Post on 17-May-2018
Maryland’s Reform Plan
Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools
2017 Guidance Annual Update
June 2017
Maryland State Department of Education
Division of Student, Family, and School Support
Division of Academic Policy and Innovation
Office of Finance
Table of Contents
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page ii
Introduction: Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan iii
Executive Summary 2
Finance 9
Maryland’s Goals, Objective and Strategies 23
o PARCC English Language Arts Literacy Grade 3-8 and Grade
10
o PARCC Mathematics for Grades 3-8
o PARCC Algebra I
o PARCC Algebra II (Optional Reporting)
o High School Assessment Biology
o Elementary Social Studies
o High School Assessment Government
26
33
56
65
79
83
84
2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Assessments Requirements
2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Assessments Requirements Template
92
93
Appendices
Appendix A: Contact Information for MSDE Program Managers 106
Appendix B: Posting and General Submission Procedures 107
Appendix C: Bridge to Excellence Resources 109
Appendix D: Local Bridge to Excellence Points of Contact 110
Appendix E: Minority Achievement Action Plan 111
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page iii
Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan
Authorization
The 2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual Update is authorized by the following:
Section 5-401, Comprehensive Master Plans, Education Article of the Annotated Code of
Maryland;
Public Law 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;
Chapter 702 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland;
Chapter 264 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, Assessment Administration
and Provision of Information; and
Section 7-203.3, Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
Background
In 2002, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act. This
legislation provides a powerful framework for all 24 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to increase
student achievement for all students and to close the achievement gap. The Bridge to Excellence
legislation significantly increased State Aid to public education and required each LEA to develop a
comprehensive master plan, to be updated annually. Each LEA shall develop and implement a
comprehensive master plan that describes the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
improve student achievement in each segment of the student achievement. Additionally, each annual
update will include detailed summaries of the alignment between the LEA’s current year approved
budget, prior year actual budget and the master plan goals and objectives.
In 2016, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 999, the Commission on Innovation
and Excellence in Education, and HB 412, Assessment Administration and Provision of Information.
HB 999 outlines the reporting structure of the 2016 and 2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual
Update, which limits specified requirements to be reported in the master plan annual update for these
two years. HB 412 outlines assessment reporting details specified in the new Education Article Section
7-203.3 for each assessment administered in each LEA, and the information that shall be provided for
each administrated assessment. Below you will find the details of House Bill 999, House Bill 412 and
Section 7-203.3 demonstrating the revisions that must be included in the 2016 and 2017 master plan
annual updates.
Chapter 702 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland
Section 3 and be it further enacted, that: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for calendar
years 2016 and 2017, a county board of education’s annual update of the comprehensive master plan
required by § 5–401(b)(3) of the Education Article shall include only:
(1) the budget requirements required by § 5–401(b) (5) of the Education Article;
(2) the goals, objectives, and strategies regarding the performance of:
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page iv
(i) students requiring special education, as defined in § 5–209 of the 9 Education Article;
(ii) students with limited English proficiency, as defined in § 5–208 of the Education Article; and
(iii) students failing to meet, or failing to make progress toward 13 meeting, State performance
standards, including any segment of the student population that is, on average, performing at a
lower achievement level than the student population as a whole;
(3) the strategies to address any disparities in achievement for students in item (2)(iii) of this subsection;
and
(4) the requirements of § 7–203.3 of the Education Article, as enacted H.B. 412/ S.B. 533 of the Acts of
the General Assembly of 2016.
(b) (1) The State Department of Education shall convene a group of stakeholders to review the current
statutory and regulatory requirements of the master plan and the new requirements of the federal Every
Student Succeeds Act.
(2) On or before October 1, 2017, the Department shall report to the State Board of Education, the
Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, as enacted by Section 1 of this Act, and, in
accordance with § 2–1246 of the State Government Article, the General Assembly on recommendations
regarding: (i) what information future comprehensive master plans should contain; and (ii) whether
future comprehensive master plans should be completed in a digital form that can be updated
periodically.
Chapter 264 and Section 7-203.3
Chapter 264 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, Assessment Administration and
Provision of Information, Chapter 264 includes the new §7-203.3, Education Article of the Annotated
Code of Maryland. The reporting requirements are:
7–203.3 (A) (1) In this section, “ASSESSMENT” means a locally, state, or federally mandated test that is
intended to measure a student’s academic readiness, learning progress, and skill
acquisition.
(2) “ASSESSMENT” does not include a teacher-developed quiz or test.
(B) This section does not apply to an assessment or test given to a student relating to:
(1) A student’s 504 Plan;
(2) The federal individuals with disabilities education Act, 20 U.S.C.1400; or
(3) Federal law relating to English Language Learners
(C) For each assessment administered in a local education agency, each county board shall provide the
following information:
(1) The title of the assessment;
(2) The purpose of the assessment;
(3) Whether the assessment is mandated by a local, state or federal entity;
(4) The grade level or subject area, as appropriate, to which the test is administered;
(5) The testing window of the assessment; and
(6) Whether accommodations are available for students with special needs and what the
accommodations are.
(D) On or before October 15th
of each year, the information required under subsection (A) of this shall
be:
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page v
(1) updated;
(2) posted on the website of the county board; and
(3) included in the annual update of the county board’s master plan required under § 5–401 of
this article section.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page vi
2017 Master Plan Annual Update
(Include this page as a cover to the submission indicated below.)
Master Plan Annual Update
Due: October 16, 2017
Local Education Agency Submitting this Report:
Somerset
Address:
7982-A Tawes Campus Drive
Westover, Maryland 21871
Local Point of Contact: Jill Holland
Telephone: 410-621-6276
E-mail: jholland@somerset.k12.md.us
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided in the 2017
Annual Update to our Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is correct and complete and adheres to
the requirements of the Bridge to Excellence. We further certify that this Annual Update has
been developed in consultation with members of the local education agency’s current Master Plan
Planning Team and that each member has reviewed and approved the accuracy of the information
provided in the Annual Update.
_______________________________________ ________________________
Signature of Local Superintendent of Schools Date
or Chief Executive Officer
______________________________________ ________________________
Signature of Local Point of Contact Date
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page vii
Local Planning Team Members
Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan planning
team. Please include affiliation or title where applicable.
Name Affiliation/Title
Jill Holland
Instructional Technology & Social Studies Supervisor
Dr. John Gaddis
Superintendent of Schools
Tom Davis
Deputy Superintendent of Schools
Tracie Bartemy
Director of Schools
Terry Drechsler
Math Supervisor & LAC
Traci Schneider
Elementary Math, Science, & STEM Supervisor
Will Gray
Secondary Science & Fine Arts Supervisor
Cheryl O’Neal
Special Education Supervisor
Lilly Welch
ELA & EL Supervisor
Tracey Cottman
Student Services Supervisor
Linda Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 2
Executive Summary
I.A
Instructions:
The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act in accordance with the Annotated Code of
Maryland §5-401, Annotated Code of Maryland §7-203.3, and the Chapter 702, Commission on
Innovation and Excellence in Education, requires LEAs to develop and submit a 2017 annual
update to the comprehensive master plan to the Department for review. In alignment with the
Annotated Code of Maryland § 5-401, Annotated Code of Maryland §7-203.3, Chapter 702, and
the Maryland State Board of Education’s vision to create a world class system to prepare all
students for college and career, the comprehensive master plan annual update should include
goals, objectives, and strategies to promote academic excellence among all students.
Reported strategies are to address any disparities in achievement for students requiring special
education services, as defined in §5-209 of the Education Article, students with limited English
proficiency, as defined in §5-208 of the Education Article and students failing to meet, or failing
to make progress towards meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State
performance standards, LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population
that is, on average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a
whole.
School systems are encouraged to craft the Executive Summary in a way that is meaningful and
purposeful to their stakeholders and school community. The Executive Summary should serve as
a stand-alone document that summarizes progress that the LEA is making in accelerating student
performance and eliminating achievement gaps, as described throughout the master plan annual
update. Only specified reporting requirements noted in this guidance should be included in this
Executive Summary.
The Executive Summary shall include a budget narrative section that provides a detailed
summary of the fiscal climate in the LEA. The budget narrative section should also describe any
changes in demographics and the fiscal climate, along with a discussion of the effect of these
changes on the LEA and Master Plan implementation.
The following is a suggested outline for the Executive Summary:
I. Introduction
The Somerset County Public School (SCPS) Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update
document serves to guide the school system in its efforts to provide a rigorous curriculum,
instructional strategies that meet the needs of individual students, adequate resources to meet
those needs, and a safe and welcoming learning environment. SCPS is committed to meeting
the goals set forth by the State for academic excellence, highly qualified teachers, and a Safe
and Secure Environment. This plan specifies how those goals will be achieved through data
analysis to identify challenges, a review of programs and practices to identify where
adjustments are needed, and alignment of resources to specific changes.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 3
Somerset continues to meet the many challenges associated with providing a quality
educational experience to our students. From PARCC to KRA, Somerset students are
showing growth that only comes from hard work, persistence, and sound instructional
decision making. We are proud to see that Somerset remains among the top in the state for
Early Childhood Kindergarten Readiness based on recently published KRA results and we
have maintained success in other tested areas.
Additional successes can be found in how SCPS is expanding and growing to meet the needs
of our students and community. Somerset County is among the first in the state to implement
the elementary robotics PLTW and now we’re extending that up to the intermediate level,
making it a class for our sixth and seventh graders. At the high school, we are piloting a
distance learning, dual enrollment initiative with Wor-Wic Community College where Wor-
Wic staff will teach a dual enrollment psychology class via video conferencing to students at
Crisfield High School this year. Finally, all SCPS students and staff now have access to G-
Suite, enhancing and increasing instructional technology.
Somerset continues to provide breakfast and lunch to all students free of charge through the
CEP (Community Education Program), doing our part to ensure the nutritional needs of our
students are met. This year we even had food pick up sites through the summer to help our
students even when they are not in school.
Additionally, we now have Judy Centers operating at both ends of the county to better
address the needs of our early learners. We also have a collaborative partnership with
Crisfield Head Start where they will be housing their program in a renovated part of Crisfield
Academy and High School, which is scheduled to open by fall of 2017.
As part of our focus on early learning in Somerset County, we have re-aligned our
elementary and primary grades on the northern end of our county. Formerly both Princess
Anne and Greenwood Elementary Schools served students in grades PK-5, even though they
were less than a half mile apart. Princess Anne Elementary will now serve as the county’s
northern end early learning center, serving students from PK-1. Greenwood will now house
all students in grades 2-5 on the northern end. This will enable early learners to focus on the
basics without the distractions of testing and other factors that occur in later elementary
school. We are proud to make this transition that will allow students, and teachers, to better
focus on learning.
While we shifted buildings at the elementary level, we shifted schedules at the secondary
level. We have moved from seven periods to six at our high schools this year. This shift
allows at least ten more minutes of instructional time per class and allows more flexibility
with our staff and our student schedules.
Finally, we are embarking on the building of a new technical high school for the county with
100% funding from the county. Groundbreaking for this state of the art building is scheduled
for October 2017. The new facility will enable CTE programs to better utilize space and
technology to make students truly College and Career Ready.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 4
Special education continues to be a challenge for our county overall. The special education
population is increasing along with special needs and therefore, costs associated with those
needs. This year we hired additional special education paraprofessionals to help address the
need. Additionally, we embarked upon a full county UDL initiative that will extend over the
next three years. SCPS has hired Saving Lives Inc. to provide extensive UDL and student
engagement training to all teachers over the summer. This training was given multiple times
over the summer to allow teachers the opportunity to participate. Upon the start of school,
new teachers were trained and a follow-up training occurred as soon as teachers returned.
We plan to follow through with this training by doing classroom learning walks and
additional training based on needs.
Another challenge we continue to address is minority achievement, which represents our
group that is failing to achieve. SCPS’ main goal for students failing to make progress
towards state performance standards is to increase academic achievement as measured by
state tests. We use a variety of strategies to address achievement disparities in our system.
First we have developed a Minority Achievement Committee that meets regularly to address
the issues, including achievement and disproportionate discipline data. The committee
includes SCPS staff as well as UMES staff and community leaders. The Superintendent also
works with UMES in a collaborative mentoring program. Additionally, we hold parent
outreach sessions to provide resources that allow parents to help their children be successful.
To meet our goals, we intend to implement academic interventions to directly assist students;
provide professional development to teachers to ensure UDL and other research based
strategies are being used; and use mindfulness techniques to allow students and staff to better
focus on learning.
Many students failing to achieve also exhibit behavioral issues that detract from focus on
learning. We are using mindfulness techniques with students to promote better focus and as
a strategy to cope with challenging events. This program focuses on helping to increase our
staff and student's capacity to maintain a positive outlook and manage emotions. Three
schools will pilot this initiative this year: Princess Anne Elementary, Greenwood
Elementary, and Somerset Intermediate. Over 80 staff members from these schools were
trained over the summer and parent trainings will be held in October. We look forward to
providing strategies for both students and staff that enable education to become the priority
as opposed to discipline. (Minority Achievement Plan Timeline Appendix)
In the same vein, counselors and several staff members have participated in mental health
first aid training. The county also added another Behavior Specialists this year.
Academically, we use UDL system- wide as a way to better meet the needs of individual
students. UDL allows students choice and voice in how they interact with the information as
well as how they demonstrate learning.
Finally, a multitude of intervention programs are scheduled for students based on state and
county test data. These interventions are research based, content focused, and often adaptive.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 5
Many of these interventions essentially create personalized learning experiences based on
student achievement.
English Language Learners also represent a challenge for our system. SCPS’ main goal for
students with limited English proficiency is to increase student proficiency on the Access
test. We also will increase academic achievement for this sub-group as measured by state
tests, including PARCC and HSA. Strategies must be implemented by ELL teachers and
supervisor to ensure that more individualized intervention is given to all of these students.
Finally, we continue to struggle to adequately fund initiatives that are necessary to fully
address the challenges set before us. While state funding has increased and county funding
exceeds what is required, we still do not have enough to fully address our needs. Further
concern is the possibility of losing the CEP funding for our school lunch program. The need
for CEP is justified by both our FARMS rate and the number of meals served to our students
last year.
Somerset County continues to utilize our resources to make sound instructional decisions and
meet the needs of our students. We are living our motto: Success, Nothing Less!
II. Budget Narrative
a. Fiscal Outlook, changes in demographics
Maryland is consistently ranked as one of the wealthiest states in the nation and was
identified in the 2009 “Overview of Maryland Local Governments” by the Department of
Legislative Services as having “one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation” at 8.3%. The
latest statistics show Somerset County possessing a poverty rate above the state average and
the lowest median household income in Maryland.
Somerset, with the second smallest population of a Maryland County, has the lowest taxable
income in Maryland; therefore, the 3.15% income tax, the second highest in the state, does
not yield significant revenue. That is, even with one of the highest income tax rates in the
state, the assessable base in Somerset is so low it does not yield significant revenue. Thus,
even if an income tax increase were to be entertained, it would not bring in a corresponding
increase in revenue.
Somerset has experienced a 2.9%-point increase in minority population between 2000 and
2010 and a 7% overall population increase.
Somerset’s school system enrollment is 2927 and is comprised of approximately of 40%
White students, 44% African American students, 9% Hispanic students, 5% more than one
race, and less than 2% Asian, Hawaiian and American Indian students. Approximately 40%
of Somerset’s children live in single parent households, and 76% of all students are on Free
and Reduced Meals. The 2010 Census cites 19.1% of Somerset’s adult population having
less than a high school diploma and only 14.3% with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 6
Though demographics mostly refer to our student and family population, it is worth noting
that our teacher demographic is changing significantly and rapidly. Last year SCPS suffered
a very high teacher turnover rate: this year that number increased to 8.29%. This results in a
lot of new teacher training, re-training for specific programs, and mentoring in addition to the
strain on our Human Resources department.
The State General Assembly’s enactment of the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act
in April, 2002 remains a major investment in Somerset’s capacity to provide quality
education to its children. Somerset County Public Schools experienced significant increases
in funding as a result of Thornton and demonstrated the positive educational impact of those
increased resources by outstanding gains in meeting standards (An Evaluation of the Effect of
Increased State Aid to Local School Systems Through the Bridge to Excellence Act MGT
Report, 2005 and 2008). Specifically, between 2004 and 2008 Somerset experienced an
increase of over 63% in state revenue. However, no provision for continuing BTE funding
beyond June 30, 2008 was made.
The Federal Government passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
during 2009. This infused large sums of money into education to prevent the massive
reduction of services to students as school systems nationwide were encountering financial
difficulties. These funds were provided for a two year period which ended September 30,
2011 and had unprecedented accountability and reporting requirements. The Board received
over $1.9 million for FY 2010 and FY 2011 under this Act but allocated the funds cautiously
in order to avoid funding issues at the end of the grant period. However in FY 2013, the loss
of these funds has been felt in program, staffing, and services.
