Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools · o PARCC Mathematics for Grades 3...

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: [email protected]

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 1

Executive Summary


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 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.


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.


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.


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


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


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





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.


Finance Section


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.


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.


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


Restricted

117,082


84.010

30,964


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


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


84.010

14,400


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


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


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


(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


Unrestricted Equipment 285,000.00

362,696.00

-



84.010 Equipment 13,560.00

14,841.00

-


84.027 Equipment 4,198.00

- -


Restricted Software and Equipment

26,200.00

- -


Unrestricted Infrastructure ( including software)

121,900.00

89,151.00

-


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

-


84.010 Assemblies 6,400.00

982.00

-


84.010 Parental Involvement

10,159.00

1,443.00

-



Unrestricted Instructional Assistants

646,416.00

732,199.00

47.8

63.0


Unrestricted Learning Support Specialists

396,925.00

91,858.00

7.0

7.0


Unrestricted Summer/Extended Education

95,000.00

74,183.00

-


Unrestricted Student and Health Services

588,566.00

975,200.00

12.6

10.0


Restricted Student and Health Services

8,860.00

435,948.00

-


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


Unrestricted Building Operations and Maintenance

3,090,713.00

3,174,745.00

34.0

40.0


Unrestricted Clerical Support 141,031.00

143,962.00

2.0

2.0


Unrestricted Consortium Dues 39,240.00

45,671.00

-


Unrestricted Finance Office 448,327.00

451,895.00

5.5

6.0


Unrestricted Fringe Benefits 8,565,298.00

7,681,353.00

-


84.010 Fringe Benefits 406,995.00

431,764.00

-


84.027 Fringe Benefits 231,535.00

230,649.00

-


Restricted Fringe Benefits 224,299.00

320,251.00

-


Unrestricted Office of the Superintendent

295,500.00

380,726.00

2.0 2.0


Unrestricted Public Relations 101,766.00

104,826.00

1.0 1.0


84.027 Special Education Services

141,531.00

- -


Restricted Special Education Services

293,338.00

716,129.00

-


Unrestricted Supplies, Postage, and Equipment

106,827.00

99,165.00

-


84.010 Supplies, Postage, and Equipment

1,000.00

624.00

-


84.010 Transportation 5,100.00

1,605.00

-


84.027 Transportation 2,940.00

3,689.00

-

Mandatory Cost of Doing Restricted Transportation -


Business 31,429.00 83,081.00


Unrestricted Transportation 2,891,339.00

2,976,521.00

- 1.5


Restricted Administration 40,903.00

119,028.00

-


Unrestricted Carryover to FY19 Budget

270,444.00


Unrestricted Out of County and Non Public Placement

22,000.00

39,644.00

-


Restricted Judy Center 495,000.00

560,536.00

5.0

5.0


Restricted Migrant 182,627.00

183,838.00

1.0

1.0


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


Maryland’s Goals,

Objectives and

Strategies


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





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.


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


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


# 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


Table 2.4a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - English Language Arts/Literacy for Grade 10 ALL STUDENTS

Student Group

2017


# 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


Challenge:

Coordination of services with EL and SPED staffing needs to be strengthened.


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.



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.


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.



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


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



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.


WonderWorks

Foundational Skills

Intervention


participated in the

Reading series’

intervention

component, led by

McGraw’s

Instructional

This was

provided my

McGraw for

free. No

additional

funding is

needed



Consultant

Accessing Complex Text

Intervention


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


Department Meetings September 2017-

June 2018

All EL and SPED

staff will rotate

attending the after

This work is

done during the

contracted



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




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



# 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


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


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


Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 455 72 15.8 145 31.9 138 30.3 91 20 9 2




# 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


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



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


# 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


Asian 2 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 25 6 24 9 36 7 28 3 12 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





# 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




# 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




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






# 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


Asian 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


GRADES 3-5 FEMALE STUDENTS 2015


# 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


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




# 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


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




# 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


Asian 3 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3




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






# 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


Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 32 4 12.5 17 53.1 8 25 3 9.4 0 0


