Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2013-2014

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

The Christa McAuliffe Elementary Community will empower students by challenging them to achieve their personal best in all areas of education and to utilize McAuliffe Life Skills to become life long learners. Each morning our students recite the Christa McAuliffe Pledge: “I believe in me, I will do my best each day. I believe that if I work hard I will succeed. I can learn. I will learn. I am worth it.”

Vision Statement:

Our vision for the Christa McAuliffe Elementary community is to attain excellence by encouraging responsible, independent, life long learners.

Christa McAuliffe Area 1

Page 1

Carol Roddenberry Dr. Mark Mullins

Michelle Braun

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2013-2014

RATIONAL – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement)

One place to start – three year trend history (optional)

Christa McAuliffe Elementary School has earned an A for 10 years until last year when it dropped to a B and this year when we dropped to a C. However, with the changing of the percentage of students needing to earn a level three or above increasing each year we have not earned AYP status. Last year the subgroups (Total, Blacks, Hispanic, Economic Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities) did not meet the learning gains needed to earn a yes in these cells for reading or math. This year, due to the changes in calculating school grades and measuring performance on the FCAT, our student FCAT scores and school grade have decreased.

In analyzing the INDV report, possible factors contributing to this fact could be the higher percentage of transient students, an influx of students from the Charter Schools and the changes in the FCAT test scoring,

Our school’s demographics have changed considerably in the past 3 years. Our minority rate and free and reduced rates have increased. Our stability rate has decreased. During 2012-13 28% of our third graders, 35% of out fourth graders, 21% of our fifth graders and 27% of our sixth graders were new to our school. After attending Dr. Max Thompson’s training this summer our team has realized that we need to reevaluate our instructional strategies to ensure we are meeting the needs of all of our students on a consistent and pervasive basis. Dr. Thompson’s research shows that the higher the percentage of free and reduced students the fewer instructional options we have to reach maximum student achievement levels.

This year 3rd – 6th grade will each have a non classroom teacher assigned to their grade level to share and disaggregate test data. This will ensure that all district and state assessment data is carefully analyzed and will be used to form S.M.A.R.T. groups and drive instruction in the differentiated groups.

Our FCAT Test scores for the 2012-13 school year dropped from the previous year for the percent of students meeting High Standards in reading and math. Third grade and sixth grade decreased in reading and math, 4th grade decreased in math and 5th grade decreased in math and science.. 4th grade writing scores showed growth when comparing the 3.5 and above scores in 2011-12 to the 2012-13 scores. However, the students making learning gains in reading and math and the students in our lowest 25% increased.

For the past three years our testing data from state (FCAT, ETC.) and district tests indicate a need for us to focus on raising the scores of our level 3 and above students. Our students making learning gains and our lowest 25% of students have remained the same or increased over the past two years in reading and math. Our task this year is to work on raising the number of students who meet the higher levels of achievement while continuing to raise our lowest 25%. We will do this by closer monitoring of our GSP program and our higher level S.M.A.R.T. time classes. One of the tools we will use is the use of our Walk Through Classroom tool on the administrator’s IPADs to more closely monitor the teachers’ use of best teaching practices and their use of the High Yield Strategies as outlined in our SIP plan. We will also adopt the practices learned this summer at Max Thompson’s training by using the information in his book, “Monitoring for Achievement”.

Grade level data 2010 – 2011 (FCAT) 2011 – 2012 ( FCAT) 2012-2013 (FCAT)

Third grade Reading 74% 71% 62%

Math 88% 69% 50%

4th grade Reading 74% 55% 60%

Math 78% 61% 60%

Writing 95% ( school grade) 67% 3.0> 73%3.0> 44%

Page 2

3.5>

88% ( AYP%)