Increases in state funding for FY18 have allowed SCPS to begin to add several new critical
positions including 4 testing coordinators at our largest schools, several classroom teaching
positions to enable realignment to work with northern elementary classes of less than 20 and
other critical roles.
Part of the increase from the state was to help cover expenses for pre-K for all students. Last
year SCPS funded this initiative completely at the local level. This year we are grateful to
receive an additional $590,000 from the state to fund this critical initiative.
Grants continue to allow SCPS to extend our scope of services to meet the needs of our
diverse learners. For our students craving STEM enrichment we received $13,000 for a
robotics club after school at Washington High School. In an effort to address mental health
issues in our county and provide support to staff in this regard, we received a Project Aware
grant several years ago that we continue to draw from. As our use of this grant matures we
have extended our scope of service to include training and school based support on
mindfulness.
Finally, SCPS has received approval for over 42 million dollars from state and local levels to
build a new technical high school. The state approved over 35 million of the expenses with
14.7 million dollars for the first year. Somerset County acquired a USDA loan to finance the
remaining 7.4 million. This money will finance a new career and technical school, complete
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 7
with new technology and furniture. While the project itself is completely covered by the
above appropriations, SCPS will incur additional operating expenses that come with
operating another building. The existing career and technology center will remain in use as
the central office.
b. Impact of changes on the school system and the master plan goals and
objectives
Somerset County’s main priority going into the FY 2018 school year is to maintain staff and
core programs, while at the same time creating support positions at schools, updating data
systems, and providing necessary professional development.
A major focus of the superintendent has been increasing early learning opportunities with the
end goal being Kindergarten readiness. Since hiring an Early Learning Coordinator several
years ago, Somerset has development 2 Judy Centers with robust curriculums and
enrichment. Additionally, Somerset continues to provide pre-K for all. This critical
foundation has paid off. Somerset’s full population (not sample) scored among the highest in
the state on Kindergarten readiness.
At our northern end, elementary re-alignment will allow early learners to focus on learning
without distraction while older elementary students will receive increased administrative
support to provide for the demands of those students.
Increasing support positions in schools is a critical step in improving student achievement.
With 30 new staff members, 70% of whom were new teachers, support services are critical.
The new test coordinators at our two high schools and two larger elementary schools will
enable instructional facilitators to be in classes with struggling teachers instead of doing
paperwork for testing. In addition to maintaining our two full-time testing coordinators, we
also hired a family involvement coordinator to help support our Title I schools in our
outreach and compliance. All of these positions allow our instructional facilitators to help
teachers improve their craft, differentiate instruction, and provide effective teaching
strategies to students.
As we provide academic support we attempt to provide emotional and social support for
students and staff that may need it. Mental illness can prove challenging to someone in
personal relationships, including those at school. Managing classes with so many
personalities can be difficult at the best of times but mental illness can compound the severity
of the issue and the class dynamic. Further, teacher responses to such difficult circumstances
can alleviate or exacerbate the situation. Mindfulness training, a strategy funded through our
Project Aware grant, is intended to provide children and adults strategies for coping with
difficult situations. We hope these strategies will enable students to focus on academics and
achieve more.
School systems nationally are focusing on transitioning to the Common Core State
Standards, (CCSS) and Somerset is no different. As we become more familiar with the
standards and the rigor we are working toward creating more effective programs for both
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 8
college bound students and career ready students. For college bound students, we have
invested in training teachers to teach solid AP classes like AP US History as previous
teachers leave our employment. We also continue to expand our dual enrollment offerings,
even including a distance learning partnership.
All of these areas of priority require varying amounts of professional development. Ongoing
Leadership development, training in the use of the new Finance and HR systems, and
implementing the new Common Core Curriculum. Local FY 2017 funds are being used to
provide the needed professional development this year.
c. Responses to analyzing questions (Section 1.B – Finance)
III. Goal Progress
a. Maryland’s Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Regarding Performance of:
i. Students requiring special education services;
ii. Students with limited English proficiency;
iii. Students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards meeting State
performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that
is, on average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student
population as a whole.
b. Strategies to Address any Discrepancies in Achievement of:
i. Students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards meeting State
performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that
is, on average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student
population as a whole.
IV. Assessment Administered Requirement a. The requirements of §7-203.3 of Education Article for each assessment
administered, the LEA must provide the following information:
The title of the assessment;
The purpose of the assessment;
Whether the assessment is mandated by a local or state entity;
The grade level or subject area, as appropriate, to which the test is
administered;
The testing window of the assessment; and
Whether accommodations are available for students with special
needs and what accommodations are.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 10
I.B
Finance Section
Introduction
The finance section, in conjunction with the budget narrative information in the Executive
Summary, includes a Current Year Variance Table, a Prior Year Variance Table, and analyzing
questions. Together, these documents illustrate the LEA’s alignment of current year budget and
prior year expenditures with the Master Plan goals and objectives. The focus of the finance
section will be the total budget and all budgetary changes (retargeted funds, redistributed
resources, and new funds.)
Components
1. The Executive Summary (I.A) includes a budget narrative that describes the fiscal
outlook, fiscal changes and changes in demographics, the impact of changes on the
school system and the master plan goals and objectives, and the responses to analyzing
questions.
a. Supporting Budget Tables i. Current Year Variance Table: the budgetary plan for FY 2018.
ii. Prior Year Variance Table: a comparative look at the FY 2017 plan versus
actual events.
2. Resource Allocation Discussions are included in the content analysis throughout the
2018 Master Plan Update. This provides school systems with an opportunity to illustrate
the totality of their commitment to accelerating student achievement and eliminating
gaps. These discussions should include use of new funds, redirected funds, and/or
retargeted resources. Discussions of a particular initiative may occur in several places
within the content analysis, but expenditures should appear only once in the variance
table.
3. Analyzing Questions are based on the Prior Year Variance Tables. Responses to these
questions should be embedded within the Budget Narrative.
Instructions
Supporting Budget Tables
1. The purpose of the variance tables is to illustrate that LEA Master Plan goals and
objectives are aligned with annual budgets.
2. These tables are not intended to be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).
3. Revenue and expenditures must equal.
4. It is appropriate to include Transfers in the Other Category.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 11
5. For expenditures, identify each as restricted or unrestricted. Federal IDEA and Title I
funds must be separately identified and listed by CFDA number and grant name.
For the Current Year Variance Table, LEAs will allocate their total budget by revenue and
expenditure.
Revenue is reported by source: Local Appropriation, Other Local Revenue, State
Revenue, Federal Revenue, Other Federal Funds, and Other Resources/Transfers. All
Federal Title I and IDEA funds must be separately identified and listed by CFDA
number and grant name. Other federal funds should be consolidated into the other
federal funds line.
Expenditures are reported based on the corresponding section of Race to the Top and the
reform assurance area. LEAs should include the expenditure item, the fund source, the
amount of the expenditure and all associated FTE. For fund source, use unrestricted
(State and/or Local funds) or restricted. For restricted funds include the federal CFDA
number.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 12
1.1A: Current Year Variance Table
Local School System: Somerset
FY 18 Budget Revenue Category
Local Appropriation
$9,741,620
Other Local Revenue
83,088 State Revenue
31,780,494
Federal Revenue 84.388: Title I - School Improvement
84.395: Race to the Top
84.010: Title I
1,548,798
84.027: IDEA, Part B
809,335
Other Federal Funds
1,337,840
Other Resources/Transfers
289,068
Total $45,590,243
Instructions: Itemize FY 2016 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, regular Title I and IDEA, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing business, and other.
Section B - Standards and Assessments Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy.
Expenditures:
Source
Amount
FTE
Textbooks and Materials
Unrestricted
497,568
Textbooks and Materials
Restricted
117,082
Textbooks and Materials
84.010
30,964
Textbooks and Materials
84.027
30,462
Section C - Data Systems to support instruction Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction.
Expenditures:
Source
Amount
FTE
Data Analyst and Associate
Unrestricted
169,904
3
Equipment
Unrestricted
317,445
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 13
Equipment
84.010
10,500
Equipment
84.027
3,198
Infrastructure ( including software)
Unrestricted
77,150
Technicians
Unrestricted
274,372
6
Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most.
Expenditures:
Source
Amount
FTE
Extra Duty Contracts
Unrestricted
150,000
Instructional Leadership
Unrestricted
739,836
8.5
Instructional Staff
Unrestricted
13,998,513
277
Instructional Staff
84.010
910,057
Human Resources
Unrestricted
341,927
4
Instructional Staff
84.027
356,220
Instructional Staff
Restricted
333,383
Professional Development
Unrestricted
345,211
Professional Development
84.010
14,400
Professional Development
84.027
15,980
Mid-Level Administration
84.010
11,004
Mid-Level Administration
Restricted
20,335
School Leadership
Unrestricted
2,559,419
34
Special Education Services
Unrestricted
2,844,733
38
Technology
Unrestricted
282,040
Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieveing Schools Reform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 14
Expenditures:
Source
Amount
FTE
Extracurricular Activities
Unrestricted
53,500
Assemblies
84.010
10,600
Parental Involvement
84.010
95,400
Instructional Assistants
Unrestricted
906,497
71.75
Learning Support Specialists
Unrestricted
155,343
8
Summer/Extended Education
Unrestricted
91,000
Student and Health Services
Unrestricted
1,022,212
11
Community Services
Restricted
170,944
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items considered mandatory costs.
Expenditures: Source Amount FTE
Board of Education Unrestricted 113,400
1
Building Operations and Maintenance Unrestricted 3,298,517
36
Clerical Support Unrestricted 146,769
2
Consortium Dues Unrestricted 41,000
Finance Office Unrestricted 477,339
6
Fringe Benefits Unrestricted 8,878,202
Fringe Benefits 84.010 453,445
Fringe Benefits 84.027 235,570
Fringe Benefits Restricted 229,103
Office of the Superintendent Unrestricted 299,500
2
Public Relations Unrestricted 107,628
1
Special Education Services 84.027 166,235
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 15
Special Education Services Restricted 276,416
Supplies, Postage, and Equipment Unrestricted 94,378
Supplies, Postage, and Equipment 84.010 1,828
Transportation 84.010 10,600
Transportation 84.027 1,670
Transportation Restricted 18,666
Transportation Unrestricted 3,028,068
Administration Restricted 2,256
Transfers Restricted 4,588
Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Transfers should be included in this section.
Expenditures:
Source
Amount
FTE
Out of County and Non Public Placement Unrestricted
34,000
Judy Center
Restricted
495,000
5
Migrant
Restricted
218,866
1
Adult Education
Unrestricted
-
Total
45,590,243
515.25
The Prior Year Variance Table is intended to provide a comparative analysis between the plan
and the actual events in the prior year. LEAs will update the pre-populated tables with actual
data (revenue, expenditure, and full time equivalent - FTE).
The Prior Year Variance table (plan v. actual for FY 2017). The prior year revenue is
presented as the approved budget at the start of the fiscal year compared with the
approved budget at the end of the fiscal year. All Federal Title I and IDEA funds must
be separately identified and listed by CFDA number and grant name. Other federal funds
should be consolidated into the other federal funds line.
The expenditure data is presented as planned compared to realized expenditures and
shown by the corresponding section of Race to the Top and the reform assurance area,
mandatory costs and other categories. This table also includes planned and actual FTE at
the expenditure level and includes the fund source. For fund source, include unrestricted
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 16
(State and/or Local funds) or restricted. For restricted funds include the federal CFDA
number.
1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures)
Local School System: Somerset
FY 2017 Original Budget
FY 2017 Final Budget
Revenue
7/1/2016 6/30/2017 Change %
Change
Local Appropriation
9,754,044
9,603,976
(150,068) -1.54%
State Revenue
29,061,814
29,078,887
17,073 0.06%
Federal Revenue 84.010 Title I 1,425,582
1,416,011
(9,571) -0.67%
Federal Revenue 84.027 IDEA 791,449
770,257
(21,192) -2.68%
Other Federal Funds
1,595,107
2,217,272
622,165 39.00%
Other Local Revenue
83,088
228,929
145,841 175.53%
Other Resources/Transfers
266,432
266,432
- 0.00%
-
Total
42,977,516
43,581,764
604,248
Change in Expenditures - Instructions: Itemize FY 2015 actual expenditures and FTE by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, regular Title I and IDEA, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing business, and other.
Assurance Area Source Expenditure Description
Planned Expenditure
Actual Expenditure
Planned FTE
Actual FTE
Standards and Assessments Unrestricted Textbooks and Materials
315,979.00
311,447.00
-
Standards and Assessments Restricted Textbooks and Materials
129,397.00
269,139.00
-
Standards and Assessments 84.010 Textbooks and Materials
17,364.00
24,346.00
-
Standards and Assessments 84.027 Textbooks and Materials
13,419.00
15,601.00
-
Data Systems to Support Instruction
Unrestricted Data Analyst and Associate
145,287.00
117,336.00
3.0
3.0
Data Systems to Support Instruction
Unrestricted Equipment 285,000.00
362,696.00
-
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 17
Data Systems to Support Instruction
84.010 Equipment 13,560.00
14,841.00
-
Data Systems to Support Instruction
84.027 Equipment 4,198.00
- -
Data Systems to Support Instruction
Restricted Software and Equipment
26,200.00
- -
Data Systems to Support Instruction
Unrestricted Infrastructure ( including software)
121,900.00
89,151.00
-
Data Systems to Support Instruction
Unrestricted Technicians 256,692.00
258,604.00
6.0
6.0
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Extra Duty Contracts 150,000.00
160,105.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Instructional Leadership
672,581.00
701,930.00
8.5
8.5
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Instructional Staff 13,442,128.00
13,303,007.00
239.0
224.0
Great Teachers and Leaders 84.010 Instructional Staff 923,790.00
907,325.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Human Resources 294,173.00
303,143.00
4.0
4.0
Great Teachers and Leaders 84.027 Instructional Staff 361,751.00
505,606.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Restricted Instructional Staff 522,298.00
95,304.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Professional Development
263,000.00
286,553.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders 84.010 Professional Development
33,400.00
26,623.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders 84.027 Professional Development
36,075.00
14,712.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Restricted Professional Development
34,678.00
- -
Great Teachers and Leaders 84.010 Mid-Level Administration
7,814.00
6,458.00
-
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted School Leadership 2,126,165.00
2,393,779.00
32.5
34.0
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Special Education Services
2,697,824.00
2,733,289.00
38.0
35.0
Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Technology 245,750.00
185,752.00
-
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Unrestricted Extracurricular Activities
43,185.00
49,925.00
-
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
84.010 Assemblies 6,400.00
982.00
-
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
84.010 Parental Involvement
10,159.00
1,443.00
-
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 18
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Unrestricted Instructional Assistants
646,416.00
732,199.00
47.8
63.0
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Unrestricted Learning Support Specialists
396,925.00
91,858.00
7.0
7.0
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Unrestricted Summer/Extended Education
95,000.00
74,183.00
-
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Unrestricted Student and Health Services
588,566.00
975,200.00
12.6
10.0
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Restricted Student and Health Services
8,860.00
435,948.00
-
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Restricted Community Services 170,944.00
- -
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Board of Education 111,900.00
110,621.00
1.0
1.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Building Operations and Maintenance
3,090,713.00
3,174,745.00
34.0
40.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Clerical Support 141,031.00
143,962.00
2.0
2.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Consortium Dues 39,240.00
45,671.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Finance Office 448,327.00
451,895.00
5.5
6.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Fringe Benefits 8,565,298.00
7,681,353.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.010 Fringe Benefits 406,995.00
431,764.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.027 Fringe Benefits 231,535.00
230,649.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Restricted Fringe Benefits 224,299.00
320,251.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Office of the Superintendent
295,500.00
380,726.00
2.0 2.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Public Relations 101,766.00
104,826.00
1.0 1.0
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.027 Special Education Services
141,531.00
- -
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Restricted Special Education Services
293,338.00
716,129.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Supplies, Postage, and Equipment
106,827.00
99,165.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.010 Supplies, Postage, and Equipment
1,000.00
624.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.010 Transportation 5,100.00
1,605.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
84.027 Transportation 2,940.00
3,689.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Restricted Transportation -
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 19
Business 31,429.00 83,081.00
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Transportation 2,891,339.00
2,976,521.00
- 1.5
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Restricted Administration 40,903.00
119,028.00
-
Mandatory Cost of Doing Business
Unrestricted Carryover to FY19 Budget
270,444.00
Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Transfers should be included in this section.
Unrestricted Out of County and Non Public Placement
22,000.00
39,644.00
-
Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Transfers should be included in this section.