White 116 9 7.8 25 21.6 36 31 36 31 10 8.6




# 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



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


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


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


# 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


Asian 3 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3




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




Student Group 2016


# 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


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



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




Student Group 2017


# 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


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





Student Group 2017


# 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




Student Group 2015


# 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


Asian 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 216 23 10.6 82 38 77 35.6 34 15.7 0 0


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


Asian 1 0 0 1 100 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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 200 41 20.5 74 37 72 36 13 6.5 0 0


Student Group 2017


# 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


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





Student Group 2017


# 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



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


# 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


Asian 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50




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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 209 25 12 68 32.5 78 37.3 37 17.7 1 0.5



Student Group 2016


# 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


Asian 3 0 0 1 33.3 2 66.7 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





Student Group 2017


# 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


Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 23 0 0 10 43.5 7 30.4 6 26.1 0 0



Student Group 2017



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




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.


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


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.


Monies for Professional Development, stipends and materials, will be requested

through the local budget.

Rationale for Math Strategies









attributable funds. Refer to pages 9 and 10 to ensure your response includes the



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.


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


will more than likely provide some of the funding for the new intervention program that is

purchased for math.


















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.





student.















is demonstrating.






















2016.




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,





Table 2.8a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I ALL STUDENTS

Student Group 2015

# Tested


# 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


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


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





Student Group 2016


# 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



Student Group 2016


# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.


Asian 2 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 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





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


Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 15 3 20 4 26.7 3 20 5 33.3 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




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.



Table 2.8b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra I MALE STUDENTS

Student Group 2015


# 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


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


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


Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 41 7 17.1 17 41.5 16 39 1 2.4 0 0


Student Group 2016


# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.



Student Group 2016


# 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


Asian 2 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 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




Student Group 2017


# 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


Asian 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



Student Group 2017


# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.


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


# 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


Asian 1 0 0 1 100 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


Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 2 66.7 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0




Student Group 2016


# 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


Asian 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





Student Group 2017


# 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


Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 8 2 25 1 12.5 3 37.5 2 25 0 0


White 50 4 8 15 30 21 42 10 20 0 0



Student Group 2017


# 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




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


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


seven-period day of 52 minutes, yearlong has resulted in a loss of teaching time


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.

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.




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.






























will be identified; the classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the

Instructional Facilitator will develop a plan to provide remediation.





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.
















is demonstrating.





















2016.



PARCC Algebra II (Optional Reporting)

1. Based on available PARCC data, describe the challenges in Algebra II. In your response,





performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a whole.


Table 2.9a: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II ALL STUDENTS

Student Group 2015


# 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


Asian 2 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0


Hispanic/Latino of any race 7 2 28.6 4 57.1 0 0 1 14.3 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





Student Group 2016


# 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


Asian 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0




White 18 4 22.2 7 38.9 5 27.8 2 11.1 0 0



Student Group 2016


# 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





Student Group 2017


# 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


Asian 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





Table 2.9b: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II MALE STUDENTS

Student Group 2015


# 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


Asian 2 0 0 2 100 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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 23 6 26.1 10 43.5 7 30.4 0 0 0 0


Student Group 2016


# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 20 8 40 9 45 2 10 1 5 0 0


Asian 1 0 0 1 100 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



Student Group 2016


# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Prof.

% Prof.





Student Group 2017


# 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


Asian 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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 12 1 8.3 3 25 6 50 2 16.7 0 0


Table 2.9c: PARCC Assessment Performance Results - Algebra II FEMALE STUDENTS

Student Group 2015


# 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


Asian 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





Student Group 2016


# 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


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



White 12 2 16.7 5 41.7 4 33.3 1 8.3 0 0



Student Group 2016


# 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





Student Group 2017


# 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


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


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



Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 10 4 40 2 20 1 10 3 30 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 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


seven-period day of 52 minutes, yearlong has resulted in a loss of teaching time


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.


There is no remediation program at the high school level. The teachers do any




remediation.




As can be seen in the District Summary of Schools provided by Pearson, both

schools are struggling with modeling.





























will be identified; the classroom teacher, the Special Education teacher and the

Instructional Facilitator will develop a plan to provide remediation.