5th grade Reading 70% 55% 56%

Math 56% 48% 45%

Science 71% ( School grade ) 57% 47%

6th grade Reading 73% 64% 62%

Math 70% 64% 60%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

% meeting High Standards in Reading 74% 63% 61%

% meeting High Standards Math 73% 61% 55%

S% meeting High Standards Writing 88% 67% 45%

% meeting High Standards Science 58% 57% 46%

% making Reading Gains 66% 67% 69%

% making Math Gains 70% 70% 70%

% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Reading 58% 65% 79%

% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Math 57% 65% 65%

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?) FCAT, FAIR, and District assessment data for the past three years indicates that we need to change our instructional strategies to those that are proven to be most effective through research. Over the past three years we have provided professional development for B.E.S.T., differentiated instruction and Thinking Maps. We have been doing our book studies on Marzano’s “Classroom Strategies That Work” and Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”. Last year’ we focused on implementing the use of graphic organizers and summarizing across all content areas in K-6th. We began the school year with a teacher survey on their implementation of the five high Yield strategies in Max Thompson’s book, “Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders” . The qualitative data from our teachers’ survey indicated that 64% of our teachers were comfortable with summarizing and 67% were comfortable with graphic organizers. This year our goal is to ensure that these strategies are being used with fidelity in every classroom and across all the curriculum content areas. Our focus this year will be to continue to focus on these in addition to higher order thinking questions.. Last years’ end of the year survey and walk through data indicated that 100% of our teachers were using these strategies but not on a consistent and pervasive basis. Although all teachers are making progress in these areas we want to continue in these areas. These strategies will continue to be “look fors” and “Ask Abouts”during classroom walk throughs and classroom observations. With the change from NGSSS to CCSS now is the optimal time for implementation. Our expectation is that the continued and more frequent

Page 3

use of these strategies as we move into the implementation of the Common Core State Standards will raise our student achievement levels in all curriculum areas. Teachers will follow the district and state timeline and administer assessments for reading, math, science, writing and social studies. Weekly formative assessments will also be given to all students to accurately monitor student progress. Data from all assessments will indicate achievement toward our goal of student achievement.

We currently teach the district core curriculum.  We differentiate instruction in reading and math groups by providing small group strategy-based instruction.  We individualize instruction in reading, math, and other subject areas as identified by the needs of students in each grade level by providing evidence-based intervention, enrichment or additional practice as needed during SMART Time.  SMART Time is a 30-40 minute block of instructional time outside of the 90-minute reading block.  Each grade level is assigned a designated SMART Time. 

The teachers at McAuliffe work collaboratively using teacher editions, pacing guides and other support materials to plan for daily instruction. Grade level PLC meetings allow teachers time to collaborate. McAuliffe started RTI meetings three years ago and teachers have learned to compare students’ data from their classrooms to those of their peers at school, within district, or state-wide. Through the RTI meetings teachers have learned to differentiate instruction, locate applicable resources, implement appropriate strategies and progress monitor at appropriate intervals. Our goal is to have teachers implement research and evidence based instructional strategies consistently and pervasively across all content areas:, Summarization strategies and graphic organizers across all grade levels in all curriculum areas. Having weekly PLC meetings, additional planning on shortened days once a month and having vertical team planning after school once a month will provide necessary time for professional discourse and collaboration.

Continued discussions on Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion” will be ongoing . Information from Dr. Max Thompson’s books “Moving Schools: Lessons From Exemplary Leaders” and “Monitoring for Achievement”, will be discussed during PLCs and tied in with the other strategies. Classroom observations and walkthroughs will ensure that these strategies are being used throughout all grade levels to implement the CCSS in grade K-2 and to transition from NGSSS to CCSS in 3rd – 6th.

Administrators willactively be involved in working with teachers to develop and implement their PGPs which will be based on data from INDV, FCAT,FAIR, and district tests that is available in A3. They will study the data from the Instructor reports and student reports to determine their area of focus. Teachers will then reflect on their personal/professional understanding of the above mentioned strategies to determine which practices/strategies will be their focus for the goal of improving student achievement. This will be reflected in the PGP.

Our focus is to move our student achievement forward using research based teaching strategies. This year our school administrators and teacher leaders’ “Look Fors and Ask Fors” will be the consistent and pervasive use of those strategies across all content areas in the classrooms. These strategies are: Summarizing, Higher Order Thinking, Advanced Organizers (including Thinking Maps). The use of these teaching strategies will also help teachers and students bridge the gap as we move from the NGSSS to CCSS.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)

“To teach and test the skills that our students need, we must first redefine excellent instruction. It is not a checklist of teacher behaviors and a model lesson that covers content standards. It is working with colleagues to ensure that all students master the skills they need to succeed as lifelong learners, workers, and citizens.” (Tony Wagner – 2008)

In Rigor is NOT a Four-Letter Word, Barbara Blackburn defined rigor as “creating an environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so that he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels.” (Blackburn, 2008).