Restricted Judy Center 495,000.00
560,536.00
5.0
5.0
Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Transfers should be included in this section.
Restricted Migrant 182,627.00
183,838.00
1.0
1.0
Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Transfers should be included in this section.
Unrestricted Adult Education -
2,512.00
Total
42,977,516.00
Resource Allocation Discussions are included in the content analysis throughout the 2017
Master Plan Update.
Throughout the Master Plan Update, LEAs are asked to respond to analyzing prompts based on
performance data or other reported information. LEAs are asked to identify challenges and then
specifically describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress,
include timelines where appropriate and a discussion of corresponding resource allocations.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 20
In their discussion of corresponding resource allocations, LEAs should include funding targeted
to changes or adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program,
initiative, or activity. LEAs must identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is restricted Title I, or IDEA funding, include the CFDA number, grant name, and
the associated funds. Otherwise, identify the source include associated funds.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 21
Analyzing Questions
Please use the information provided in the Prior Year Variance Table to develop answers to
the following questions. Responses should be embedded in the Budget Narrative section of the
Executive Summary.
Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
1. Did actual FY 2017 revenue meet expectations as anticipated in the Master Plan Update
for 2017? If not, identify the changes and the impact any changes had on the FY 2017
budget and on the system’s progress towards achieving Master Plan goals. Please include
any subsequent appropriations in your comparison table and narrative analysis.
Overall revenues in FY2017 exceeded budget projections in Unrestricted Local/State
funding and Restricted Federal funding. Project Aware funding allowed us to add
additional staff to assist students.
2. For each assurance area, please provide a narrative discussion of the changes in
expenditures and the impact of these changes on the Master Plan goals.
Standards and Assessments
In FY 2017 we were able to purchase a new middle school science curriculum. This series
allows us to align our 6th
and 7th
grade program with the new Next Generation Science
Standards.
Data Systems to Support Instruction
The school system purchased software and equipment using both Unrestricted and Restricted
funds to further improve the use of data systems for instructional improvements. These
purchases improve communication between teachers and students, presentation of class
materials, and the compilation and reporting of grades and other assessments. Several
additional laptops were purchased for students and teachers to use in the classroom.
Great Teachers and Leaders
Once again we used funds to develop today’s teachers into our future leaders of tomorrow.
We were able to continue providing our teachers with competitive salaries and benefits along
with professional development opportunities.
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Credit recovery was provided during the summer to assist high school students fulfill their
academic requirements so that they could graduate on time. The school district continually
strives to improve our policies, procedures, and administrative functions to improve our
lowest performing schools. Using 21st Century grant money, we were able to continue our
after school academies to help increase student performance. Our Project Aware grant has
allowed us to hire additional staff in order to help identify those students that may be
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 22
struggling emotionally and behaviorally. By resolving some of those issues, the student may
be able to turn around his/her school performance.
Definitions of Key Terms
1. Original Approved Budget – budget as approved at the beginning (July 1) of the fiscal
year
2. Final Approved Budget – budget as approved at the end (June 30) of the fiscal year
3. Redistributed Funds – funds that were once used for a different purpose, now being used
for a new purpose
4. Retargeted Resources – resources that are being used for a new purpose without a change
in funding
Submission Information
1. MSDE will transmit the budget documents to LEAs in an Excel workbook in early July.
The workbook will include spreadsheets for the Current and Prior Year Variance Tables.
2. Two methods of submission. As noted in the Submission Instructions in Appendix D, an
electronic Excel workbook containing the budget documents must be submitted with the
2017 Master Plan Update and uploaded separately to DocuShare OR Google Drive. This
submission process applies to the original October 16 and final November 17
submissions. ALL final budget documents should include any changes made as a result
of the review process.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 24
Maryland’s Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Maryland remains committed to addressing significant gains and progress for all students. As
part of the 2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual Update, LEAs are required to analyze
their State assessment data, and implementation of goals, objectives and strategies to determine
their effect on student achievement and classroom practices.
Based on the Chapter 702 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, the
Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, the reporting requirements regarding
the performance of certain students in all indicated assessments must include goals, objectives
and strategies. Strategies must address any discrepancies in achievement. For this annual update,
the reporting requirements must address for the following student populations:
i. Students requiring special education services;
ii. Students with limited English proficiency; and
iii. Students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards meeting State
performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that
is, on average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student
population as a whole.
Based on House Bill 999, the reporting requirement must also include strategies to address any
discrepancies in achievement for students failing to meet, or failing to make progress toward
meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards, LEAs are
required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average, performing at a
lower achievement level than the student population as a whole. Describe the goals, objectives,
and strategies regarding the performance of each identified student group.
In your analysis of students requiring special education services, LEAs must consider the
following special education issues within the responses:
Access to the General Education Curriculum. How are students accessing general
education so they are involved and progressing in the general curriculum at elementary,
middle and high school levels and across various content areas?
Collaboration with General Educators. How is the local education agency ensuring
collaboration between general and special education staff, including such opportunities as
joint curricular planning, provision of instructional and testing accommodations,
supplementary aids and supports, and modifications to the curriculum?
Strategies used to address the Achievement Gap. When the local education agency has
an achievement gap between students with disabilities and the all students subgroup,
what specific strategies are in place to address this gap? Identify activities and funds
associated with targeted grants to improve the academic achievement outcomes of the
special education subgroup.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 25
Interventions, enrichments and supports to address diverse learning needs. How are
students with disabilities included in, or provided access to, intervention/enrichment
programs available to general educations students?
In your analysis of students with Limited English Language proficiency, you must consider
reporting the progress of English Learners (ELs) in the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 in developing and
attaining English language proficiency and achievement on the reading/language arts and
mathematics State’s assessments for the following indicators.
Indicator 1 is used to demonstrate the percentages of ELs progressing toward English
proficiency. To demonstrate progress, Maryland uses an overall composite proficiency
level obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0. ELs are considered to have made
progress if their overall composite proficiency level on the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is 0.5
higher than the overall composite proficiency level from the previous year’s test. In
order to meet the Indicator 1 target for school year 2016-2017, LEAs must show that
58% of ELs made progress.
Indicator 2 is used to demonstrate the percentages of ELs attaining English proficiency
by the end of each school year. For determining Indicator 2, Maryland uses an overall
composite proficiency level and a literacy composite proficiency level based upon
ACCESS for ELLs 2.0. ELs are considered to have attained English proficiency if their
overall composite proficiency level is 4.5 or higher. In order to meet the Indicator 2
target for school year 2016-2017, LEAs must show that 16% of ELs have attained
proficiency.
Indicator 3 represents achievement on the Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics
State’s assessments for the EL subgroup.
Describe the strategies that will be used to ensure ELs meet the targets for Indicators 1-3. LEAs
should include funding targeted to changes or adjustments in staffing, materials or other items
for a particular program, initiative or activity.
Maryland’s accountability structure is driven by the results of the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). PARCC performance levels defines the knowledge,
skills and practices students are able to demonstrate. The five performance levels are:
PARCC Performance Levels
Level 1: Did not yet meet expectations
Level 2: Partially met expectations
Level 3: Approached expectations
Level 4: Met expectations
Level 5: Exceeded expectations
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 26
PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy for Grades 3-8 and Grade 10:
1. Based on available PARCC data describe the challenges in English Language
Arts/Literacy for grades 3-8 and grade 10. In your response, identify challenges for
students requiring special education services, students with limited English proficiency,
and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards meeting State
performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards, LEAs are
required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average,
performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole. Refer to
pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the reporting requirements for
students receiving special education services and students with Limited English
Language Proficiency.
Table 2.2a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - English Language Arts/Literacy for Grades 6-8 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group
2017
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 84 14.2 127 21.4 189 31.9 168 28.3 25 4.2
Special Education 35 38.5 27 29.7 25 27.5 2 2.2 2 9
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 2 25 5 62.5 1 12.5 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 64 17.6 90 24.7 118 32.4 86 23.6 6 1.6
Table 2.1a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - English Language Arts/Literacy for Grades 3-5 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group
2017
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 92 14.3 152 23.6 200 31.1 185 28.7 15 2.3
Special Education 28 35 24 30 21 26.3 7 8.8 0 9
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
10 33.3 13 43.3 7 23.3 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)
73 16.3 114 25.4 144 32.1 112 24.9 6 1.3
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 27
Table 2.4a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - English Language Arts/Literacy for Grade 10 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group
2017
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 24 13.5 69 38.8 36 20.2 23 12.9 26 14.6
Special Education 0 0 0 0 4 16 5 20 14 56
Limited English Proficient (LEP) * * * * * * * * * *
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 11 10.6 39 37.5 23 22.1 13 12.5 18 17.3
Data Review:
There’s a gap between the ALL students group and the SPED subgroup in
grades 3-5 and grades 6-8.
A gap exists between LEP students and ALL students in grades 3-5 and 6-8.
Only 27.5% of grade 10 students earned a 4 or 5 on English 10 PARCC.
Only 32.5% of grade 6-8 students earned a 4 or 5 on English PARCC.
Only 31% of grade 3-5 students earned a 4 or 5 on English PARCC.
The rationale for the strategies and practices selected was primarily based on the
researched based practice Classroom-Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) that is
endorsed by MSDE. CFIP is modeled after collaborative teams that closely examine
assessment data through reflective dialogue. Planning for remediation and intervention
occurs as a result of these collaborative conversations. Additionally, the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) database was used to help obtain information about practices and
resources that aligned to the needs of our population.
Challenge:
SPED students often need Reading and Math intervention but there isn’t room in their
schedule for both all year long.
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Scheduled
Reading
Intervention
September 2017-
June 2018
Students are enrolled
in yearlong Reading
Intervention classes
taught by SPED or
other teachers in
order to free up time
to provide additional
services in Math and
or English classes
Local funds are
paying for
licenses and
print materials
for intervention
programs
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 28
Challenge:
Coordination of services with EL and SPED staffing needs to be strengthened.
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Collaborative Teaming September 2017-
June 2018
EL and SPED
teachers are to attend
department and team
meetings regularly
alongside content
teachers
This work is
done during the
contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Data Sharing September 2017-
June 2018
EL and SPED
teachers will be
provided with county
level assessment data
of their respective
case loads
This work is
done during the
contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Realignment of Case
Managers
September 2017-
June 2018
EL and SPED
teachers’ caseloads
and schedules were
revamped to provide
more efficient skills
and be available for
more intervention
groups
No additional
funding is
needed.
Challenge:
Returning teachers need refining of implementation for year two and new teachers need
additional training in order to become acquainted with Wonders, our newer Reading
series in grade K-5.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 29
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Wonders training for all
staff
August 21, 2017 All teachers
attending a refining
professional
development offered
by the McGraw
Instructional
Consultant
This was
provided my
McGraw for
free. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Wonders training for all
new teachers only
August 22, 2017 All new teachers
attended professional
development offered
by the McGraw
Instructional
Consultant
This was
provided my
McGraw for
free. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Challenge:
Content teachers need additional training on how to help EL students be successful in
content classes.
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Use of Language for
Academic Purposes
Professional
Development
October 4,
2017
**Another
session will be
offered later in
the year for
another set of
15 teachers**
Participants will focus on
creating contexts for meaningful
language use within settings that
integrate content and academic
language learning.
MSDE is
paying for
this WIDA
workshop.
School Based Mini
Professional
Development
October 2017-
May 2018
Every other month, each EL
teacher will present information
and strategies on the same EL
pertinent topic at their
respective schools’ faculty
meetings
This work is
done during
the contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 30
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
EL Professional
Development for
Elementary Teachers
August 14,
2017
EL staff provided information
and strategies on
accommodations/modifications,
EL and the Reading series,
things to think about when
having an EL student and
building academic vocabulary
Local funds
paid for
teacher
stipends.
EL Professional
Development for
Secondary Teachers
August 22,
2017
EL staff provided information
and strategies on
accommodations/modifications,
EL and the Reading series,
things to think about when
having an EL student and
building academic vocabulary
Local funds
paid for
teacher
stipends.
Challenge:
Newcomers, level 1 and level 2 El students need intensive support to be successful in the
classroom
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
County Level
Assessment Modification
September 2017-
June 2018
County level
benchmarks need to
be in closer
alignment to Can Do
Descriptors for
Levels 1, 2 and
Newcomers in order
to elicit more
accurate mastery
levels
Title III funding
for teacher
stipends
Newcomer Materials September 2017-
June 2018
Newcomer materials
will be purchased
and used with
students just arriving
in the country. Kits
Unaccompanied
Youth Funding
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 31
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
will include English,
Science and Math
Rosetta Stone September 2017-
June 2018
Students will have
access to Rosetta
Stone for mini self-
directed lessons in
content classes
Title III funding
Realignment of Case
Managers
September 2017-
June 2018
EL teachers’
caseloads and
schedules were
revamped to provide
more efficient skills
and be available for
more intervention
groups
No additional
funding is
needed.
Lexia September 2017-
June 2018
Renewal of licenses
to support listening,
speaking, reading
and writing skills of
EL students
Title III funding
Challenge:
Initial and/or additional training is necessary for use of Reading Intervention programs
used at all levels.
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
WonderWorks
Foundational Skills
Intervention
August 22, 2017 All teachers
participated in the
Reading series’
intervention
component, led by
McGraw’s
Instructional
This was
provided my
McGraw for
free. No
additional
funding is
needed
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 32
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Consultant
Accessing Complex Text
Intervention
August 22, 2017 All teachers
participated in the
Reading series’
intervention
component, led by
McGraw’s
Instructional
Consultant
This was
provided my
McGraw for
free. No
additional
funding is
needed
Read 180 September 8, 2017 Secondary and
Intermediate teachers
participated in a
trainer of trainer
model professional
development
This work is
done during the
contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Read Live September 7, 2017 New SPED teachers
participated in a
trainer of trainer
model professional
development
This work is
done during the
contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Challenge:
Collaboration between and among EL, SPED and content teachers is lacking
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
Department Meetings September 2017-
June 2018
All EL and SPED
staff will rotate
attending the after
This work is
done during the
contracted
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 33
Strategy Timeline Notes Funding
school department
meetings
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
Team meetings September 2017-
June 2018
All EL and SPED
staff are expected to
attend team meetings
to discuss data,
develop strategies of
improvement and
revisit summative
data
This work is
done during the
contracted
teacher work
day. No
additional
funding is
needed.
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds.) Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
See above charts for timeline, strategies, and funding.
