1.cdn.edl.io · web viewobserve and provide data on the frequency and type of modified lessons...

Maryland’s Reform PlanBridge to Excellence in Public Schools

Race to the Top

2014 Guidance Part 1

Maryland State Department of EducationDivision of Student, Family, and School Support

Division of Academic Policy and Innovation Office of Finance

November 18, 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction: Integration of Race to the Top with Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan

iv

Section A Executive Summary and State Success Factors 1 Introduction 3 Cross Cutting Themes & Specific Groups in Bridge to Excellence 6 Universal Design for Learning 7 Finance 9 Analyzing Questions 22 Race to the Top Monitoring Questions 24 Race to the Top Close Out Report 25

Section B Standards and Assessments 37o Annual Measurable Objectives 37o Reading 39o Math 59o Science 71o Social Studies 82o High School Assessments 88

Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence 113o English Language Learners 113o Career and Technology Education 118o Early Learning 123o Gifted and Talented Education 133o Special Education 142o Education that is Multicultural 147

Section C Data Systems to Support Instruction Race to the Top Scope of Work Update (ONLY for LEAs with An

Approved No Cost Extension)

Section D Great Teachers and Leaders 151 Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Staff 151 High Quality Professional Development 160 Persistently Dangerous Schools 171 Attendance 172 Graduation and Dropout Rates 176

Section E Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools Race to the Top Scope of Work Update (ONLY for LEAs with An

Approved No Cost Extension)

Section F General

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page ii

Table of Contents

Race to the Top Scope of Work Update (ONLY for LEAs with An Approved No Cost Extension)

54

Appendices Appendix A: Contact Information for MSDE Program Managers 57 Appendix B: General Submission Instructions 58 Appendix C: Bridge to Excellence Resources 60 Appendix D: Race to the Top Liaisons 61 Appendix E: Race to the Top Finance Officers 62 Appendix F: MSDE Race to the Top Scopes of Work Reviewers 63 Appendix G: Local Bridge to Excellence Points of Contact 64 Appendix H: Race to the Top Fiscal Controls 65

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page iii

Integration of Race to the Top with Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan

Authorization

Section 5-401, Comprehensive Master Plans, Education Article of the Annotated Code of MarylandPublic Law 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Introduction

Beginning in 2011, Maryland integrated the Race to the Top (RTTT) Local Scopes of Work with the existing Bridge to Excellence Master Plan (BTE) and reviewed and approved the Scopes of Work within the Master Plan review infrastructure in accordance with RTTT and BTE guidelines. The purpose of this integration was to allow Maryland’s Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to streamline their efforts under these programs to increase student achievement and eliminate achievement gaps by implementing ambitious plans in the four RTTT reform areas. This integration also enabled the Maryland State Department of Education to leverage personnel resources to ensure that all Scopes of Work receive comprehensive programmatic and fiscal reviews.

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 school systems 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, which links school finance directly and centrally to decisions about improving student learning. By design, the legislation requires school systems to integrate State, federal, and local funding and initiatives into the Master Plan. Under Bridge to Excellence, academic programming and fiscal alignment are carefully monitored by the Master Plan review process.

In August 2010, Maryland was awarded one of the Race to the Top (RTTT) education grants. The grant provided an additional $250 million in funds over four years and will be used to implement Maryland’s Third Wave of Reform, moving the State from national leader to World Class. Local RTTT Scopes of Work have been developed by Maryland school systems and are closely aligned with the overall State plan to guide the implementation of educational reforms. Beginning in 2012, local Scopes of Work were integrated and reviewed as part of the BTE Master Plan.

In May 2012, the United States Department of Education approved Maryland’s application for flexibility from some of the long-standing requirements of No Child Left Behind. The flexibility waiver is intended to support the education reform already underway through programs like Race to the Top. The Master Plan has been adjusted to address the demands of Maryland’s new accountability structure.

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page iv

2014 Master Plan Annual Update

(Include this page as a cover to the submission indicated below.)

Master Plan Annual Update Part I

Due: November 18, 2014

Local Education Agency Submitting this Report:

Somerset County Public SchoolsAddress: 7982A Tawes Campus Drive Westover, MD 21871Local Point of Contact:Patti West-SmithTelephone:410-651-1616E-mail: [email protected]

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided in the 2014 Annual Update to our Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is correct and complete and adheres to the requirements of the Bridge to Excellence and Race to the Top programs. 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.

*Only participating LEAs need to complete the Race to the Top Scopes of Work documents that will now be a part of the Master Plan.