“Essential questions reside at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1954). They require students to EVALUATE (make a thoughtful choice between options, with the choice based upon clearly stated criteria), to SYNTHESIZE (invent a new or different version) or to ANALYZE (develop a thorough and complex understanding through skillful questioning).” (From Now On, 1996)

One of the most significant factors that impacts student achievement is that teachers commit to implementing a guaranteed and viable curriculum to ensure no matter who teaches a given class, the curriculum will address certain essential content.  For learning to be

Page 4

effective, clear targets in terms of information and skills must be established. (Marzano, 2003).

Research has shown (McREL study) that there are nine categories of instructional strategies that affect student achievement.  These categories are identifying similarities and differences; summarizing and note taking; reinforcing effort and providing recognition; homework and practice; nonlinguistic representations; cooperative learning; setting objectives and providing feedback; generating and testing hypotheses; and questions, cues, and advance organizers (Marzano, 1998). “The use of formative assessments, or other diagnostic efforts within classrooms, provides information that should help facilitate improved pedagogical practices and instructional outcomes” (Karee E. Dunn & Sean W. Mulvenon, 2009). By utilizing formative assessments and higher level questioning, students will gain the foundation knowledge to be successful in the 21st century workplace.

Marzano has organized academic goals into one single category “challenging goals and effective feedback”. Our goal is to assist teachers in utilizing teaching methods, providing learning experiences and materials that will facilitate enduring understanding. Research proves that designing and using "good" questions should be part of the instructional repertoire.

Max Thompson’s Learning Concepts, Inc. is dedicated to promoting comprehensive, continual schoolimprovement and increasing achievement for all students (Thompson & Thompson, 2000). The acceptance of thisstatement by school leaders has created a groundswell of support of the strategies that appear to have an extended lifepast what might be termed an educational fad. His research shows that the evidence based strategies promote student achievement. These include: Extended Thinking Strategies, Summarizing, Vocabulary in Context, Advance Organizers and Non-Verbal Representations.

As part of our implementation plan for CCSS, we will incorporate the nine research-based strategies from Classroom Instruction that Works by Robert Marzano and the high yield strategies from Max Thompson, book “Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders”. Through Marzano training, the work of William Sanders is cited as establishing the clear implication of the critical difference an effective classroom teacher can make with any level student. With this research in mind, Christa McAuliffe will be focusing on ensuring that our teachers are including those effective strategies during planning for student achievement as well as executing the strategies within the classroom. Using these strategies will guide classroom practice and maximize the possibility of enhancing student achievement for all students Following the techniques presented in Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion” will ensure that teachers are using the most effective teaching strategies for the delivery of curriculum.

For the past several years we have provided professional development on differentiated instruction, and Thinking Maps. Last year we did book studies on Marzano’s, “ Classroom Instruction that Works” , Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”, B.E.S.T. and provided professional development on differentiated instruction. This summer the leadership team and I attended Max Thompson’s overview of learning focused schools. Max Thompson ‘s implementation of these research based strategies provided strategies for increasing student achievement. This year our focus will be ensuring teachers are implementing these best practices, particularly summarizing , advanced graphic organizers and higher order thinking strategies in the classroom across all curriculum content areas.

The new Instructional Appraisal System will be discussed and analyzed to align with teachers’ growth and overall student achievement. After teachers have been given the opportunity to reflect on past and current instructional practices, individual teacher conferences for PGP’s will be held with administrators and teacher leaders to discuss what they see as instructional strengths and weaknesses through the analysis of data ( A3, FAIR, FCAT, district assessments, etc.). The PGPs will be aligned with our School Improvement Plan.

Page 5

CONTENT AREA:

Reading Math Writing Science Parental Involvement

Drop-out Programs

Language Arts

Social Studies

Arts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)

All teachers at Christa McAuliffe Elementary will use standards based instruction focusing on use of strong essential questions which will lead to rigor and improved student achievement in all curriculum areas.

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible Timetable Budget In-ProcessMeasure

1. Lack of consistency in

All teachers will post the essential questions in classrooms and refer to them during instruction.

All classroom teachers

August – May 2013 - 2014

Administrative, district and peer mentor observations

2. Lack of full implementation

Scheduling times through out the day ( administrators and Leadership teams)

2. Continue to utilize with fidelity strategies from Classroom Instruction that Works by Robert Marzano, Teach Like a Champion by Doug Lemov, and Moving Schoosl: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders, by Max Thompson, and BEST trainings, which tie into the highly effective teaching practices needed to implement CCSS and NGSSS. Our main focus will be on Advanced Graphic Organizers and summarization Throughout the school and curriculum areas

All instructional staff August – May 2013-2014

Administrative observations

Administrative walk- throughs using a data collection tool “ Classroom Walk –Through” software designed to monitor the use of our SIP Instructional Strategies

Peer observations

Page 6

this year.

