Childhood |Kindergarten & SE |Pre/Post Assessments; | |
| | |Students at |Teachers |Rubric based assessments | |
| | |Kindergarten level | | | |
|Vocabulary/Spelling City |ALL |K-7 |Grades K-7 Teachers |Pre/Post Assessments; | |
| | | | |Usage data reports | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|*Solo Unlimited, Assistive |Writing in all |K-7 |Grades K-7 Teachers |Pre/Post Writing | |
|Technology |content areas | | |Assessments; Writing | |
| | | | |portfolios | |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|Rosetta Stone |ALL |K-7 ELL population |ESL Teachers, |Data reports from Rosetta | English about.html |
| | | |ESL Supervisor, |Stone, NJASK ELL subgroup | English Instruction/index.asp |
| | | |Administrators |data Benchmark Assessments| |
| | | | |Expected Growth 10% | |
|*iRead |ELA |K-2 At-risk |K-3 teachers in general | | |
| | |students; Students |education and special | | |
| | |with disabilities |education, Technology | | |
| | | |coordinator, | | |
| | | |Administration | | |
2013-2014 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 |Content Area Focus |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of Success|Research Supporting Intervention |
|Intervention | | | |(Measurable |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |
| | | | |Evaluation Outcomes) | |
|Extended Day |Mathematics |At-risk students; |Extended Day Academy |Pre and Post Study | |
|Academy | |Students with |Staff; Administration |Island Assessments | |
| | |Disabilities | | | |
|N/A | |Homeless | | | |
| | |Migrant | | | |
|Extended Day |ELA |ELLs |Extended Day Academy |Data Assessments from| |
|Academy with | | |Staff; Administration |Rosetta Stone | |
|Rosetta Stone | | | |Software | |
|Extended Day |ELA |Students with |Extended Day Academy |Data Assessments from| |
|Academy: Systems 44| |Disabilities |Staff; Administration |Systems 44 ad SRI | |
| | | | |indicators | |
|Saturday Academy |ELA and Math |General Education |Teachers and |NJASK data; NJSMARTS | |
| | |and Students with |Administration |indicators of | |
| | |Disabilities | |“growth” | |
*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.
2013-2014 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 |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |
| | | | |Evaluation Outcomes) | |
|Analyzing Data |Mathematics |General and Special |Teachers, Supervisors, |Common Planning Time |Using Data to Focus Instructional Improvement (2013) (James-Ward, Fisher, Frey, Lapp) |
| | |Education teachers |Administration |minutes; Benchmark | |
| | | | |assessments; Staff | |
| | | | |evaluations; NJASK | |
| | | | |data; Study Island | |
| | | | |data reports | |
|Teachscape/Danielson |ALL |All staff |Teachers, Administration,|Observations and | |
| | | |Supervisors |Evaluations | |
|Positive Behavior Systems (PBS) |All |General and Special |Staff and Administration |“Conduct” and “HIB” | |
| | |Education, and | |data reporting from |Teasing, Tattling, Defiance and More... Positive Approaches to 10 Common Classroom |
| | |Specialist teachers;| |Genesis |Behaviors (2013) (Wilson) |
| | |Support Staff | | | |
|Read 180; Systems 44 |`ELA |Students with | | | |
| | |Disabilities; | | | |
|CCSS and PARCC |ELA and Math |General and Special |Staff and Administration |Lesson plans and | |
| | |Education staff | |classroom walk | |
| | | | |throughs indicationg | |
| | | | |CCSS are being | |
| | | | |addressed | |
*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.
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.
2013-2014 Family and Community Engagement Strategies to Address Student Achievement and Priority Problems
|Name of Strategy |Content Area |Target Population(s)|Person Responsible |Indicators of |Research Supporting Strategy |
| |Focus | | |Success |(from IES Practice Guide or What Works Clearinghouse) |
| | | | |(Measurable | |
| | | | |Evaluation | |
| | | | |Outcomes) | |
|Winter/Spring Concerts |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Science Fair |Science |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| | |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | |Students | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Kindergarten Orientation |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Open House |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Career Day & College |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
|Awareness Week |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Marking Cycle Awards |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
|Assembly |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | |Students | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Art Shows within School |Visual Art |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
|and local Community | |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
|setting | |Students | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Family Academic Evenings |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | |Students | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Winter/Spring Concerts |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
|Mother/Daughter Evening |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | |Students | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement; | |
| | | | |Improving student | |
| | | | |social skills, | |
| | | | |while increasing | |
| | | | |self confidence | |
| | | | |among girls | |
|Special Parent Meetings |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and improving | |
| | | | |student social | |
| | | | |interactions among | |
| | | | |one another | |
|Coffee with the Principal |Priority |Parents |All stakeholders | Increase in | |
| |Areas |Guardians | |Parental Awareness | |
| | | | |and Student | |
| | | | |Achievement | |
*Use an asterisk to denote new programs.