_______________________________________ ________________________Signature of Local Superintendent of Schools Dateor Chief Executive Officer

______________________________________ ________________________Signature of Local Point of Contact Date

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page v

Local Planning Team Members

Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence/Race to the Top planning team. Please include affiliation or title where applicable.

Name Affiliation/Title

Dr. John B. Gaddis Interim Superintendent

Tom Davis Assistant Superintendent of Instruction

Nancy Smoker Assistant Superintendent of Administration

Patricia West-SmithSupervisor of Instructional Programs, Master Plan Point of Contact

Wendy Harrison Chief Financial Officer

Tracie Bartemy Supervisor of Elementary Reading/Title 1

Traci Schneider Supervisor of Elementary Math, Science, STEM and GT

Tracey Cottman Supervisor of Secondary Student Services

Renee McLaughlin Supervisor of Elementary Student Services

Beth Whitelock Supervisor of Human Resources

Lynnette Johnson Supervisor of Special Education

Vicky Ford Coordinator of Special Education Compliance

Jill Holland Coordinator of Instructional Technology

William Gray Supervisor of Secondary Science/Mentor Coordinator

Terry Drechsler Supervisor of Secondary Math/LAC

Karen Goldman-Karten Coordinator of Early Childhood

Dave Elebash Principal, J.M. Tawes Career and Technology Center

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page vi

Executive Summary to the 2014 Update

SOMERSET COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLSExecutive Summary for the 2014-2015 Master Plan Update

INTRODUCTIONThe 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.

The commitment is clear: Somerset will achieve these goals, celebrate progress, and persist in continuous improvement. As a true learning community, Somerset educators know that each and every one matters; our task is getting better every day at everything we do.

Progress depends upon both systemic development and incremental change. Incremental positive changes can be seen throughout this document. Prior to the transition to Common Core, Somerset elementary schools are consistently achieving at high rates. Since the inception of MSA, our students had made steady, continual progress over the years. As we continue our full transition to the Common Core State Standards, we have seen a drop in our MSA Reading and Math scores. Further analysis is presented in this document; however, it is important to note the progress that had been made in terms of testing results. High schools, with grades 8-12, have continued to struggle to consistently meet these same levels of achievement, but have experienced dramatic growth over the past six years. As we have moved forward with the new assessments and the changes in the curriculum, we have seen a “leveling off” period and even a decline as the misalignment between the curriculum and the assessments has been apparent.

In addition to celebrating student achievement progress, other significant successes experienced over the last few years were: the addition of an innovative and efficient Finance and HR system, the expansion of the Career and Technology Education programs, and completion of administrator and supervisor training utilizing the Teachscape training program which focused on Charlotte Danielson’s renowned framework of teacher observation and evaluation. Currently, all administrators have been labeled as Highly Qualified observers as a result of the training. Diversity in our leadership across schools and the district has been successfully expanded at both the school and county levels. Initial professional development for teachers has been completed as the teacher evaluation system reached all classrooms last school year, and additional training in the writing of high quality SLO’s has begun for this year, as the system refines the process. Implementing the High Roads Academy for students with severe behavioral and emotional needs continues to be a priority as we look for strategies to help these students in earlier grades that have documented behavioral or emotional needs. Other achievements have been in significantly

Somerset 2014 Annual Update November Submission Page 1

expanding our dual enrollment with local institutions of higher education and working to increase parent involvement in all schools.

This year, Somerset will be implementing a variety of programs that will assist is meeting the diverse needs of our student population. As the first district in the state of Maryland to receive the Community Eligibility Provision, Somerset will now be able to feed breakfast and lunch to all of our students with not cost accrued by their family. Northern Princess Anne will receive their first Judy Center located at Princess Anne Elementary School. This program will provide the necessary assistance support services for children birth through kindergarten to improve school readiness. Recently identified as a recipient of the Preschool Development Expansion Grant, Somerset will move toward having a Judy Center located in the southern end of the county by the fall of 2015. Additionally, a 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant will allow Somerset County to provide after-school programs at four schools strategically located across the county. The components of this program will help eliminate the achievement gap through academic offerings, provide a safe and drug free learning environment, and give students an opportunity to experience character enrichment and supervised recreation. At the high school level, 2015 will mark the beginning of Somerset’s 1-to-1 technology initiative. All students in grades 11 and 12 will receive tablets and digital curriculums will be utilized to drive instruction. Enriching student engagement, fostering independent learning, and raising academic achievement are the objectives of this program; funding for the program was secured through an award of $400,000 from the highly competitive Digital Innovation Learning grant.