3.Lack of consistency

3. Provide SMART Time instruction, including the use of summarization and Graphic Organizers including Thinking Maps, and extended thinking question with fidelity to provide differentiated enrichment and intervention instruction for all students K-6th

All instructional staff August – May 2013-2014

Teacher observations and classroom walk throughs

4.Lack of knowledge of Response to Intervention resources/strategies.

4. Conduct bi-monthly K-6th MTSS meetings to discuss and document student progress and response to interventions.

Guidance counselorClassroom teachers PrincipalReading and Math CoachesAP

August – May 2013-2014

Meeting notes

5.Lack of knowledge of Response to Intervention resources/strategies.

5. Conduct K-6th Individual Problem Solving Team (IPST) meetings as needed to refer students who have received interventions but are not making adequate progress for further evaluation and determine who may qualify for GSP or enrichment.

IPST Team August - May 2013-2014

Meeting notesReferral paperwork

SMART time data

IPST and MTSS notes

6.Lack of consistency

6. Discuss grade level formative assessments in grade level PLCs to ensure consistency across each grade level

All teachersPrincipalLeadership teamLaunch teamsAPLiteracy coachTitle 1 math and science teacher

August – May 2013-2014

Classroom walk throughs

Teacher observations

PLC meeting notes

Page 7

and to modify assessments to test higher order thinking skills as required by CCSS.

Teachers will be required to bring updated data notebooks to PLCs

7. Lack of consistency

Data Notebooks will be kept by all students

teachers August – May 2013-2014

Administrative observations

Administrative Walk Throughs and follow up discussions

Peer observations8. Lack of knowledge

“Look fors” and

“Ask Abouts” will be shared with instructional staff

Essential questions, Advanced graphic organizers, summarization and Higher order questions , standards based instruction

All instructional staff August – May 2013-2014

Administrators and Leadership Team will share with instructional staff

Data will be collected during walk- throughs, formal and informal observations

Administrators and Peer Mentors will take the standards in hand when doing the walks throughs to insure standards based instruction is being done in the classrooms.

9. Lack of knowledge

“Look Fors” in teachers’ lesson plans will be:

Essential questions for the lesson

High order questions

Graphic organizer and summarization activities related to the lesson

AdministratorsPeer mentors

August – May 2013- 2014

Administrators will look at lesson plans during walk throughs.

Administrators will randomly ask for teachers’ lesson plans

Use the essential questions rubric

Lack or Focus on regular All instructional staff August – May 2013- Meeting notes.PLC

Page 8

knowledge timely feedback with teacher regarding student achievement on district assessments

2014 and Kid Talk, Data notebooks

Administrative observations and walk through notes provided to all teachers

11. Lack Of knowledge

Training on Higher Order Questioning by Rick Dillon on our October 4th PDD day and follow up on PDD Wednesdays

All instructional staff October 4, 2013 Sign in sheets, evaluation forms and final projects

12. Lack of consistency and knowledge

On going training on DATA analysis, CCSS across the curriculum and INDV file

All instructional staff August 20, 2013 Neyda Francis shared the INDV file with all teachers. Review data at PLC meetings twice a month from August – May 2013-14

Sign in sheets, use of information in teachers’ data notebooks

13. Lack of knowledge

Reading coach and district resource teachers will model lessons for math, reading and writing

All teachers August – May 2013-14

Observation notes, in-service records and discussion notes.

District resource teachers have been scheduled for PDD, walk throughs and PLC meetings

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school)

Essential questions for both reading and math will be posted and referred to throughout the lesson in every classroom. These will be the

“Look Fors” during administrative walk throughs, using the essential question rubric designed by the McAuliffe Leadership team based on

the Max Thompson’s rubric.

Teacher surveys will be developed and distributed assessing teachers’ working knowledge of Essential Questions. (pre, and post surveys).

According to our first survey done September 19, 2013, 11% of our classroom teachers indicated they had an understanding of essential

questions. Our expectation is that 90% of our classroom teachers will indicate on the post survey that they have an understanding of

essential questions and how to use them to drive instruction.