2013-2014 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? The program will include Family educational nights to bring families together to learn educational games and activities that can be continued within the home environment.
2. How will the school engage parents in the development of the written parent involvement policy? The School Management Team membership includes parent representatives. The Parent Representatives, in conjunction with the PTA, will provide valuable input regarding the parent involvement policy. Said input will be based on surveys distributed to the parents/guardians of the students.
3. How will the school distribute its written parent involvement policy? The school-parent compact is sent home with all students and each teacher ensures 100% return for the students in their classroom. Parental contact is made for any student who has not returned their compact. During Back to School night, parents are encouraged to review this compact and work together with the school on the areas identified in the compact. The parent involvement policy is posted on the school’s website and copies will be made available to parents on the opening table for Back to School night.
4. How will the school engage parents in the development of the school-parent compact? The school will engage parents through the PTA to obtain feedback about the school-parent compact during meetings and parent surveys.
5. How will the school ensure that parents receive and review the school-parent compact? Parental contact is made for any student who has not returned their compact. Upon return of parent signatures stating it was received, students will receive a PAW slip which is part of the school-wide Positive Behavior System. During Back to School night, parents are encouraged to review this compact and work together with the school on the areas identified in the compact.
6. How will the school report its student achievement data to families and the community? The data is issued to each parent via a copy with the final report card, it’s public record in the local newspaper, district website, board office, and board agendas. Data walls will also be displayed for community review.
7. How will the school notify families and the community if the district has not met its annual measurable objectives for Title III? The district will provide a notification letter to all parents that each school will distribute.
8. How will the school inform families and the community of the school’s disaggregated assessment results? Assessment results are provided in open forum at Orange Board of Education meetings, discussed at PTA meetings, displayed on Data Walls, and posted on the district website.
9. How will the school involve families and the community in the development of the Title I Schoolwide Plan? The Parents that participate in our School Management Team are invited to attend monthly meetings throughout the year. It is during those meetings they give input on our projected plans.
10. How will the school inform families about the academic achievement of their child/children? The child’s classroom teacher will discuss student assessment results with parents every five weeks, via progress reports in week 5 of every marking cycle and via report card in week 10 of every marking cycle. Student assessment results are provided to students in September and are mailed when parents who have transferred request their child’s results. Teachers will maintain communication with parents about their child through phone calls, parent-teacher conferences, and emails. Parents also have access to the Parent Portal to access student grades at any time online.
11. On what specific strategies will the school use its 2013-2014 parent involvement funds? Continuing with the Family Academic nights in the areas of Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies, parental funds will continue to build the educational home library of the families. The involvement funds will also support take home educational centers and activities for parents and children to continue to develop at home routines for academic success.
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 |39 |Continuous PD to improve/maintain best practices. |
|Title II-A | |Mentoring will be provided to retain new staff members to the district in accordance with the |
| | |district and state mentoring plan. |
| |100% | |
|Teachers who do not meet the qualifications for HQT, consistent |0 | |
|with Title II-A | | |
| | | |
|Paraprofessionals who meet the qualifications required by ESEA |9 |Continuous PD along with Classroom Teacher to maintain best practices in classrooms. |
|(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)* | | |
| | | |
* 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 |
| |Human Resources department |
|1) Advertisement in the Star Ledger and their website | |
|2) Advertisement in an additional national website called Edunet | |
|3) Attendance at New Jersey College and University Job Fairs | |
|4) Contracted with Applitrack which allows applicants to submit one application to multiple districts | |
|5) Contracted with Source4Teachers which is not only a Substitute Service but recommends long term substitutes for consideration of permanent positions. | |
| | |
ESEA (b)(1)(J) Coordination and integration of Federal, State, and local services and programs, including programs supported under this Act, violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, vocational and technical education, and job training.
School Budget Pages
School level budget pages in Excel must be completed along with each school’s Title I Schoolwide Plan to identify how the Title I, Part A school allocation is budgeted for schools operating schoolwide programs that do and do not blend their funds
Budget Detail pages and a Budget Summary are available as an Excel program at the following location: education/grants/entitlement/nclb/ .
Complete the Excel budget pages for each school and upload the file on the Title I Schoolwide upload screen in the ESEA-NCLB Consolidated Application. These budget pages are in addition to the Title I Schoolwide Plan for each school operating an approved schoolwide program.
Budget Detail pages must be signed by the district’s Business Administrator.
[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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- orange cake with orange soda
- mde k12 ms us child nutrition
- state nj us treasury pensions mbos
- gisd k12 nm us home
- bcps k12 md us email
- state nj us treasury
- state nj us treasury revenue
- ccs k12 nc us website
- should i get owner s title insurance
- nj motor vehicle title replacement
- ccs k12 nc us cumberland county schools
- do i need title insurance