Together, these initiatives testify to the fact that Somerset is making its mark on Maryland’s educational success. In spite of economic hurdles, increased standards of performance, misaligned curriculum and assessment, and diminishing revenue, Somerset County students, families, staff and community are seeing significant progress in the educational system.

BUDGET NARRATIVEA. System Priorities

Somerset County’s main priority going into the FY 2015 school year is to maintain staff and core programs, while at the same time building leadership capacity, updating data systems, transitioning to the Common Core Curriculum and providing necessary professional development. Decreasing operating budgets since 2009 have forced Somerset to reduce expenditures by cutting staffing and eliminating non-essential programs. The number of staff was reduced through attrition and the elimination of several positions. Programs have been maintained by shifting and adding responsibilities to remaining staff.

A major focus of the new superintendent since he arrived on July 1, 2013 has been communicating with all stakeholders and examining all aspects of the school system. The first step in this process was to restructure leadership teams both at the district and school level. Teams were reconstructed to provide a smooth transition for students by having central office based responsibilities that allow constant communication and much needed vertical articulation conversations. Further, the restructuring has allowed for the distribution of job tasks as staff has changed throughout the year. At the building level, all principals will be evaluated directly by the superintendent and a focus has been on the professional development needed in order to build their capacity as leaders. To impact the system’s


capacity to effect growth, Somerset County has engaged in the Middle States Commissions on Elementary and Secondary Schools protocol called Excellence by Design. This strategic, system-wide planning approach will purposefully focus on continuous and systemic efforts to grow and improve student performance.

Maryland’s Race to the Top (RTTT) grant required all school systems to build a robust data system that can provide MSDE with the data they need. An earlier analysis of Somerset’s enterprise data systems revealed a need to update the finance system in use for the past 30 years. The Human Resources division had been without a reliable system for the past several years and therefore the decision was made to look for a new finance system which had an HR component to it. SCPS went live with eFinance, an enterprise system from Sungard, in July 2012 and have been refining the use of many components to improve operational efficiency. RTTT funds have been instrumental in funding the new system, which satisfies the needs of both Finance and HR.

School systems nationally are focusing on transitioning to the Common Core State Standards, (CCSS) and Somerset is no different. In professional development and instructional feedback, Somerset must work to educate teachers about the shifts in both literacy and math at all levels. The district is balancing the needs of Maryland’s current assessment program with the required shifts associated with the College & Career Readiness Standards and the PARCC assessments. Fortunately, Somerset, along with districts across the country, has learned that the rigor of the Common Core will certainly exceed the current demands. Much of the work Somerset needs to do will be completed in professional learning communities, collaboratively. The structures of Somerset’s Early Dismissal Professional Development time for elementary teachers and the weekly Afternoon Professional Development for secondary teachers are the vehicle Somerset will use to move forward, which is why these structures have been carefully guarded and remain a system priority.

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 2015 funds are being used to provide the needed professional development this year.

B. Demographic Changes and Fiscal OutlookMaryland was recently named the wealthiest state 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 at 26.2%. Maryland’s Median Household Income is $70,075 while Somerset’s Median Household Income $35,426.

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 2952 and is comprised of approximately of 42% White students, 43% African American students, 7% Hispanic students, 5% more than one race, and less than 1% Asian, Hawaiian and American Indian students. Approximately 37% of Somerset’s children live in single parent households, and 72% 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.

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.

Somerset County Public Schools has decreased staff and certain programs over the last three fiscal years capitalizing on attrition and severely limiting replacements; retargeting and redistributing funds to the greater areas of need; restricting funding to current initiatives rather than new; working under the guidelines to save positions rather than increase salaries or benefits; and “shaving” all non-critical areas to bare bone essentials.

ConclusionIn Somerset County, almost every school has some level of poverty meeting the federal guidelines for eligibility for Title One, often considered the epitome of deeming a school one of poverty. As a district, the elementary, middle, and high school levels all have more than 50% of their students living in poverty, with the middle school level exceeding 70% impoverished.

It is known just how much work it has taken to make the gains accomplished, and it is known how much focus and effort it will take to continue beyond. The best tools of instruction and


all financial resources have been used to make this progress, but the shift to the Common Core, new teacher and principal evaluations, and upcoming PARCC assessments will require the need to work even harder.