PARCC Mathematics for Grades 3-8:
1. Based on available PARCC data, describe the challenges in Mathematics for grades
3-8. In your response, identify challenges for students requiring special education
services, students with limited English proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing
to make progress towards meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State
performance standards, LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student
population that is, on average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student
population as a whole. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 34
Progress Towards Meeting Academic Targets
Elementary Math Academic Data Review:
Table 2.6a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results—Mathematics for Grades 3-5
GRADES 3-5 ALL STUDENTS 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 647 80 12.4 271 41.9 204 31.5 88 13.6 4 0.6
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 5 0 0 0 0 4 80 1 20 0 0
Black or African American 268 35 13.1 128 47.8 85 31.7 19 7.1 1 0.4
Hispanic/Latino of any race 49 9 18.4 18 36.7 14 28.6 7 14.3 1 2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
White 285 30 10.5 109 38.2 90 31.6 54 18.9 2 0.7
Two or more races 39 6 15.4 16 41 11 28.2 6 15.4 0 0
Special Education 97 25 25.8 47 48.5 21 21.6 3 3.1 1 1
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 31 5 16.1 15 48.4 7 22.6 4 12.9 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 494 68 13.8 210 42.5 158 32 55 11.1 3 0.6
GRADES 3-5 ALL STUDENTS 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 623 85 13.6 183 29.4 188 30.2 147 23.6 20 3.2
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
Asian 9 1 11.1 0 0 2 22.2 2 22.2 4 44.4
Black or African American 276 54 19.6 87 31.5 75 27.2 58 21 2 0.7
Hispanic/Latino of any race 60 6 10 28 46.7 15 25 11 18.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0
White 243 22 9.1 57 23.5 83 34.2 67 27.6 14 5.8
Two or more races 32 2 6.3 11 34.4 13 40.6 6 18.8 0 0
Special Education 89 24 27 30 33.7 23 25.8 11 12.4 1 1.1
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 38 5 13.2 17 44.7 10 26.3 6 15.8 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 455 72 15.8 145 31.9 138 30.3 91 20 9 2
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 35
GRADES 3-5 ALL STUDENTS 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 646 107 16.6 194 30 191 29.6 133 20.6 21 3.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 306 74 24.2 104 34 81 26.5 44 14.4 3 1
Hispanic/Latino of any race 65 10 15.4 29 44.6 20 30.8 6 9.2 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 229 19 8.3 47 20.5 75 32.8 72 31.4 16 7
Two or more races 35 3 8.6 12 34.3 14 40 6 17.1 0 0
Special Education 80 29 9 31 38.8 14 17.5 5 6.3 1 1.3
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 35 7 20 17 48.6 10 28.6 1 2.9 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 448 84 18.8 152 33.9 132 29.5 73 1.3 7 1.6
GRADES 3-5 MALE STUDENTS 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 326 42 12.9 140 42.9 97 29.8 45 13.8 2 0.6
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 131 18 13.7 66 50.4 36 27.5 10 7.6 1 0.8
Hispanic/Latino of any race 25 6 24 9 36 7 28 3 12 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 146 14 9.6 57 39 46 31.5 28 19.2 1 0.7
Two or more races 22 4 18.2 8 36.4 6 27.3 4 18.2 0 0
Special Education 56 17 30.4 22 39.3 15 26.8 1 1.8 1 1.8
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 20 3 15 10 50 3 15 4 20 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 253 36 14.2 114 45.1 75 29.6 27 10.7 1 0.4
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 222 38 17.1 72 32.4 66 29.7 43 19.4 3 1.4
GRADES 3-5 MALE STUDENTS 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 313 46 14.7 89 28.4 91 29.1 78 24.9 9 2.9
American Indian or Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 36
GRADES 3-5 MALE STUDENTS 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Native
Asian 6 1 16.7 0 0 1 16.7 1 16.7 3 50
Black or African American 133 30 22.6 43 32.3 32 24.1 27 20.3 1 0.8
Hispanic/Latino of any race 33 3 9.1 15 45.5 7 21.2 8 24.2 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 129 12 9.3 26 20.2 46 35.7 40 31 5 3.9
Two or more races 12 0 0 5 41.7 5 41.7 2 16.7 0 0
Special Education 51 15 29.4 15 29.4 15 29.4 5 9.8 1 2
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 18 2 11.1 6 33.3 5 27.8 5 27.8 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 222 38 17.1 72 32.4 66 29.7 43 19.4 3 1.4
GRADES 3-5 MALE STUDENTS 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 323 62 19.2 90 27.9 92 28.5 70 21.7 9 2.8
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 157 45 28.7 49 31.2 37 23.6 24 15.3 2 1.3
Hispanic/Latino of any race 29 5 17.2 11 37.9 11 37.9 2 6.9 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 113 10 8.8 22 19.5 39 34.5 36 31.9 6 5.3
Two or more races 16 0 0 5 31.3 6 37.5 4 25 1 6.3
Special Education 47 18 9 16 34 10 21.3 2 4.3 1 2.1
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 16.3 3 18.8 7 43.8 6 37.5 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 226 46 21.7 75 33.2 59 26.1 40 17.7 3 1.3
GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 321 38 11.8 131 40.8 107 33.3 43 13.4 2 0.6
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 3 0 0 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0
Black or African American 137 17 12.4 62 45.3 49 35.8 9 6.6 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 37
GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Hispanic/Latino of any race 24 3 12.5 9 37.5 7 29.2 4 16.7 1 4.2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
White 139 16 11.5 52 37.4 44 31.7 26 18.7 1 0.7
Two or more races 17 2 11.8 8 47.1 5 29.4 2 11.8 0 0
Special Education 41 8 19.5 25 61 6 14.6 2 4.9 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 11 2 18.2 5 45.5 4 36.4 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 241 32 13.3 96 39.8 83 34.4 28 11.6 2 0.8
GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 310 39 12.6 94 30.3 97 31.3 69 22.3 11 3.5
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
Asian 3 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3
Black or African American 143 24 16.8 44 30.8 43 30.1 31 21.7 1 0.7
Hispanic/Latino of any race 27 3 11.1 13 48.1 8 29.6 3 11.1 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0
White 114 10 8.8 31 27.2 37 32.5 27 23.7 9 7.9
Two or more races 20 2 10 6 30 8 40 4 20 0 0
Special Education 38 9 23.7 15 39.5 8 21.1 6 15.8 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 20 3 15 11 55 5 25 1 5 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 233 34 14.6 73 31.3 72 30.9 48 20.6 6 2.6
GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 323 45 13.9 104 32.2 99 30.7 63 19.5 12 3.7
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 149 29 19.5 55 36.9 44 29.5 20 13.4 1 0.7
Hispanic/Latino of any race 32 4 12.5 17 53.1 8 25 3 9.4 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 116 9 7.8 25 21.6 36 31 36 31 10 8.6
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 38
GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Two or more races 18 2 11.1 5 27.8 9 50 2 11.1 0 0
Special Education 34 12 9 15 44.1 4 11.8 3 8.8 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 18 4 22.2 10 55.6 4 22.2 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 222 35 15.8 77 34.7 73 32.9 33 14.9 4 1.8
Analysis of Data:
a. In the All Student group every subgroup demonstrated improved achievement
from 2015-2016, but declined slightly in 2017.
Within the elementary band, the total percentage of students achieving a Level
4 or 5 proficiency improved from 2015 to 2016 from 14.2% proficient to
26.8% proficient but decreased to 23.8% in 2017.
The aggregate score from 2015 to 2017 improved from 14.2% with a Level 4
or 5 to 23.8% for all students.
The percentage of students scoring a Level 1 or 2 decreased from 54.2% in
2015 to 43% in 2016. This percentage increased slightly by 3.5 percentage
points to 46.5% in 2017.
There was a 19.5 percentage point gap in 2015 between white and African
American students scoring Level 4 or 5, compared with an 11.6 percentage
point gap in 2016. The gap widened by 15.3 percentage points in 2017 with
African American students at 23.1% proficient and white students at 38.4%
proficient.
Special Education students showed an increase in proficiency (Level 4 or 5)
from only 4.0% in 2015 to 13.4% in 2016 but dropped to 7.5% proficient in
2017, a 5.9 percentage point decrease.
The Limited English Proficient (LEP students) improved slightly from 2015
with an increase from 12.9% proficient to 15.7% proficient (Levels 4 and 5),
but decreased to 3% proficient in 2017.
A gap 23.1 percentage points separated the white students from the African
American students in 2017, an increase from 2016’s gap of 11.6 percentage
points.
The male students, overall, outperformed the females by 1.2 percentage points
with 24.4% and 23.2% proficient respectively.
The African American male students outperformed the African American
female students by 2.5 percentage points while the white females
outperformed the white males by the same percentage points difference.
Based on available PARCC data, describe the challenges in Mathematics for grades 3-5. In
your response, identify challenges for students requiring special education services, students with
limited English proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards
meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards, LEAs are
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 39
required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average, performing at a
lower achievement level than the student population as a whole. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to
ensure your response includes the reporting requirements for students receiving special
education services and students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
Challenges:
As detailed in the data analysis, our special education students as well as our Limited
English Language Proficiency students continue to struggle and not achieve at the level
over other students. These students have challenges that have created gaps since they
started school and even with additional intervention and supports they continue to
struggle.
We have several non-tenured, inexperienced teachers as well as teachers who continue to
struggle with the new conceptual teaching of the mathematical standards despite several
professional development sessions on the topic.
Special education teachers, as well as EL teachers, share multiple grade levels and have
large caseloads of students with a wide variety of needs. Having students across multiple
grade levels assisting students in several subjects often means that they do not have a
solid understanding of the pedagogy or effective strategies for the teaching of math
concepts inherent to a grade level.
Special education teachers, nor EL teachers, can plan with their assigned grade level
teachers as they have conflicting schedules.
Aside from some general tips to assist the English Language Learners provided in the
core program, there is very little out there to assist students with learning mathematics if
English is their second language.
We do not have a countywide approach to math intervention nor a research based
program to use for intervention. Teachers do what they can to analyze data, with their
facilitators, and provide flexible groups during the math or universal block.
Reading continues to take precedence over math, in terms of interventions offered. This
means that students who are receiving reading intervention during the thirty minute
universal block will only be receiving math intervention during the regularly scheduled
classroom block of math.
We had several math teachers out for extended periods of time last year meaning that the
students were taught by substitutes. Despite our attempts to place a certified substitute in
these types of situations, it is not always possible.
Local formative assessments enabled the district to better determine the specific needs of the
students as well as the professional development needs of the teachers. These pre and post
assessments in 1st through 5
th grades, reflect the critical content of the particular grade level.
Additionally the teachers administer regular “Check-Ups,” that are embedded in the core
program that better enable them to plan and deliver the necessary intervention for small groups
of students.
Formative Assessment Data in Grades 1st-5
th
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 40
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Basic Prof. Basic Prof. Basic Prof. Basic Prof. Basic Prof. Basic Prof.
1st
93% 7% 8% 92% 99% <1% 25.7% 74.3% 95% 5% 1% 99%
2nd
86% 14% 18% 82% 98% 2% 62.7% 37.3% 95% 5% 19% 82%
3rd
97% 3% 28% 72% 99% <1% 48% 52% 94% 6% 32% 63%
4th
91% 9% 40% 60% 100% 0% 87.3% 12.7% 88% 12% 48% 52%
5th
92% 8% 34% 66% 100% 0% 89.1% 10.9% 88% 12% 60% 40%
We saw gains in this year’s administration of the grade level assessments, in part, because the
test was given in April, just prior to the PARCC. The other factor that played a significant role
in the increased achievement was the use of the post assessment data as one of teachers’ SLO’s.
Table 2.7a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 592 63 10.6 184 31.1 229 38.7 113 19.1 3 0.5
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 3 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3
Black or African American 261 39 14.9 108 41.4 83 31.8 31 11.9 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 34 1 2.9 8 23.5 18 52.9 7 20.6 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 266 19 7.1 58 21.8 116 43.6 71 26.7 2 0.8
Two or more races 28 4 14.3 10 35.7 11 39.3 3 10.7 0 0
Special Education 77 23 29.9 41 53.2 10 13 3 3.9 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 7 0 0 4 57.1 3 42.9 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 425 48 11.3 150 35.3 155 36.5 71 16.7 1 0.2
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 41
Table 2.7a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 599 96 16 209 34.9 207 34.6 84 14 3 0.5
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 4 0 0 2 50 2 50 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 254 61 24 97 38.2 78 30.7 18 7.1 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 39 5 12.8 13 33.3 9 23.1 11 28.2 1 2.6
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 270 24 8.9 84 31.1 107 39.6 53 19.6 2 0.7
Two or more races 31 6 19.4 12 38.7 11 35.5 2 6.5 0 0
Special Education 82 36 43.9 34 41.5 12 14.6 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 10 1 10 4 40 4 40 1 10 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 377 63 16.7 148 39.3 130 34.5 35 9.3 1 0.3
Table 2.7a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 597 104 17.4 207 34.7 197 33 83 19.9 6 1
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 252 61 24.2 98 38.9 73 29 20 7.9 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 47 4 8.5 17 36.2 15 31.9 11 23.4 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 42
Table 2.7a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
White 262 36 13.7 77 29.4 94 35.9 49 18.7 6 2.3
Two or more races 32 2 6.3 14 43.8 12 37.5 4 12.5 0 0
Special Education 90 34 9 40 44.4 14 15.6 2 2.2 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 13 2 15.4 8 61.5 3 23.1 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 364 79 21.7 140 38.5 109 29.9 35 9.6 1 0.3
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof. % Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 294 32 10.9 103 35 113 38.4 46 15.6 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 136 21 15.4 61 44.9 42 30.9 12 8.8 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 16 0 0 4 25 8 50 4 25 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 128 9 7 31 24.2 58 45.3 30 23.4 0 0
Two or more races 13 2 15.4 7 53.8 4 30.8 0 0 0 0
Special Education 49 12 24.5 30 61.2 6 12.2 1 2 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 4 0 0 2 50 2 50 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 216 23 10.6 82 38 77 35.6 34 15.7 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 43
Table 2.7b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof. # Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 306 62 20.3 107 35 108 35.3 29 9.5 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 127 38 29.9 49 38.6 38 29.9 2 1.6 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 20 4 20 5 25 5 25 6 30 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 140 15 10.7 46 32.9 59 42.1 20 14.3 0 0
Two or more races 17 5 29.4 5 29.4 6 35.3 1 5.9 0 0
Special Education 48 22 45.8 18 37.5 8 16.7 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 7 1 14.3 3 42.9 2 28.6 1 14.3 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 200 41 20.5 74 37 72 36 13 6.5 0 0
Table 2.7b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 305 59 19.3 110 36.1 102 33.4 33 10.8 1 0.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 123 32 26 49 39.8 35 28.5 7 5.7 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 24 4 16.7 7 29.2 8 33.3 5 20.8 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 44
Table 2.7b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
White 138 21 15.2 45 32.6 51 37 20 14.5 1 0.7
Two or more races 18 2 11.1 9 50 6 33.3 1 5.6 0 0
Special Education 54 20 9 26 48.1 6 11.1 2 3.7 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 8 2 25 4 50 2 25 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 197 47 23.9 78 39.6 54 27.4 18 9.1 0 0
Table 2.7c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 298 31 10.4 81 27.2 116 38.9 67 22.5 3 1
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50
Black or African American 125 18 14.4 47 37.6 41 32.8 19 15.2 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 18 1 5.6 4 22.2 10 55.6 3 16.7 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 138 10 7.2 27 19.6 58 42 41 29.7 2 1.4
Two or more races 15 2 13.3 3 20 7 46.7 3 20 0 0
Special Education 28 11 39.3 11 39.3 4 14.3 2 7.1 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 209 25 12 68 32.5 78 37.3 37 17.7 1 0.5
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 45
Table 2.7c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 293 34 11.6 102 34.8 99 33.8 55 18.8 3 1
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 3 0 0 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 127 23 18.1 48 37.8 40 31.5 16 12.6 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 19 1 5.3 8 42.1 4 21.1 5 26.3 1 5.3
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 130 9 6.9 38 29.2 48 36.9 33 25.4 2 1.5
Two or more races 14 1 7.1 7 50 5 35.7 1 7.1 0 0
Special Education 34 14 41.2 16 47.1 4 11.8 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 0 0 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 177 22 12.4 74 41.8 58 32.8 22 12.4 1 0.6
Table 2.7c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 292 45 15.4 97 33.2 95 32.5 50 17.1 5 1.7
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 129 29 22.5 49 38 38 29.5 13 10.1 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 23 0 0 10 43.5 7 30.4 6 26.1 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 46
Table 2.7c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Mathematics for Grades 6-8 FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 124 15 12.1 32 25.8 43 34.7 29 23.4 5 4
Two or more races 13 1 7.7 5 38.5 6 46.2 1 7.7 0 0
Special Education 36 14 9 14 38.9 8 22.2 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 5 0 0 4 80 1 20 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 167 32 19.2 62 37.1 55 32.9 17 10.2 1 0.6
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 49
Data Review
16-17 PARCC mathematics data for grades 6 through 8 showed some challenges that still
need to be addressed
We are still struggling with the percentage of students considered College and
Career Ready. While there was a slight improvement of students considered on
track for College and Career Ready in most subgroups, the percentage of
Hispanic/Latino students showed a slight decrease, dropping from 30.7% in 2015-
2016 to 22.4% in 2016-2017.
While the population of Limited English Proficient grew by three, they also had a
decrease in the number of students considered on track for College and Career
Ready, but that decrease would not be consider significant, in that there was a
decrease of one child in the population of level 4 and level 5 students.
The percentage of African American females, White males, and White Females at
level 1 had a significant increase. The percentage of African American females
increased from 18.1% in 2015-2016 to 22.5% in 2016-2017. The percentage of
White males at level 1 increased from 10.7% in 2015-2016 to 15.2% in 2016-
2017 and the number of White females increased from 6.9% to 12.1%.
In grades six through eight, there was some improvement in modeling practice,
but the majority of the students are still struggling with reasoning and this past
year, it appears that many of our sixth and seventh grade students are struggling
with major and supporting content.
Overall Challenges
In moving from a modified block schedule of 70 minutes, yearlong course to a
seven period day of 52 minutes, yearlong has resulted in a loss of teaching time
and this has increased the struggle to cover content at the 8th
grade level.
Last year, four teachers out of the ten teachers teaching grades six through eight
who were tenured.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 50
Many of the teachers are still struggling with the content that has been shifted
down due to the shift of standards with PARCC.
Special Education are assigned to different teachers to work with, and do not
often share the same planning time with the teachers they work with. This makes
it extremely difficult for them to plan together.
The remediation program at the Intermediate School, grades six and seven, is not
research based. The remediation teacher makes up her own material based on the
needs of the students, recommended by the classroom teacher. The remediation
program at the Intermediate School, was changed half way through the year, and
the remediation teacher was no longer had students assigned to her. They moved
from having students assigned to a push-in program where the remediation
teacher went into the classrooms to work with the students.