Page 9

Classroom Walk through data from the first month of school indicated that 22% of our classroom teachers had essential questions posted

in their classrooms. However, none of them were referring to them during instruction at that time. It is expected that by May of 2014,

90% of the classroom teachers will have essential questions posted for reading and math. Observation data and the essential questions

rubric will indicate that they are referred to during instruction. Lesson plans will be checked randomly to ensure that essential questions,

higher order thinking questions, advanced graphic organizers and the use of summarization are being incorporated into those plans.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures of student achievement)

Scores on all state and district assessments (FAIR,; FCAT2.0; district math, science, social studies, and writing tests; BELAA) as well as

grade level formative assessments, will increase due to teachers consistently and pervasively using evidenced based strategies (advanced

graphic organizers, summarization, and higher order thinking) and standards based instruction across the curriculum. Students who score

level 3 or above on FCAT 2.0 will increase by at least 8% in reading and 6% in math. Students who make learning gains will also

increase by 8% in all areas and in all subgroups.

Walk through indicators will show that the students are able to verbalize to observers the essential questions and how they assist their

learning.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI (Identify the MTSS leadership team and its role in development and implementation of the SIP along with data sources, data management and how staff is trained in MTSS)

The MTSS leadership team consists of the principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, staffing specialist, reading coach, and classroom teachers. The MTSS Leadership Team meets one time per week, with additional meetings added as necessary. The primary focus of the meetings: How do we develop and maintain a problem solving system to bring out the best in our school, our teachers, and ultimately our students? The team reviews data to help make instructional decisions and identifies professional development needs based on commonalities in data. The team works collaboratively to problem solve, share best practices, evaluate implementation, and make decisions. The team shares information with other staff members during faculty and/or professional learning communities.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT:

396 parents responded to the District Title 1 Parent Survey in 2012-13 compared to 133 the previous year. We will continue to increase the number of responses by doing the followingDistribute paper copies of the District Title 1 Parent Survey to all parents. Have a copy of our school’s Parent Involvement Plan in the office. See uploaded PIP on our school web site.

Page 10

Early Warning Systems (Formerly Attendance, Suspension, and Graduation Rate)

1. Elementary School Indicators

The following data shall be considered by elementary schools.

a. Students who miss 10 percent or more of available instructional time 48 FAMILIES(2012-13) 20 GAOL FOR (2013-14) B. Students retained, pursuant to s. 1008.25(4)(c), F.S. 3.2% OF OUR STUDENTS IN K-6TH WERE RETAINED c. Students who are not proficient in reading by third grade 6.3% WERE NOT PROFICIENT IN READING BY THIRD GRADE d. Students who receive two or more behavior referrals 30 e. Students who receive one or more behavior referrals that lead to suspension, as defined in s.1003.01(5), F.S.10 10

STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS: Students will be asked mid year and at the end of the school year how

they felt data notebooks and the use of the evidence based strategies ( summarization, advanced

graphic organizers and higher order thinking questions) helped them with their learning. These

results will be shared with our school community.

APPENDIX C

(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)

Highly Effective Teachers Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.

Descriptions of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date1. Regular meetings of new teachers with principal Principal Ongoing

2. Partner new teachers with veteran mentor teachers Principal and Assistant Principal Ongoing

Page 11

3. Place junior and senior UCF interns in classrooms with teachers who are CET certified

Principal, UCF coordinator Ongoing

4. Provide quality professional development Principal, Reading Coach, Math/Science Coach, Assistant Principal

Ongoing

Non-Highly Effective Instructors Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).

Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field/and who are not highly effective

Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support the staff in becoming highly effective

none

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS

FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 + NOTE: DATA ON DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE

FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 + NOTE: DATA ON

DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE

READING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013TOTAL POPULATION 74% 63% 61% TOTAL POPULATION 73% 61% 55%WHITE 77% 67% 66% WHITE 75% 66% 62%BLACK 73% 49% 52% BLACK 65% 40% 38%HISPANIC 66% 66% 64% HISPANIC 78% 70% 58%ED 69% 55% 56% ED 70% 56% 48%ELL na 50% 56% ELL NA 61% 40%EWD 45% 41% 54% EWD 45% 35% 47%

FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA ( DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT)

FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA (DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT)

READING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013LEVEL 1 13% 15% 16% LEVEL 1 10% 19% 20%LEVELS 3 and Above 84% 61% 61% LEVELS 3 and Above 83% 61% 55%LEVELS 4 & 5 14% 32% 30% LEVELS 4 & 5 37% 29% 25%LEARNING GAINS (LG) 66% 67% 69% LEARNING GAINS 70% 70% 70%LOWEST 25% (LG) 58% 65% 70% LOWEST 25% (LG) 57% 65% 65%WRITING (3.5 +) 88% 67% 45% WRITING (3.5 +) 88% 67% 45%SCIENCE (% 3 +) 59% 57% 47% SCIENCE (% 3 +) 58% 57% 47%