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.















is demonstrating.


















2016.




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



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


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

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.


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



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



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


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


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.


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


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


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













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


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.


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,










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


#

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


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


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


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.












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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


Government HSA To ensure that State 10 – 12 Social January 8 – Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H,


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


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


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


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,


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


US History 1 Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction


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


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



US History II Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction




Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B

US History II Final Exam To measure student growth on standards;


January for 1st semester

Yes 1F, 1G, 2A, 2H, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B


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



Government Benchmarks To track and monitor student growth and allow teachers to target instruction




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


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


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


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.


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


Appendix A – Contact information for MSDE Program Managers

Program

Contact Telephone E-Mail

Master Plan Requirements Michelle Daley

410-767-0359 [email protected]

Elementary and Secondary

Education Act Flexibility

Requirements

Danielle Susskind 410-767-0476 [email protected]

Finance Requirements

Donna Gunning

410-767-0757

[email protected]

Title III, Part A English Language

Acquisition, Language Enhancement,

and Academic Achievement

Ilhye Yoon

Laura Hook

410-767-0714

410-767-6577

[email protected]

[email protected]

Special Education Programs

Monique Green 410-767-0256 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







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

([email protected]).

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




Hardcopy Send 5 hardcopies, double-sided and three-hole-punched: Annual Update,

Finance Sections, and Data Sections.

Avoid sending documents in binders.



Date 2017 Submission Procedures

November 17

FINAL

SUBMISSION

Google Drive Submission

Share the Master Plan Annual Update via Google Drive with Michelle Daley at

([email protected]).




The annual update must contain original signatures in all areas where required.

Docushare Submission




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



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


2017 Bridge to

Excellence

Calendar of Events


http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/BridgeExcellence/



Local Education Agency Name E-mail

Allegany County Kim Green [email protected]

Allegany County Ellen Sause [email protected]

Anne Arundel County Deanna Natarian [email protected]

Anne Arundel Sheila McEwan [email protected]

Baltimore City Jennifer Dull [email protected]

Baltimore City Kasey L. Mengel [email protected]

Baltimore County Kara Calder [email protected]

Calvert County Diane Workman [email protected]

Calvert County Darlene White [email protected]

Caroline County Patricia Saelens [email protected]

Carroll County Greg Bricca [email protected]

Carroll County Alice Smith [email protected]

Carroll County Michille Caples [email protected]

Carroll County Drew Sexton [email protected]

Cecil County Rick Edwards [email protected]

Charles County Joan Withers [email protected]

Charles County Amy Hollstein [email protected]

Dorchester County Renee Hesson [email protected]

Frederick County Doreen Bass [email protected]

Frederick County Natalie Gay [email protected]

Garrett County Karen Devore [email protected]

Harford County Renee Villareal [email protected]

Howard County Caryn Lasser [email protected]

Kent County Gina Jachimowicz [email protected]

Montgomery County Thomas P. Klausing [email protected]

Montgomery County Sharron Steele [email protected]

Prince George’s County Veronica Harrison [email protected]

Prince George’s County Fred Hutchinson [email protected]

Queen Anne’s County Julia Alley [email protected]

Somerset County Tom Davis [email protected]

Somerset County Tracie Bartemy [email protected]

Somerset County Jill Holland [email protected]

St. Mary’s County Jeffrey Maher [email protected]

Talbot County Helga Einhorn [email protected]

Washington County Peggy Pugh [email protected]

Washington County Michele Jakoby [email protected]

Wicomico County Bonnie Ennis [email protected]

Worcester County Sandy Pacella [email protected]

Appendix D: Local Bridge to Excellence Points of Contact




































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


August September October November December

January February March April May June

Plan

X X

X X X

X X X X

Parent Survey Disseminated

X

Parent Survey Results Collected and Shared with MAC

X

Parent Workshops Held Based on Survey Data

X

Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools · o PARCC Mathematics for Grades 3...

Documents

Transcript of Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools · o PARCC Mathematics for Grades 3...