There is no remediation program at the eighth grade level. The teachers do any
remediation that takes place after school. In one school, the Instructional
Facilitator provides remediation by pulling students out of their special class.
Due to transportation issues, many students find it difficult to stay after school for
remediation.
There is a lack of materials for our Limited English Proficient students. The
program that we are currently using at grades six through eight does not have a
Spanish version. In addition, the Limited English Proficient teacher only meets
with the students on a pull out basis and it is only for several hours a week. The
Limited English Proficient teacher covers all of the content with the students in
the short amount of time that they are working with the students.
The loss of professional development time from the calendar makes it extremely
difficult to provide the necessary professional development that teachers need
during the school year.
Strategies
The changes and strategies listed below are designed to address all students, regardless of
their subgroup(s). Currently, the percent of students on track to be College and Career
Ready is less than 15%. While there are small gaps between subgroups, strategies put in
place need to address not on the needs of the subgroups, but of all the students.
During the summer professional development, summer 2017, time was spent
examining the PARCC evidence statements and the curriculum. The scope and
sequence was revamped to provide additional time for standards where students
were having difficulty.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will have 62 minutes of teaching time
for 180 days. This is an increase of ten minutes of instructional time a day.
During the 2017-2018 school year, the facilitators will use the PARCC evidence
statements when holding data meetings with teachers. When the facilitators and
teachers are looking at the data from assessments given in Unify/Performance
Matters, they will also examine the evidence statements to determine whether
students are making progress on the standards that were below the state average
last year. Whenever possible, the Special Education teacher who works with the
students will be present. Standards that students are still performing poorly on
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 51
will be identified and sent to the remediation teacher who will work with students
on those standards. In schools where there is no remediation teacher, the
classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the Instructional Facilitator
will develop a plan to provide remediation.
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that
all 6 – 8 teachers attended.
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of the teacher affects the learning of the
student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed
where students are given problems which test not only what they are currently
studying but what they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral
review assessments will contain modeling questions.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be
actively engaged in the learning of content and not passive. Active engagement
has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning process and help
them remember content more easily.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will
utilize the ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to
the English Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The
ck12.org site has the ability to translate material in multiple languages so this
should help the student by allowing them to read the material prior to it being
taught in class so that they will have a general understanding of what the teacher
is demonstrating.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through
observations and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct
vocabulary and not “idioms” and slang words.
During the 2017-2018 school year, begin the transition from Carnegie Learning to
ck12.org. During the 2018-2019 school year, teachers will begin to use the
ck12.org site in their classrooms.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in
which the facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the
content where teachers may be struggling or need additional training. This will
not be based solely on teacher input but from the PARCC evidence statements as
well. Both Special Education teachers and the English Learning teacher will be
invited to participate in these trainings.
Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special
Education teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are
the strongest in mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep
the same Special Education teacher working in the same content area, year after
year, so that they can become more comfortable with the content and thus better
able to assist in the instruction of the content.
At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to
Fail” model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of
2016.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 52
Monies for Professional Development, stipends and materials, will be requested
through the local budget.
Rationale for Math Strategies
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
Strategies to promote gap reduction and growth Grades 3-5:
STRATEGY 1 (2017-2018 and moving forward): Increase and improve upon collaborative
meetings among site based grade level, EL and SPED teachers as well as during county wide
professional development sessions. (Local funding)
Continue to hold grade level math meetings bi-monthly to analyze common assessments, discuss
achievement gaps and share research based strategies.
EL and SPED teachers will be invited and expected to attend meetings as their schedules allow.
STRATEGY 2: (Local and Special Education Funding) Use special education best practices,
including UDL, to provide high quality, focused instruction for students receiving special
education services.
All teachers in the district will be trained in UDL best practices. (2017-2018 School Year)
Provide all teachers with PD on best practices to improve implementation of strategies that make
a difference with special education students.
Collect data on teachers’ use of UDL strategies as presented at the professional development
sessions.
Provide assistance to teachers struggling to provide differentiated, targeted instruction to students.
Adopt the Stepping Stones program for Pre-Kindergarten students, provide training and monitor
implementation.
STRATEGY 3 (Ongoing): Develop high quality IFSP’s (Individual Family Service Plan) and
IEP’s (Individual Education Plan).
Provide PD on standards based IFSP’s and IEP’s.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 53
Informally assess teachers’ understanding of the process of writing standards based IEP’s and
providing specialized instruction to students with disabilities.
Provide technical assistance and support for SPED teachers.
Select exemplary standards based IFSP’s and IEP’s using reflection tool.
Conduct fidelity checks of high quality IFSP’s and IEP’s
Supervisors will reviews and provide assistance to ensure continuous improvement.
STRATEGY 4 (2017-2018 and ongoing) Local Funding: Increase student engagement
through technology integration including the use of Promethean boards, tablets and laptops.
Provide continued professional development in the use of technology to increase student
engagement.
Utilize collaborative planning time to discuss how to successfully incorporate technology into
instruction.
STRATEGY 5 (2017-2018 and ongoing) Local Funding: Observe and evaluate mathematics
instruction on a regular basis.
Observe teachers and provide feedback regarding the use of best practices for math instruction.
Use observations and walk-through data to ensure consistent and effective implementation of the
Stepping Stones math program.
Conduct walk-throughs to collect data on student engagement.
Based on data collected during observations, provide professional development to strengthen
teacher’s use of best practices for math instruction.
STRATEGY 6 (2017-2018 and ongoing): Increase individualized math instructional
opportunities for ELL students through the use of extra support in the math classrooms and
additional intervention time.
Provide services to LEP students through direct instruction and support from a certified
EL teacher.
Continue monitoring the caseloads of EL teachers regularly to determine if students are
receiving services at the optimum level necessary for success.
STRATEGY 7 (2017-2018) Local and Title I funding: Research, purchase and implement a
research based intervention program at the district level.
Involve facilitators, teachers and principals in the selection of a math intervention
program that will serve the entire district (September).
Facilitators and district leaders will be trained on the use of the selected program and then
provide training to math teachers.
District leaders will monitor the use of the new intervention program ensuring the fidelity
of the program selected.
Funding: All funding associated with math instruction is local outside of occasional
supplemental pieces that are purchased by the elementary schools designated as Title I. Title I
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 54
will more than likely provide some of the funding for the new intervention program that is
purchased for math.
The changes and strategies listed below are designed to address all students, regardless of
their subgroup(s). Currently, the percent of students on track to be College and Career
Ready is less than 15%. While there are small gaps between subgroups, strategies put in
place need to address not on the needs of the subgroups, but of all the students.
During the summer professional development, summer 2017, time was spent
examining the PARCC evidence statements and the curriculum. The scope and
sequence was revamped to provide additional time for standards where students
were having difficulty.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will have 62 minutes of teaching time
for 180 days. This is an increase of ten minutes of instructional time a day.
During the 2017-2018 school year, the facilitators will use the PARCC evidence
statements when holding data meetings with teachers. When the facilitators and
teachers are looking at the data from assessments given in Unify/Performance
Matters, they will also examine the evidence statements to determine whether
students are making progress on the standards that were below the state average
last year. Whenever possible, the Special Education teacher who works with the
students will be present. Standards that students are still performing poorly on
will be identified and sent to the remediation teacher who will work with students
on those standards. In schools where there is no remediation teacher, the
classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the Instructional Facilitator
will develop a plan to provide remediation.
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that
all 6 – 8 teachers attended.
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of the teacher affects the learning of the
student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed
where students are given problems which test not only what they are currently
studying but what they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral
review assessments will contain modeling questions.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be
actively engaged in the learning of content and not passive. Active engagement
has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning process and help
them remember content more easily.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will
utilize the ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to
the English Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The
ck12.org site has the ability to translate material in multiple languages so this
should help the student by allowing them to read the material prior to it being
taught in class so that they will have a general understanding of what the teacher
is demonstrating.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 55
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through
observations and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct
vocabulary and not “idioms” and slang words.
During the 2017-2018 school year, begin the transition from Carnegie Learning to
ck12.org. During the 2018-2019 school year, teachers will begin to use the
ck12.org site in their classrooms.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in
which the facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the
content where teachers may be struggling or need additional training. This will
not be based solely on teacher input but from the PARCC evidence statements as
well. Both Special Education teachers and the English Learning teacher will be
invited to participate in these trainings.
Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special
Education teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are
the strongest in mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep
the same Special Education teacher working in the same content area, year after
year, so that they can become more comfortable with the content and thus better
able to assist in the instruction of the content.
At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to
Fail” model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of
2016.
Monies for Professional Development, stipends and materials, will be requested
through the local budget.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 56
PARCC Algebra I
1. Based on available PARCC data, describe the challenges in Algebra I. In your response,
identify challenges for students requiring special education services, students with limited
English proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards
meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average,
performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole. Refer to
pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the reporting requirements for
students receiving special education services and students with Limited English
Language Proficiency.
Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 120 22 18.3 54 45 42 35 2 1.7 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 50 13 26 27 54 10 20 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 7 2 28.6 2 28.6 3 42.9 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 51 4 7.8 19 37.3 27 52.9 1 2 0 0
Two or more races 11 3 27.3 5 45.5 2 18.2 1 9.1 0 0
Special Education 21 5 23.8 8 38.1 8 38.1 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 7 3 42.9 2 28.6 2 28.6 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 82 17 20.7 36 43.9 27 32.9 2 2.4 0 0
Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 210 40 19 73 34.8 54 25.7 42 20 1 0.5
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 57
Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0
Black or African American 89 30 33.7 33 37.1 18 20.2 7 7.9 1 1.1
Hispanic/Latino of any race 7 0 0 5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 99 6 6.1 28 28.3 32 32.3 33 33.3 0 0
Two or more races 13 4 30.8 7 53.8 2 15.4 0 0 0 0
Special Education 36 12 33.3 19 52.8 4 11.1 1 2.8 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 122 31 25.4 48 39.3 27 22.1 16 13.1 0 0
Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2017 2017+X:Z
# Tested
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 196 33 16.8 69 35.2 63 32.1 31 15.8 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 78 18 23.1 32 41 20 25.6 8 10.3 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 15 3 20 4 26.7 3 20 5 33.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 93 10 10.8 29 31.2 37 39.8 17 18.3 0 0
Two or more races 10 2 20 4 40 3 30 1 10 0 0
Special Education 27 9 33.3 13 48.1 5 18.5 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 58
Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2017 2017+X:Z
# Tested
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 4 2 50 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 116 24 20.7 44 3.9 30 25.9 18 15.5 0 0
Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 62 9 14.5 28 45.2 24 38.7 1 1.6 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 23 5 21.7 13 56.5 5 21.7 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 30 2 6.7 12 40 16 53.3 0 0 0 0
Two or more races 6 2 33.3 1 16.7 2 33.3 1 16.7 0 0
Special Education 14 1 7.1 7 50 6 42.9 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 4 1 25 2 50 1 25 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 41 7 17.1 17 41.5 16 39 1 2.4 0 0
Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 59
Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 96 21 21.9 32 33.3 24 25 19 19.8 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0
Black or African American 42 16 38.1 14 33.3 11 26.2 1 2.4 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 45 2 4.4 14 31.1 12 26.7 17 37.8 0 0
Two or more races 6 3 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special Education 25 8 32 14 56 2 8 1 4 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 2 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 54 17 31.5 22 40.7 10 18.5 5 9.3 0 0
Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 94 19 20.2 33 35.1 27 28.7 15 16 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 39 11 28.2 14 35.9 9 23.1 5 12.8 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 5 0 0 3 60 2 40 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 43 6 14 14 32.6 16 37.2 7 16.3 0 0
Two or more races 5 1 20 2 40 2 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 60
Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Special Education 14 5 35.7 7 50 2 14.3 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 1 33.3 2 66.6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 54 14 25.9 20 37 12 22.2 8 14.8 0 0
Table 2.8c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 58 13 22.4 26 44.8 18 31 1 1.7 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 27 8 29.6 14 51.9 5 18.5 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 4 2 50 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 21 2 9.5 7 33.3 11 52.4 1 4.8 0 0
Two or more races 5 1 20 4 80 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special Education 7 4 57.1 1 14.3 2 28.6 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 2 66.7 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 41 10 24.4 19 46.3 11 26.8 1 2.4 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 61
Table 2.8c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 114 19 16.7 41 36 30 26.3 23 20.2 1 0.9
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 47 14 29.8 19 40.4 7 14.9 6 12.8 1 2.1
Hispanic/Latino of any race 6 0 0 4 66.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 54 4 7.4 14 25.9 20 37 16 29.6 0 0
Two or more races 7 1 14.3 4 57.1 2 28.6 0 0 0 0
Special Education 11 4 36.4 5 45.5 2 18.2 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 68 14 20.6 26 38.2 17 25 11 16.2 0 0
Table 2.8c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 102 14 13.7 36 35.3 36 35.3 16 15.7 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 39 7 17.9 18 46.2 11 28.2 3 7.7 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 8 2 25 1 12.5 3 37.5 2 25 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 50 4 8 15 30 21 42 10 20 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 62
Table 2.8c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Two or more races 5 1 20 2 40 1 20 1 20 0 0
Special Education 13 4 30.8 6 46.2 3 23.1 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 62 10 16.1 24 38.7 18 29 10 16.1 0 0
Data Review
In reviewing the PARCC data from 2016-2017 there were some small increases in the
improvement of the data but there are still some challenges.
There was a drop in our percentage of College and Career Ready students from
last year to this year.
There is still a significant gap between the percentage of African American
students who are at Level 1 and the White students. 23.1 percent of our African
American students are at Level 1 while only 10.8 of our White students are at
Level 1. The same is true for our Special Education population. 33.3 percent of
our Special Education population is at Level 1, compared to 14.2 of all students
still at a Level 1.
College and Career Ready scores for our two or more races population had a
significant drop. Our PARCC data in 2015-2016 showed that 33.3 percent of our
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 63
two or more races population were College and Career ready in 2016-2017 this
dropped to 18.3 percent. The overall number of students in this population did
not significantly drop.
The percentage of African American females who are College and Career ready
dropped from 12.8 percent in 2015-2016 to 7.7 percent in 2016-2017.
The percentage of White males who are College and Career ready dropped from
37.8 percent in 2015-2016 to 16.3 percent in 2017-2018.
The gap between College and Career Ready students continues to grow between
all students and our Special Education students.
There are not enough Limited English Proficient students (3 students) to draw
comparisons between this subgroup and any other subgroup.
Overall Challenges
In moving from a modified block schedule of 70 minutes, yearlong course to a
seven-period day of 52 minutes, yearlong has resulted in a loss of teaching time
and this has increased the struggle to cover content at the 8th
grade level.
Many of the teachers are still struggling with the content that has been shifted
down due to the shift of standards with PARCC. Teachers who have never been
exposed to teaching concepts from Algebra II are now finding themselves
teaching materials that they are unfamiliar with.
Special Education are assigned to different teachers to work with, and do not
often share the same planning time with the teachers they work with. This makes
it extremely difficult for them to plan together.
There is no remediation program at the high school level. The teachers do any
remediation that takes place after school. In one school, the Instructional
Facilitator provides remediation by pulling students out of their special class.
Due to transportation issues, many students find it difficult to stay after school for
remediation.
There is a lack of materials for our Limited English Proficient students. The
program that we are currently using does not have a Spanish version. In addition,
the Limited English Proficient teacher only meets with the students on a pull-out
basis and it is only for several hours a week. The Limited English Proficient
teacher covers all of the content with the students in the short amount of time that
they are working with the students.
The loss of professional development time from the calendar makes it extremely
difficult to provide the necessary professional development that teachers need
during the school year.
Many of the Special Education students have struggled with mathematics since a
very early age; they do not have the conceptual knowledge of the basics, therefore
making it much more difficult for the students to deal with the more challenging
concepts.
As can be seen in the District Summary of Schools provided by Pearson, both
schools are struggling with modeling.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 64
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
The changes and strategies listed below are designed to address all students, regardless of
their subgroup(s). Currently, the percent of students on track to be College and Career
Ready is less than 16%. While there are small gaps between subgroups, strategies put in
place need to address not on the needs of the subgroups, but of all the students.
During the summer professional development, summer 2017, time was spent
examining the PARCC evidence statements and the curriculum. The scope and
sequence was revamped to provide additional time for standards where students
were having difficulty.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will have 62 minutes of teaching time
for 180 days. This is an increase of ten minutes of instructional time a day.
During the 2017-2018 school year, the facilitators will use the PARCC evidence
statements when holding data meetings with teachers. When the facilitators and
teachers are looking at the data from assessments given in Unify/Performance
Matters, they will also examine the evidence statements to determine whether
students are making progress on the standards that were below the state average
last year. Whenever possible, the Special Education teacher who works with the
students will be present. Standards that students are still performing poorly on
will be identified; the classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the
Instructional Facilitator will develop a plan to provide remediation.