End of Course Testing (EOC)ALGEBRA 2011 2012 2013 BIOLOGY 2011 2012 2013

LEVEL 3 NA LEVEL 3 NA NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA

GEOMETRY 2011 2012 2013 US HISTORY 2011 2012 2013LEVEL 3 NA NA LEVEL 3 NA NA

Page 12

LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA

Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) NOTE: DATA ON THE FAA REPORTREADING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013

LEVELS 1, 2,3 na LEVELS 1, 2,3 na LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA

WRITING 2011 2012 2013 SCIENCE 2011 2012 2013LEVELS 1, 2,3 NA LEVELS 1, 2,3 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA

COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CELLA)LISTENING/SPEAKING 2011 2012 2013 READING 2011 2012 2013

KG 68% 30% KG 57% 0%1 56% 90% 1 56% 40%2 100% 100% 2 92% 100%3 0 38% 3 0% 13%4 50% 67% 4 50% 33%

5 80% 75% 5 80% 50%6 60% 83% 6 20% 33%7 na 7 8 NA 8 9 NA 9

10 NA 10

WRITING 2011 2012 2013KG 45% 0%1 44% 40%2 58% 57%3 0 25%

CELLA NOTE: REPORT % PROFICIENT BY GRADE LEVEL (DATA ON THE CELLA REPORT)

4 50% 33%5 60% 63%6 60% 0%7 8 9

10

Page 13

Subgroup

Percent Tested

Reading

R- % Scoring

Satisfactory 2012

R-% Scoring

Satisfactory 2013

HP Qualifyin

g in Reading

Target AMO

Reading

Met Target R

Safe Harbor, Reading

Improving, Reading

Maintaining or

Declining, Reading

Declining, Reading

Percent

Tested Math

ALL STDS 100% 63% 61% n 71 n n no yes yes 99%AME INDIAN NA

ASIAN NA

B/AA 100% 49% 52% n 69% no no yes no no 100%

HISPANIC 100% 66% 64% n 62% yes NA NA na na 100%

WHITE 100% 67% 66% n 74% no no no yes yes 99%

ELL 100% 50% 51% n 63% no no yes no no 100%

SWD 100% 41% 30% n 48% no no n yes yes 99%

FRL 100% 55% 56% n 64% no no yes no no 100%

Math

Subgroup

M-% Scoring

Satisfactory 2012

M % Scoring

Satisfactory 2013

HP Qualifying

in Math

Target AMO Math

Met Target Math

Safe Harbor,

MathImproving

, Math

Maintaining or

Declining, Math

Declining, Math

LG Pts for Low

25% Reading

LG Pts for

Low 25%

Math

ALL STDS 61% 55% N 67% no no no yes yes 79 65AME INDIAN na

ASIAN na

B/AA 40% 38% N 58% no no no yes yes

HISPANIC 70% 58% N 70% no no no yes yes

WHITE 66% 62% N 69% no no no yes yes

ELL 61% 34% N 71% no no no yes yes

SWD 35% 24% N 44% no no no yes yes

FRL 56% 49% N 63% no no no yes yes

Other

ALL STDSGraduation Rate, 2010

Graduation Rate, 2011

Writing % Satisfactor

y

Target AMO

Reading, 2014

Target AMO Math, 2014

Target AMO

Reading, 2015

Target AMO Math, 2015

Target AMO

Reading, 2016

Target AMO

Math, 2016

Target AMO

Reading, 2017

Target AMO Math, 2017

AME INDIAN na

ASIAN na

Page 14

B/AA 52% 72% 62% 75% 66% 78% 70% 82% 75%

HISPANIC 50% 66% 73% 69% 76% 73% 79% 77% 82%

WHITE 39% 77% 72% 79% 75% 82% 78% 85% 82%

ELL 44% 66% 74% 70% 77% 74% 80% 78% 83%

SWD 28% 54% 50% 59% 55% 64% 61% 69% 67%

FRL 41% 68% 66% 71% 70% 75% 74% 79% 78%

School Grade

YearSchool Grade Number of

Pts. EarnedSchool Gr. Change to

Current Yr. School Letter Grade

2011 584 0 A2012 515 -1 B2013 490 -1 C

Page 15