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that
all 6 – 8 teachers attended.
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of the teacher affects the learning of the
student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, encourage the collaborative relationship
between teachers that was developed during the summer professional
development. Continue to encourage teachers to share their lessons and activities
through Google Classroom.
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed
where students are given problems which test not only what they are currently
studying but what they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral
review assessments will contain modeling questions.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be
actively engaged in the learning of content and not passive. Active engagement
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 65
has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning process and help
them remember content more easily.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will
utilize the ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to
the English Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The
ck12.org site has the ability to translate material in multiple languages so this
should help the student by allowing them to read the material prior to it being
taught in class so that they will have a general understanding of what the teacher
is demonstrating.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through
observations and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct
vocabulary and not “idioms” and slang words.
During the 2017-2018 school year, begin the transition from Carnegie Learning to
ck12.org. During the 2018-2019 school year, teachers will begin to use the
ck12.org site in their classrooms.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in
which the facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the
content where teachers may be struggling or need additional training. This will
not be based solely on teacher input but from the PARCC evidence statements as
well. Both Special Education teachers and the English Learning teacher will be
invited to participate in these trainings.
Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special
Education teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are
the strongest in mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep
the same Special Education teacher working in the same content area, year after
year, so that they can become more comfortable with the content and thus better
able to assist in the instruction of the content.
At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to
Fail” model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of
2016.
Monies for Professional Development, stipends and materials, will be requested
through the local budget.
PARCC Algebra II (Optional Reporting)
1. Based on available PARCC data, describe the challenges in Algebra II. In your response,
identify challenges for students requiring special education services, students with limited
English proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards
meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average,
performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 66
Table 2.9a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 114 32 28.1 48 42.1 28 24.6 6 5.3 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 44 18 40.9 17 38.6 8 18.2 1 2.3 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 7 2 28.6 4 57.1 0 0 1 14.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 57 11 19.3 23 40.4 19 33.3 4 7 0 0
Two or more races 4 1 25 2 50 1 25 0 0 0 0
Special Education 6 5 83.3 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 2 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 61 18 29.5 26 42.6 13 21.3 4 6.6 0 0
Table 2.9a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 49 19 38.8 21 42.9 6 12.2 3 6.1 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 25 12 48 11 44 1 4 1 4 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 4 2 50 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 18 4 22.2 7 38.9 5 27.8 2 11.1 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 67
Table 2.9a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Two or more races 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special Education 7 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 32 12 37.5 15 46.9 3 9.4 2 6.3 0 0
Table 2.9a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II ALL STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 51 9 17.6 14 27.502 18 35.3 10 19.6 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 13 4 30.8 6 46.2 3 23.1 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 6 1 16.7 1 16.7 2 33.3 2 33.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 23 3 13 7 30.4 8 34.8 5 21.7 0 0
Two or more races 7 1 14.3 0 0 3 42.9 3 42.9 0 0
Special Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 22 5 22.7 5 22.7 7 31.8 5 22.7 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 68
Table 2.9b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 44 12 27.3 20 45.5 12 27.3 0 0 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 12 5 41.7 5 41.7 2 16.7 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 26 5 19.2 12 46.2 9 34.6 0 0 0 0
Two or more races 2 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0
Special Education 3 2 66.7 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 23 6 26.1 10 43.5 7 30.4 0 0 0 0
Table 2.9b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 20 8 40 9 45 2 10 1 5 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 11 5 45.5 5 45.5 1 9.1 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 6 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0
Two or more races 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 69
Table 2.9b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Special Education 3 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 13 5 38.5 6 46.2 1 7.7 1 7.7 0 0
Table 2.9b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II MALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 24 3 12.5 4 16.7 11 45.8 6 25 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 5 2 40 1 20 2 40 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 0 0 0 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 10 1 10 2 20 4 40 3 30 0 0
Two or more races 5 0 0 0 0 3 60 2 40 0 0
Special Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 12 1 8.3 3 25 6 50 2 16.7 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 70
Table 2.9c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2015
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 70 20 28.6 28 40 16 22.9 6 8.6 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 32 13 40.6 12 37.5 6 18.8 1 3.1 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 5 0 0 4 80 0 0 1 20 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 31 6 19.4 11 35.5 10 32.3 4 12.9 0 0
Two or more races 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special Education 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 38 12 31.6 16 42.1 6 15.8 4 10.5 0 0
Table 2.9c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 29 11 37.9 12 41.4 4 13.8 2 6.9 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 14 7 50 6 42.9 0 0 1 7.1 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 12 2 16.7 5 41.7 4 33.3 1 8.3 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 71
Table 2.9c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2016
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
Two or more races 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special Education 4 2 50 1 25 1 25 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 19 7 36.8 9 47.4 2 10.5 1 5.3 0 0
Table 2.9c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II FEMALE STUDENTS
Student Group 2017
# Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
# Prof.
% Prof.
All Students 27 6 22.2 10 37 7 25.9 4 14.8 0 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Black or African American 8 2 25 5 62.5 1 12.5 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 1 33.3 0 0 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 13 2 15.4 5 38.5 4 30.8 2 15.4 0 0
Two or more races 5 1 20 2 40 1 20 1 20 0 0
Special Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 10 4 40 2 20 1 10 3 30 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 72
Data Review
In reviewing the PARCC data from 2016-2017 there were some small increases in the
improvement of the data but there are still some challenges.
There was a drop in our percentage of College and Career Ready students from
last year to this year.
There was a decrease of the percentage of African American students who are
College and Career Ready from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017. In 2015-2016, 4
percent of the African American students enrolled in Algebra II were College and
Career Ready, this past year none of the African American students were College
and Career ready.
The gap between the percentage of African American students and the percentage
of White students who are College and Career Ready continues to grow. In
2015-2016 the gap was 8.1 percent, in 2016-2017, the gap grew to 21.7 percent.
The gap between African American males and White males who are College and
Career ready increased by 30 percent.
The gap between African American females and White females who are College
and Career ready increased to 15.4 percent.
There are not enough Limited English Proficient students (1 student) to draw
comparisons between this subgroup and any other subgroup.
Overall Challenges
In moving from a modified block schedule of 70 minutes, yearlong course to a
seven-period day of 52 minutes, yearlong has resulted in a loss of teaching time
and this has increased the struggle to cover content at the 8th
grade level.
Teachers are still struggling with material that has moved from Pre-Calculus to
Algebra II. Many of the teachers teaching Algebra II have not taught any courses
above Algebra II and struggle with teaching some of the content.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 73
There is no remediation program at the high school level. The teachers do any
remediation that takes place after school. In one school, the Instructional
Facilitator provides remediation by pulling students out of their special class.
Due to transportation issues, many students find it difficult to stay after school for
remediation.
The loss of professional development time from the calendar makes it extremely
difficult to provide the necessary professional development that teachers need
during the school year.
As can be seen in the District Summary of Schools provided by Pearson, both
schools are struggling with modeling.
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
The changes and strategies listed below are designed to address all students, regardless of
their subgroup(s). Currently, the percent of students on track to be College and Career
Ready is less than 16%. While there are small gaps between subgroups, strategies put in
place need to address not on the needs of the subgroups, but of all the students.
During the summer professional development, summer 2017, time was spent
examining the PARCC evidence statements and the curriculum. The scope and
sequence was revamped to provide additional time for standards where students
were having difficulty.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will have 62 minutes of teaching time
for 180 days. This is an increase of ten minutes of instructional time a day.
During the 2017-2018 school year, the facilitators will use the PARCC evidence
statements when holding data meetings with teachers. When the facilitators and
teachers are looking at the data from assessments given in Unify/Performance
Matters, they will also examine the evidence statements to determine whether
students are making progress on the standards that were below the state average
last year. Whenever possible, the Special Education teacher who works with the
students will be present. Standards that students are still performing poorly on
will be identified; the classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the
Instructional Facilitator will develop a plan to provide remediation.
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that
all 6 – 8 teachers attended.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 74
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of the teacher affects the learning of the
student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, encourage the collaborative relationship
between teachers that was developed during the summer professional
development. Continue to encourage teachers to share their lessons and activities
through Google Classroom.
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed
where students are given problems which test not only what they are currently
studying but what they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral
review assessments will contain modeling questions.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be
actively engaged in the learning of content and not passive. Active engagement
has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning process and help
them remember content more easily.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will
utilize the ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to
the English Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The
ck12.org site has the ability to translate material in multiple languages so this
should help the student by allowing them to read the material prior to it being
taught in class so that they will have a general understanding of what the teacher
is demonstrating.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through
observations and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct
vocabulary and not “idioms” and slang words.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in
which the facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the
content where teachers may be struggling or need additional training. This will
not be based solely on teacher input but from the PARCC evidence statements as
well. Both Special Education teachers and the English Learning teacher will be
invited to participate in these trainings.
Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special
Education teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are
the strongest in mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep
the same Special Education teacher working in the same content area, year after
year, so that they can become more comfortable with the content and thus better
able to assist in the instruction of the content.
At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to
Fail” model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of
2016.
Monies for Professional Development, stipends and materials, will be requested
through the local budget.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 75
Rationale for Math Strategies
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that all 6 – 8
teachers attended. This strategy was selected in that the county has moved towards UDL.
Research has shown that changes made for some students actually can help and support
all students.
Strategy 1
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed where
students are given problems which test not only what they are currently studying but what
they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral review assessments will
contain modeling questions. This strategy was selected in that we have found over the
years material covered in the early part of the year does not remain with the students
throughout the year, especially some of the Geometry standards which are not necessarily
incorporated into content later in the year. Research has shown that the more students are
exposed content the more likely they will remember the content. By spiraling back,
content taught in September will still be in the student’s mind in the spring. During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be actively
engaged in the learning of content and not passive. This strategy was chosen because
active engagement has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning
process and help them remember content more easily. Strategy 2 – Needs of the student
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be actively
engaged in the learning of content and not passive. This strategy was chosen because
active engagement has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning
process and help them remember content more easily. During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will utilize the
ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to the English
Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The reason that this strategy
was chosen is that the EL population in Somerset County who have little to no
knowledge of the English Language is growing. Teachers are finding that the EL
students are having difficulty in mathematics because the students cannot comprehend
what the teacher is saying. Since the ck12.org site has, the ability to translate material in
multiple languages it is hoped that if the students read the material in their native
language, prior to it being taught will have a general understanding of what the teacher is
teaching and therefore be more success in the classroom. At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to Fail”
model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of 2016. We
continue to implement this strategy because we believe that students learn through
mistakes. Not everyone understands something the first time through the course and this
allows students to go back and correct their mistakes. There is research that shows when
students correct their mistakes, they continue to learn. Strategy 2 – Support for teachers
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
The reason that this strategy was chosen is that it is a research based program
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 76
designed to improve teaching in the classroom. Studies have shown that the
effectiveness of the teacher has a direct effect on the learning of the student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through observations
and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct vocabulary and not
“idioms” and slang words. This strategy was chosen due to the fact in walkthroughs and
observations it was noted that teachers were not using the correct vocabulary when
teaching mathematical content. Since state and national assessment use mathematical
vocabulary, we want to make sure that our students are familiar with the vocabulary. We
do not want our students to do poorly on assessments because they are not familiar with
the vocabulary. During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in which the
facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the content where teachers
may be struggling or need additional training. This will not be based solely on teacher
input but from the PARCC evidence statements as well. Both Special Education teachers
and the English Learning teacher will be invited to participate in these trainings. We
chose this strategy based on the evidence statements from the PARCC data. We realize
that many of our teachers are relatively new and may not be familiar with the content that
has been moved down from higher grade levels. Utilizing content based meeting allows
the sharing of strategies of content where additional work is needed. Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special Education
teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are the strongest in
mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep the same Special
Education teacher working in the same content area, year after year, so that they can
become more comfortable with the content and thus better able to assist in the instruction
of the content. This strategy was chosen based on analysis of the data. Our Special
Education students are still struggling. We have noticed in mathematics classrooms
where the special education teacher has spent numerous years with the content, those
students are performing better than in classrooms where the Special Education teacher is
uncomfortable with the content.
The EL teacher working in conjunction with the regular education teacher will
review the content and translations in the ck12.org site.
The reason that this strategy was chosen is that the EL population in Somerset
County who have little to no knowledge of the English Language is growing.
Teachers are finding that the EL students are having difficulty in mathematics
because the students cannot comprehend what the teacher is saying. Since the
ck12.org site has, the ability to translate material in multiple languages it is
hoped that if the students read the material in their native language, prior to it
being taught will have a general understanding of what the teacher is teaching
and therefore be more success in the classroom. Strategy 1: In the classroom
Integrate the UDL strategies that were presented during the UDL workshops that all 6 – 8
teachers attended. This strategy was selected in that the county has moved towards UDL.
Research has shown that changes made for some students actually can help and support
all students.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 77
During the 2017-2018 school year, spiral review assessments will be developed where
students are given problems which test not only what they are currently studying but what
they have been assessed on in the past. In addition, these spiral review assessments will
contain modeling questions. This strategy was selected in that we have found over the
years material covered in the early part of the year does not remain with the students
throughout the year, especially some of the Geometry standards which are not necessarily
incorporated into content later in the year. Research has shown that the more students are
exposed content the more likely they will remember the content. By spiraling back,
content taught in September will still be in the student’s mind in the spring. During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be actively
engaged in the learning of content and not passive. This strategy was chosen because
active engagement has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning
process and help them remember content more easily. Strategy 2 – Needs of the student
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to reinforce that students are to be actively
engaged in the learning of content and not passive. This strategy was chosen because
active engagement has been shown to help engage English Learners in the learning
process and help them remember content more easily. During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers of English Language Learners will utilize the
ck12.org site to locate content that they will be teaching and assign it to the English
Language Learner prior to the content being taught in class. The reason that this strategy
was chosen is that the EL population in Somerset County who have little to no
knowledge of the English Language is growing. Teachers are finding that the EL
students are having difficulty in mathematics because the students cannot comprehend
what the teacher is saying. Since the ck12.org site has, the ability to translate material in
multiple languages it is hoped that if the students read the material in their native
language, prior to it being taught will have a general understanding of what the teacher is
teaching and therefore be more success in the classroom. At all grade levels, six through twelve, continue to implement the “Freedom to Fail”
model that was present at Professional Development during the summer of 2016. We
continue to implement this strategy because we believe that students learn through
mistakes. Not everyone understands something the first time through the course and this
allows students to go back and correct their mistakes. There is research that shows when
students correct their mistakes, they continue to learn. Strategy 2 – Support for teachers
Institute the MQI coaching model at the middle school and both high schools.
The reason that this strategy was chosen is that it is a research based program
designed to improve teaching in the classroom. Studies have shown that the
effectiveness of the teacher has a direct effect on the learning of the student.
During the 2017-2018 school year, continue to monitor teachers through observations
and walk-throughs to make sure that they are using the correct vocabulary and not
“idioms” and slang words. This strategy was chosen due to the fact in walkthroughs and
observations it was noted that teachers were not using the correct vocabulary when
teaching mathematical content. Since state and national assessment use mathematical
vocabulary, we want to make sure that our students are familiar with the vocabulary. We
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 78
do not want our students to do poorly on assessments because they are not familiar with
the vocabulary. During the 2017-2018 school year, continue holding content based meeting in which the
facilitator or teacher will share teaching strategies for areas of the content where teachers
may be struggling or need additional training. This will not be based solely on teacher
input but from the PARCC evidence statements as well. Both Special Education teachers
and the English Learning teacher will be invited to participate in these trainings. We
chose this strategy based on the evidence statements from the PARCC data. We realize
that many of our teachers are relatively new and may not be familiar with the content that
has been moved down from higher grade levels. Utilizing content based meeting allows
the sharing of strategies of content where additional work is needed. Continue to work with the administration in all schools to see that the Special Education
teachers that are assigned to mathematics classrooms are those that are the strongest in
mathematics. In addition, encourage the administration to keep the same Special
Education teacher working in the same content area, year after year, so that they can
become more comfortable with the content and thus better able to assist in the instruction
of the content. This strategy was chosen based on analysis of the data. Our Special
Education students are still struggling. We have noticed in mathematics classrooms
where the special education teacher has spent numerous years with the content, those
students are performing better than in classrooms where the Special Education teacher is
uncomfortable with the content.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 79
High School Assessment (HSA) Biology
1. Based on available data, describe the challenges in Biology. In your response, identify
challenges for students requiring special education services, students with limited English
proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards meeting
State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards, LEAs are
required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average,
performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole.
Maryland High School Assessment Science Performance Science High (Biology)
Table 2.9: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Science High (Biology)
Subgroup
All Students
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Prof
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
All Students 242 122 50.4 245 154 62.9 196 117 59.6
Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 2 66.7 4 2 50.0 7 5 71.4
American Indian or Alaska
Native 10 8 80.0 9 8 88.9 0 0 0
Asian 5 3 60.0 4 3 75.0 1 1 100
Black or African American 121 47 38.8 111 56 50.5 85 32 37.6
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
White 95 60 63.2 92 69 75.0 90 73 81.1
Two or more races 8 2 25.0 25 16 64.0 13 6 46.1
Special Education 52 11 21.2 35 9 25.7 30 7 23.3
Limited English Proficient
(LEP) 6 1 16.7 7 3 42.9 3 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals
(FARMS) 165 74 44.8 148 86 58.1 117 64 54.7
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 80
Male
All Students
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
All students 110 53 48.2 118 74 62.7 88 51 57.9
Hispanic/Latino of any
race 1 1 100 2 0 0.0 2 1 50.0
Am. Indian or Alaska
Native 5 4 80.0 4 4 100.0 0 0 0
Asian 3 3 100.0 1 1 100.0 1 1 100
Black or African
American 56 18 32.1 48 21 43.8 38 13 34.2
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific
Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
White 43 27 62.8 47 36 76.6 43 33 76.7
Two or more races 2 0 0.0 16 12 75.0 4 3 75
Special Education 35 8 22.9 23 5 21.7 20 4 20
Limited English
Proficient 5 0 0.0 4 1 25.0 3 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals
(FARMS) 71 32 45.1 64 38 59.4 49 25 51
Female
All Students
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
All students 132 69 52.3 127 80 63.0 108 66 61.1
Hispanic/Latino of any
race 2 1 50.0 2 2 100.0 5 4 80.0
Am. Indian or Alaska
Native 5 4 80.0 5 4 80.0 0 0 0
Asian 2 0 0.0 3 2 66.7 0 0 0
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 81
Female
All Students
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
#
Tested
#
Prof.
%
Prof.
Black or African
American 65 29 44.6 63 35 55.6 47 19 40.4
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
White 52 33 63.5 45 33 73.3 47 40 85.1
Two or more races 6 2 33.3 9 4 44.4 9 3 33.3
Special Education 17 3 17.6 12 4 33.3 10 3 30
Limited English
Proficient 1 1 100.0 3 2 66.7 0 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals
(FARMS) 94 42 44.7 84 48 57.1 69 39 57.3
a. Overall Proficiency in High School Assessment (HSA) Biology has decreased
The aggraded data shows a decrease from the 2016 school year 62.9% to
59.6% in the 2017 school year. This is a decrease of 3.3% points.
b. Overall Proficiency in HSA Biology is lagging for certain subgroups
The African American subgroup decreased from 50.5 % in 2016 by 12.9%
points in 2017 to 37.6%
The Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) subgroup decreased from 58.1 % in 2016
by 3.4 % points in 2017 to 54.7%
The Special Education subgroup decreased from 25.7 % in 2016 by 2.4 %
points in 2017 to 23.3%
c. There are significant gaps between subgroup performance in 2016 and 2017.
Gap of 35.3% points between the African American males(58.0%) and the
White males (93.3%) subgroups
Largest gap continues to be between the Special Education subgroup and the
White subgroup in both 2016 and 2017. The gap of 57.8 % points between
the White subgroup (81.1%) and the Special Education subgroup (23.3 %)
d. HSA Intervention has not been effective in raising the HSA proficiency rates.
Scores have not risen to meet county established achievement targets
Present funding does not provide pay for after school tutoring for HSA
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 82
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
a. Staffing changes will require shifting of duties and/or re-targeting or focus.
Use limited flex grouping, pullout intervention and added intervention
sections
Improve the use of the CFIP (Classroom Focused Improvement Process) at
the high school level to lessen the need for outside and/or extra intervention
b. Staff will continue to collaborate, analyze data, and modify instruction.
Develop the Professional Development (PD) schedule with both high school
principals to provide at least one per subject science data meetings per month
to achieve the proper balance of collaboration between teachers of like
subjects and new learning.
Teachers will use performance based assessments to actively engage students
in learning
Require Special Education teachers to work with their co-teachers to analyze
common assessment and benchmark data for the sub-group and individual
students. Students not demonstrating proficiency will be targeted for in-class
interventions designed to catch them up without being pulled out of the
regular classroom
Incorporation of ELL teachers into planning of lesson and pulling out of
students to meet needs of ELL students.
Utilize data from benchmarks and teacher assessments to develop flexible
groups within classrooms to provide remediation to struggling students
Increase the focus on presenting outdoor real world experiences that will give
students hand on experiences through using 4H partnership
3. Science teachers and staff will participate in continuing Professional
Development
County wide professional development will be available to all teachers to
increase their knowledge of UDL strategies during the summer and
throughout the school year.
Provide Professional Development on the Next Generation Science Standards
and their link to the Core Learning Goals for Biology and all Science classes.
Provide Special education and ELL teachers opportunity to attend summer
and afterschool professional development to gain basic understanding in the
shift in science standards
Utilize outside community partnerships such as university of Maryland
extension
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 83
ADJUSTMENT and
TIMELINE
RESOURCES CATEGORY and FUNDING
Next Generation Science
Standards identification and
implementation 6th – 8
th grade
August 2017 – June 2018
Summer PD and afterschool PD Summer PD ($1800)
4. Science teachers will transition to new curriculum and new instructional
strategies
Implement Maryland Common Core disciplinary literacy for science
framework. Benchmarks will include questions pertaining to argumentative
thinking and writing.
Use of the 5E lesson plan format to write science lesson plans to promote
more active engagement of students and encourage scientific thinking and
inquiry
Teach students how to support arguments and claims to improve secondary
literacy in science class
Utilize Maryland Environmental Literacy Partnership to create hands on
activities for students
Continue to develop field experiences in all science course to promote
environmental literacy
ADJUSTMENT and
TIMELINE
RESOURCES CATEGORY and FUNDING
Common Core literacy
standards for science
August 2017 – June 2018
Professional Development None using staff specialist
Elementary Social Studies
Section 5-(401)(c)(8), Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires local
school system agencies to provide a description of how they plan to ensure and measure the
academic proficiency of students in social studies, science, math, reading and language arts.
Data Review:
All elementary schedules indicate that social studies is being taught a minimum of 30
minutes a day or the equivalent (an hour using A/B scheduling)
Challenges:
Elementary Schools inherently have lots of activities that have to be scheduled in,
necessitating something else be cut. As elementary social studies have not been assessed
either by the state or locally, it is often the first thing cut.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 84
Strategies & Changes
Priority 1- Mandate Social Studies taught for a minimum of 30 minutes daily.
Continue to mandate elementary schedules include 30 minutes of daily social studies
instruction or its equivalent (no additional funding needed)
Increase walkthroughs and observations of elementary social studies instruction by Social
Studies Supervisor (no additional funding needed)
Review and administer one teacher created assessment per grade (1-5) for social studies
and review data (local budget for teacher professional development stipends)
Priority 2- Streamline and implement Pk-5th
grade content standards, curriculum, scope and
sequences, and pacing guides.
Continue to collaboratively review curriculum and scope and sequence with teachers and
facilitators to evaluate progress (local budget for teacher professional development
stipends)
Priority 3- Increase professional development for Social Studies teachers.
Provide one day of professional development for social studies teachers of grades 4-5 in
June of 2017 (local budget for teacher professional development stipends)
Priority 4- Develop assessments that will help guide Social Studies instruction and learning.
For grades 1-5 teachers collaboratively review critical content and revise one online tests
during the year (local budget for online testing platform and teacher professional
development stipends)
Priority 5- Incorporate and blend financial literacy curriculum following pacing guide.
Provide professional development from MCEE (Maryland Council on Economic
Education) during the year with free educational resources (local budget for teacher
professional development stipends)
Priority 6- Incorporate writing in all social studies curriculums
Include writing on assessments (no additional funds required)
Flesh out writing prompts for specific units (local budget for teacher professional
development stipends)
High School Assessment (HSA) Government
1. Based on available HSA data, describe the challenges in Government. In your response,
identify challenges for students requiring special education services, students with limited
English proficiency, and students failing to meet, or failing to make progress towards
meeting State performance standards. In the absence of State performance standards,
LEAs are required to report on any segment of the student population that is, on average,
performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole. Refer to
pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the reporting requirements for
students receiving special education services and students with Limited English
Language Proficiency.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 85
Table 2.17: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Government (All
Administrations)
Student Group All Students All Students All Students
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
All Students 180 140 77.8 221 148 67 191 136 71.2
American Indian or
Alaska Native
8 7 87.5 8 8 100
0 0 0
Asian 3 2 66.7 4 3 75 1 1 100
Black or African
American 79 61 77.2 90 49 54.4 82 47 57.3
Hispanic/Latino of
any race
1 1 100 2 0 0
8 6 75
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
White 84 66 78.6 96 73 76 86 75 87.2
Two or more races 5 3 60 21 15 71.4 14 7 50
Special Education 27 13 48.1 35 12 34.3 28 8 28.5
Limited English
Proficient (LEP)
2 0 0 8 2 25
2 0 0
Free/Reduced Meals
(FARMS) 113 81 71.7 125 83 66.4 116 76 65.5
Student Group Male
2015 2016 2017
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 86
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
All Students 85 65 76.5 106 72 67.9 83 59 71
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
4 3 75 4 4 100 0 0 0
Asian 3 2 66.7 1 1 100 1 1 100
Black or
African
American
33 24 72.7 40 20 50 35 19 54.2
Hispanic/Latino
of any race 1 1 100 2 0 0 1 1 100
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 42 33 78.6 48 36 75 42 36 85.7
Two or more
races 2 2 100 11 11 100 4 2 50
Special
Education 20 10 50 22 7 31.8 18 5 27.7
Limited English
Proficient
(LEP)
2 0 0 5 1 20 2 0 0
Free/Reduced
Meals
(FARMS)
51 37 72.5 60 38 63.3 47 31 65.9
Student
Group
Female
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 87
2015 2016 2017
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
#
Tested
#
Pass
%
Pass
All Students 95 75 78.9 115 76 66.1 108 77 71.2
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
4 4 100 4 4 100 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 3 2 66.7 0 0 0
Black or
African
American
46 37 80.4 50 29 58 47 28 59.5
Hispanic/Lati
no of any race 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 71.4
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White 42 33 78.6 48 37 77.1 44 39 88.6
Two or more
races 3 1 33.3 10 4 40 10 5 50
Special
Education 7 3 42.9 13 5 38.5 10 3 30
Limited
English
Proficient
(LEP)
0 0 0 3 1 33.3 0 0 0
Free/Reduced
Meals
(FARMS)
62 44 71 65 45 69.2 69 45 65.2
DATA REVIEW:
CELEBRATIONS
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 88
Overall pass rate increased 4%, from 67% to 71.2%
Overall pass rate for African Americans increased from 54.4% to 57.3% and increased in
both genders
Overall pass rate for Whites increased from 76% to 86.2% and increased in both genders
CHALLENGES
A gender gap exists between economically disadvantaged females and males. Males
in this category showed an increase of approximately 5% whereas females of the
same economic status showed an overall decrease of 4%
Pass rates for special education students decreased from 34.3% in 2016 to 28% in
2017
Only two LEP students tested making the population too small to report on without
disclosing personally identifiable information
Nearly 80% (77.78%) of repeat test takers failed the assessment
Students in the two or more races category decreased dramatically from 71.4% to
50%. The number of students in this category that tested was lower than last year,
going from 21 students to only 14 this year.
85% of repeat test takers failed the test.
GENERAL CHALLENGES:
Many classes at one high school exceeded the normal average of 25 due to less staff in
the social studies department
Scheduling difficulties makes scheduled or even pull out intervention difficult
SPECIAL EDUCATION CHALLENGES
Providing UDL training to all staff continues to be a struggle with limited time and
extensive teacher turnover
Extensive written responses continue to challenge our students
Special Education students often read well below grade level making both reading the
test and written articulation of ideas difficult
o Academic vocabulary is extensive and conceptually challenging
o Technology isn’t available 100% of the time for technology based, UDL
strategies to be implemented
Extended and/or extra time for intervention is challenging
o Special Education teachers are fully scheduled, making extra time difficult to find
o Intervention in one area often leads to the detriment in other areas
Small staffs with large needs make collaboration for co-teaching and planning difficult
o Special education teachers often do not have common planning with their regular
education counterparts
Strategies to decrease achievement gap were difficult to implement
o Facilitators often were unable to hold data meetings at all due to other extensive
duties, including testing
o Funding and scheduling difficulties led to less focus on UDL than originally
planned
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 89
EL CHALLENGES
ELL teachers split between schools throughout the county, decreasing availability of
teachers for individual students
ELL diversity in the county increased significantly, now including a larger variety of
languages to accommodate
ACHIEVEMENT GAP CHALLENGES
African Americans have a higher rate of disciplinary referrals in both high schools, by
extension increasing disciplinary consequences including less time in class
The percentage of African Americans in our county is approximately 50% so isolated
intervention often turns into full group re-teaching as opposed to focused instruction
A relatively small percentage of these students that need tutoring are unable to stay after
school due to extra-curricular or family obligations. Others are unwilling to stay.
2. Describe the changes or strategies, and the rationale for selecting the strategies and/or
evidence-based practices that will be implemented to ensure progress. Include timelines
and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate. Include a description of
corresponding resource allocations. (LEAs should include funding targeted to changes or
adjustments in staffing, materials, or other items for a particular program, initiative, or
activity. The LEA should identify the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted.
If the source is Federal IDEA or Title I – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the
attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source (unrestricted or restricted) and include
attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the
reporting requirements for students receiving special education services and
students with Limited English Language Proficiency.
Strategies & Changes
Priority 1- Use local benchmark data (as available) to identify struggling students from identified
sub-groups for targeted intervention
Quarterly data meetings will be held with teachers, facilitators, special educators, and
English learner resource teachers if possible to review benchmark data (local budget pays
for facilitators)
Students not mastering specific content and/or skills will be identified and a plan for
intervention and/or tutoring will be developed. (local budget pays for facilitators)
Intervention and/or re-teaching strategies will be developed (no additional funding
needed)
Re-assessment assignments will be developed for students that did not initially master
content/skill (no additional funding needed)
Teachers will coordinate with special education and English learner teachers to provide
specific intervention for those students identified as not mastering content/skills (no
additional funding needed)
Teachers will identify students that represent the achievement gap, African American
students, that did not master content/skills and make parent contact to discuss available
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 90
tutoring options and transportation issues if after school tutoring is relevant (no additional
funding needed)
Priority 2- Provide content professional development to government teachers
Share government workshops as offered
Submit government teacher names for Government HAS item writing (substitutes for
selected teachers paid for with local funding)
Priority 3- Develop curriculum document that includes matches to 6.0 skills and suggested
materials
Collaboratively create curriculum using primary and secondary sources that utilize an
inquiry approach (local budget for teacher professional development)
Meet monthly with secondary facilitators to create mini inquiry lessons (no additional
funding needed)
Priority 4 (new)- Update assessments to reflect changes in the scope & sequence
Collaboratively review local benchmark assessments to better reflect new instructional
shifts as well as timing changes resulting in moving from 50 to 60 minute classes
(supervisor and facilitators, no additional funding necessary)
Priority 5 – Provide more intense instruction to special education students and more
opportunities for focused instruction
Make sure students in HSA government classes have a special educator in class to
provide full services. (local funding)
Utilize technology to provide more individualized instruction (Kurzweil, screen casting,
etc…) (no additional funding necessary, training done on county professional
development day)
Utilize UDL strategies from training to provide more differentiated and individualized
instruction. (no additional funding necessary, UDL training paid for using special
education funds and local money)
Continue UDL and student engagement training throughout school year and participate in
walkthrough/planning meetings (UDL consultants paid using special education funding)
Create vocabulary and other resource materials for students that are enrolled in Reading
Acceleration class (those students with verbatim reading as an IEP accommodation)
Train teachers of the Reading Acceleration program on how to use vocabulary to deepen
student understanding of government (after school training teachers, special education
funding)
Priority 6 – Strengthen economics instruction throughout US History II curriculum to provide
foundation for government students.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 91
Strengthen Great Depression unit to include more information on Monetary and Fiscal
policy (summer collaborative curriculum work, local professional development funding)
Priority 7- Strengthen EL student knowledge of government
Utilize EL teacher at Washington High School to pull EL students that are in government
class to work on government and English language learning several days a week.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 92
2017 BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE
MASTER PLAN
ASSESSMENT ADMINISTERED
REQUIREMENT TEMPLATE
2017 BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN
ASSESSMENTS ADMINISTERED BY LEAs
In accordance with requirements of §7-203.3, for each assessment administered, the LEA must
provide the following information. Use the template on page 18 to list the required assessment
information:
The title of the assessment;
The purpose of the assessment;
Whether the assessment is mandated by a local or state entity;
The grade level or subject area, as appropriate, to which the test is administered;
The testing window of the assessment; and
Whether accommodations are available for students with special needs and what
accommodations are.
Assessments refer to local, state or federally mandated tests that are intended to measure a
student’s academic readiness, learning progress, and skill acquisition. Assessment does not
include a teacher- developed quiz or test, or an assessment or test given to a student relating to
the following:
A student’s 504 Plan;
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20U.S.C.1400; or
Federal law relating to English Language Learners.
On or before October 15, 2016, assessment information required in §7-203.3 (see above) are
intended to measure a student’s academic readiness, learning progress, and skill acquisition, shall
be:
updated;
posted on the website of the LEA; and included in the Annual
update of the LEA master plan required under §5-401.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 93
Title of the Assessment Purpose of the Assessment
Mandated by a Local or State Entity
As Appropriate, to which the assessment is administered
Testing Window Are Accommodations Available for Students with Special Needs?
What are the Accommodations?
1
Grade Level Subject Area
ACCESS To help ELLs understand their current level of English Language proficiency along the developmental continuum.
Federal K – 12 English as a Second
Language
January 8 – February 9
As long as the accommodations do not change the construct being measured
2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
KRA To determine what each kindergarten student knows and is able to do based on the PreK standards in Language and Literacy, Mathematics, Physical Well-Being and Motor Development, and Social Foundations
State Kindergarten Domains of Learning
September 5 – October 10
No Guidelines for allowable supports are based on Universal Design for Learning (see Appendix A)
Alt-Misa To assess students with significant cognitive disabilities in the area of science
State 5, 8, 10 Science March 12 – May 18
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
1 At the end of the document, a list of accommodations for the abbreviations will be listed.
2017 BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN
ANNUAL UPDATE ASSESSMENT ADMINISTERED BY LEA
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 94
MISA Science To measure students achievement in science in grades 5 and 8
State 5, 8 Science March 5 – 23 Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
MSAA (Multi-State Alternative Assessment
To assess students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in the area of English Language Arts and Mathematics
State 3 – 8, and 11 English and Math
March 19 – May 4
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
PARCC ELA/Literacy To provide high quality assessments for students’ progression toward post-secondary readiness and success and to measure student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy based on the learning standards contained in the Common Core State Standards
State 3- 8 English April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 3J, 3l, 3n, f4, 4h, 4n, 4o, 4p, 5a
PARCC Math To provide high quality assessments for students’ progression toward post-secondary readiness and success and to measure student achievement in Mathematics based on the learning standards contained in the Common Core State
State 3 – 8 Math April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 95
Standards
PARCC Algebra I To provide high quality assessments for students’ progression toward post-secondary readiness and success and to measure student achievement in Mathematics based on the learning standards contained in the Common Core State Standards
State 9 Math April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
PARCC ELA/Literacy To provide high quality assessments for students’ progression toward post-secondary readiness and success and to measure student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy based on the learning standards contained in the Common Core State Standards
State 10 English April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 3J, 3l, 3n, f4, 4h, 4n, 4o, 4p, 5a
PARCC Algebra II To determine if students are College and Career Ready
State 11 Math April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 4e, 4l
PARCC ELA/Literacy To determine if students are College and Career Ready
State 11 English April 24 – May 31
Yes PARCC 3J, 3l, 3n, f4, 4h, 4n, 4o, 4p, 5a
Government HSA To ensure that State 10 – 12 Social January 8 – Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H,
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 96
Maryland’s high school graduates are prepared to be productive citizens as they pursue higher education careers
Studies January 12 May 21 – May
25
3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
HS-MISA To measure students achievement in three main science disciplines: earth/space science, life science (biology) and physical science (chemistry and physics)
State 11 -12 Science May 16 – May 23
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Reading Pre-test To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local K – 5 English September Yes 1C, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Reading Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 1 – 5 English 6 times per year
Yes 1C, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Reading Post-test To measure student growth on standards, can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local PK – 5 English May Yes 1C, 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Math Diagnostic To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used
Local PK – 5 Math September Yes PARCC 4e, 4l, 5a
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 97
for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Mathematics Mid-Year Test To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local PK – 5 Math January Yes PARCC 4e, 4l, 5a
Mathematics Post-Test To measure student growth on standards, can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local PK – 5 Math May Yes PARCC 4e, 4l, 5a
Research Simulation – Diagnostic
To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 6 – 12 English September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Literary Analysis - Diagnostic
To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 6 – 12 English September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
ELA Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 6 – 12 English Given at the end of each unit of study
(5 assessments)
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Research Simulation – Summative
To measure student growth on standards, can be used for teacher Student Learning
Local 6 – 12 English May Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 98
Objectives
Literary Analysis Summative To measure student growth on standards, can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 6 – 12 English May Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Mathematics Unit Assessments
To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 6 – 7 Math Given at the end of each unit of study
(7 assessments)
Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Mathematics Midterm To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 6 – 7 Math January Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Mathematics Final To measure student growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 6 – 7 Math June Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Math Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 8 – 12 Math At the end of quarter 1 and
3
Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Math Midterm(s) To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 8 – 12 Math January Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Math Final(s) Geometry, Integrated Mathematics, Fundamentals of College Math, Statistics
To measure student growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 10 – 12 Math January (Semester
courses), June
Yes PARCC 4e, 5a
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 99
Science Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 6 - 7 Science 3 times per year
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Science 8 Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 8 Science 3 times per year
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Environmental Literacy Midterm
To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 9 Science January Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Environmental Literacy Final
To measure student growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 9 Science June Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Biology Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 10 Science 3 times per year, at the end of each
quarter
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Biology Final Exam To measure student growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 10 Science June Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Social Studies 6th and 7th Grades Diagnostics
To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction, can be used for teacher Student Learning Objective
Local 6 – 7 Social Studies
September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Social Studies 6th and 7th To measure student Local 6 – 7 Social June Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H,
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 100
Grades Final Exams growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Studies 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History 1 Diagnostic To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 8 Social Studies
September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History 1 Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 8 Social Studies
3 times per year, at the
end of each of the first 3 quarters
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History 1 Final Exam To measure student growth on standards; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 8 Social Studies
June Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History II Diagnostic To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 9 Social Studies
September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History II Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 9 Social Studies
3 times per year, at the
end of each of the first 3 quarters
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
US History II Final Exam To measure student growth on standards;
Local 9 Social Studies
January for 1st semester
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 101
can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
classes, and June
Government Diagnostic To obtain a baseline measure and allow teachers to target instruction; can be used for teacher Student Learning Objectives
Local 10 Social Studies
September Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Government Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction
Local 10 Social Studies
3 times per year, at the
end of each of the first 3 quarters
Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
PSAT To familiarize students with the structure, content and process of taking the SAT and give students an idea of how they will may perform on the actual SAT assessment
Local 10 – 12 English/Math October 11, April 11
Yes Students are allowed the same accommodation that they would receive on the SAT
Accuplacer College Math To determine if the student is College and Career Ready and Dual Enrollment purposes
Local 11 - 12 Math September, January, June
No
Accuplacer Sentence Structure
To determine if a student qualifies for Dual Enrollment. For 12th grade is also used for determining College and Career Ready
Local 11 - 12 English September, January, June
No
Accuplacer Reading To determine if a Local 11 - 12 English September, No
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 102
Comprehension student qualifies for Dual Enrollment. For 12th grade is also used for determining College and Career Ready
January, June
Accuplacer Writing To determine if a student qualifies for Dual Enrollment. For 12th grade is also used for determining College and Career Ready
Local 11 - 12 English September, January, June
No
Scholastic Reading Inventory
To measure how well students read literature and expository texts of varying difficulties
Local 6 – 10 English 3 times per year
No
ServSafe To measures the knowledge and skills that the graduating Culinary Arts students need to know to keep food safe and prevent foodborne illness
Local 12 Culinary Arts May No
ParaPro To measure the foundation of knowledge and skills of teaching
Local 12 Automotive May No
ASE Student Certification To measure the students’ knowledge of Suspension and Steering, Brakes, Electrical/Electronic Systems, Engine Performance, Engine
Local 12 Automotive May No
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 103
Repair, Automatic Transmission/Transaxle, Manual Drive Train and Axles and Heating and Air Condition knowledge
CCNA To measure the students’ knowledge of understanding of network fundamentals and network-security technologies
Local 12 Information Technology
May No
Key to Assessment Chart Accommodations
Accommodations MAM
Large Print 1 A
Interpretation/Transliteration for the Deaf or Hard of Hearing 1C
Human Reader or Audio Recording for Verbatim Reading of Entire Test 1F
Human Reader/Human Signer NA
Human Reader of Audio Recording for Verbatim Reading of Selected Sections of
Test
1G
Scribe 2A
Monitor Test Response 2H
Mathematics Tools and Calculation Devices 2J
Extended Time 3A
Multiple or Frequent Breaks 3B
Reduced Distractions to the Student 4A
Reduced Distractions to Other Students 4B
Accommodations PARCC
ELA Math
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 104
Text – to – Speech 3j
Human Reader/Human Signer 3l
Human Signer for Test Directions 3n
Calculation Device and Mathematics Tools 4e
ELA/Literacy Selected Response Options
Speech – to – text 4f
Human Signer 4h
Mathematics Response Options
Human Signer 4l
ELA/Literacy Selected Constructed Response Options
Speech – to – Text 4n
Human Scribe 4o
Human Signer 4p
Extended Time 5a 5a
Accommodations for English Learners
Extended Time 7a 7a
KRA Accommodations description
Teachers administer the KRA to students with disabilities and students who are English learners. Teachers collaborate with the student’s
instructional team (e.g., special educator, English for speakers of other languages [ESOL] staff, parents) to identify needed supports.
Several UD allowances are provided and are aligned to best practices for access to instruction and assessment. Allowances include reading
the directions as many times as needed, magnification, amplification and physical supports, changes in settings, scheduling and
encouragement for students to take as long as needed for a response.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 105
Appendices
Appendix A – Contact Information for MSDE Program Managers
Appendix B – General Submission Procedures
Appendix C – Bridge to Excellence Resources
Appendix D – Local Bridge To Excellence Points of Contact
Appendix E- Minority Achievement Action Plan Timeline
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 106
Appendix A – Contact information for MSDE Program Managers
Program
Contact Telephone E-Mail
Master Plan Requirements Michelle Daley
410-767-0359 michelle.daley@maryland.gov
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act Flexibility
Requirements
Danielle Susskind 410-767-0476 danielle.susskind@maryland.gov
Finance Requirements
Donna Gunning
410-767-0757
donna.gunning@maryland.gov
Title III, Part A English Language
Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement
Ilhye Yoon
Laura Hook
410-767-0714
410-767-6577
ilhye.yoon@maryland.gov
laura.hook@maryland.gov
Special Education Programs
Monique Green 410-767-0256 monique.green@maryland.gov
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 107
Appendix B – General Submission Procedures
Posting and Submission Procedures
The 2017 Master Plan is shared with the LEA master plan points of contact via Google Drive
and Docushare. The Master Plan Annual Update submission procedures include three submission
options: Google Drive, Docushare OR hard copy via U.S. mail. Each point of contact is
assigned a username of password to access secure folders via Docushare.
General Submission Procedures
Date 2017 Submission Procedures
October 16
DRAFT
SUBMISSION
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION- Using Google Drive or Docushare, LEAs may
submit their 2017 Master Plan Annual Update. This electronic submission should
include the annual update and the Excel workbooks containing the Finance, and Data
sections.
The annual update document should be submitted in PDF format. The Excel
workbooks should be submitted in Excel format.
Google Drive Submission
Share the Master Plan Annual Update via Google Drive with Michelle Daley at
(michelle.daley@maryland.gov).
The annual update should be submitted as one document in PDF format. The
Excel workbook containing the Finance and Data Section worksheets should
be submitted as separate documents in Excel format.
Docushare Submission
The annual update should be submitted as one document in PDF format. The
Excel workbook containing the Finance and Data Section worksheets should
be submitted as separate documents in Excel format.
Hardcopy Send 5 hardcopies, double-sided and three-hole-punched: Annual Update,
Finance Sections, and Data Sections.
Avoid sending documents in binders.
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 108
Date 2017 Submission Procedures
November 17
FINAL
SUBMISSION
Google Drive Submission
Share the Master Plan Annual Update via Google Drive with Michelle Daley at
(michelle.daley@maryland.gov).
The annual update should be submitted as one document in PDF format. The
Excel workbook containing the Finance and Data Section worksheets should
be submitted as separate documents in Excel format.
The annual update must contain original signatures in all areas where required.
Docushare Submission
The annual update should be submitted as one document in PDF format. The
Excel workbook containing the Finance and Data Section worksheets should
be submitted as separate documents in Excel format.
The annual update must contain original signatures in all areas where required
Hardcopy Send 2 hardcopies, double-sided and three-hole-punched: Annual Update,
Finance Sections, and Data Sections.
Avoid sending documents in binders.
The annual update must contain original signatures in all areas where required
All Master Plan Annual Update hard copy and signed original C-125s should be
sent via U.S. mail to:
Michelle Daley
Division of Student, Family, and School Support
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street (4th Floor)
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 109
Appendix C: Bridge to Excellence Resources
Bridge to
Excellence
Bridge to
Excellence Home
Page
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/BridgeExcellence/ index.aspx
Bridge to
Excellence Master
Plans
http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-7622
2017 Bridge to
Excellence
Guidance
Documents
http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-37930
2017 Bridge to
Excellence
Calendar of Events
http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-37896
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 110
Local Education Agency Name E-mail
Allegany County Kim Green kim.green@acpsmd.org
Allegany County Ellen Sause ellen.sause@acpsmd.org
Anne Arundel County Deanna Natarian dnatarian@aacps.org
Anne Arundel Sheila McEwan smcewan@aacps.org
Baltimore City Jennifer Dull Jdull@bcps.k12.md.us
Baltimore City Kasey L. Mengel kmengel@bcps.k12.md.us
Baltimore County Kara Calder kcalder@bcps.org
Calvert County Diane Workman workmand@calvertnet.k12.md.us
Calvert County Darlene White whited@calvertnet.k12.md.us
Caroline County Patricia Saelens saelens.patricia@ccpsstaff.org
Carroll County Greg Bricca gjbricc@carrollk12.org
Carroll County Alice Smith amsmit3@carrollk12.org
Carroll County Michille Caples mdcaple@carrollk12.org
Carroll County Drew Sexton acsexto@carrollk12.org
Cecil County Rick Edwards redwards@ccps.org
Charles County Joan Withers jwithers@ccboe.com
Charles County Amy Hollstein ahollstein@ccboe.com
Dorchester County Renee Hesson hessonr@dcpsmd.org
Frederick County Doreen Bass doreen.bass@fcps.org
Frederick County Natalie Gay natalie.gay@fcps.org
Garrett County Karen Devore karen.devore@garrettcountyschools.org
Harford County Renee Villareal Renee.villareal@hcps.org
Howard County Caryn Lasser caryn_lasser@hcpss.org
Kent County Gina Jachimowicz gjachimowicz@kent.k12.md.us
Montgomery County Thomas P. Klausing thomas_p_Klausing@mcpsmd.org
Montgomery County Sharron Steele sharron_steele@mcpsmd.org
Prince George’s County Veronica Harrison veronica.harrison@pgcps.org
Prince George’s County Fred Hutchinson fhutch@pgcps.org
Queen Anne’s County Julia Alley Julia.alley@qacps.org
Somerset County Tom Davis tdavis@somerset.k12.md.us
Somerset County Tracie Bartemy tbartemy@somerset.k12.md.us
Somerset County Jill Holland jholland@somerset.k12.md.us
St. Mary’s County Jeffrey Maher jamaher@smcps.org
Talbot County Helga Einhorn heinhorn@tcps.k12.md.us
Washington County Peggy Pugh pughpeg@wcps.k12.md.us
Washington County Michele Jakoby jakobmic@wcps.k12.md.us
Wicomico County Bonnie Ennis bennis@wcboe.org
Worcester County Sandy Pacella smpacella@mail.worcester.k12.md.us
Appendix D: Local Bridge to Excellence Points of Contact
Somerset 2017 Annual Update November Submission Page 111
APPENDIX E- Minority Achievement Action Plan Timeline
August September October November December
January February March April May June
Monthly Meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recruitment of MAC members
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sub-committees developed (Completed in 16-17)
Review of Goals and interventions identified for each sub-committee
X
X
X
X
SWAT Analysis of Interventions/ Resources Identified
X
X
X
Action Plan Reviewed and Updated as appropriate
X
X
X
X
Implementation of Action