Obstacles still exist and problems persist despite Somerset’s best efforts. Targets will continue to advance, even within the new accountability system under Maryland’s ESEA waiver. At the middle and high levels, in particular, significant gaps in achievement between subgroups have been identified. Special Education students have made progress, across all levels, but the progress still lags behind other subgroups. In Special Education, for example, this subgroup continues to lag behind their non-Special Education peers at elementary, middle, and high school levels, and the subgroup has actually lost ground in achievement in some instances. Bold steps are necessary to address this issue.

Special Education is not the only issue, though. At many levels, male students are not performing at the same levels as their female counterparts. Graduation, too, is a problem. Historically, Somerset has been unsatisfied with graduation rate, but this year this rate has dropped off precipitously, with some subgroups falling as low as a 60% graduation rate.

And there are new challenges. Economic hardships are likely to increase, and enrollment, which had declined steadily since 1993, is on the rise, at least for this year. Somerset asks daily:

How will Somerset ensure that every student has access to the highest quality education?

How will Somerset guarantee that each child graduates from Somerset County Public Schools ready for college and careers?

How will the district make sure that each child can make informed decisions about his/her life and have access to every door of opportunity open to them?

How will Somerset certify that it provides them with the skills and tools to be active, engaged, productive citizens in a world that will look quite different than it does today?

Despite these daunting challenges in today’s reality, Somerset knows that it must do these things. Somerset’s work as a school system and as a community is more important than ever. We recognize that programs such as Community Eligibility Provisions, the Judy Center and the Preschool Development Grant – Expansion Grants will be a great resource to combat the obstacles faced. The children here must be the reflection of who this community is and what it values. In Somerset’s original Master Plan, this mission was set forth:

To unite the best efforts of our entire community in order to assure that all students achieve high standards, graduate from high school and are equipped with the skills and behaviors to attain success in a rapidly changing world.

As Maryland as a state, and Somerset County Public Schools as a district continue into this third wave of reform, the requirements and standards have changed. Even the assessments are changing, and certainly society and the economy have changed and will continue to do so. This mission, though, remains constant.


Goal Progress

Cross Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence

Educational technology has, for many years, been a priority in Somerset County and a focus of the Master Planning process. As a system with such a pervasive level of poverty, the system has long believed that access to technology and 21st Century skills can be a “great equalizer” for our community, ensuring that Somerset’s students have access to the same opportunities as their more financially fortunate peers. As Somerset enters into our second year of full implementation the Common Core, this technology literacy becomes all the more critical in our efforts to prepare students for advanced studies and the world of work. The level of knowledge about technology tools and effective integration practices in the district has dramatically increased in the last decade and significant efforts toward proficiency with the Maryland Technology standards have been made. Today, many classrooms are equipped with LCD projectors, Promethean white boards, document cameras, and other technology tools. Additionally, Somerset has a large number of mobile computer carts with laptops to support instruction, and these laptops are regularly used to engage students in instruction. These efforts have resulted in a decrease in discipline problems in many cases.

Unfortunately, due to extremely limited budgets and a decline in revenue over the past several years, many new technology purchases, upgrades, replacements, and additions have been delayed. These difficult choices have undermined Somerset’s technology vision. The organization and the leadership, however, remain committed to increasing students’ preparation for college and careers; as a district, we believe that a part of that commitment is ensuring that students have the educational opportunities to master technology literacy. In order to support this vision in the face of difficult economic times, Somerset’s team has pursued a grant funding to support our efforts. In the late summer of 2014, we received notice that we had been awarded $400,000 through MSDE’s Digital Learning Innovation fund to support these technology literacy efforts. With this funding, we will reintroduce a 1-to-1 environment in our high schools and embark on a 3-year plan to arm our teachers with the necessary professional development to help this endeavor be successful.

Education That Is Multicultural is another cross cutting theme in Somerset’s Master Plan. This work has two aspects—education for staff and education for students. Somerset is committed to better understanding the increasingly diverse students, families, and cultures that are present in classes in order to better meet the needs of all students. Somerset has worked to improve the organizational sensitivity to and understanding of how culture impacts teaching and learning, and this continues to be a theme in professional development work with staff at all levels. As part of these efforts, we have increased opportunities in professional development for both English Language Learners and core area teachers, in culturally responsive pedagogy, as well as differentiation. We are also working to form a Cultural Community Liaison Committee with members of our rapidly growing Hispanic community; some of the individuals involved in the planning for this group are also working to overcome barriers already, including providing translation for mass communications, policies, and procedural documents, as well as other outreach activities. Additionally, Somerset strives to improve the scope of multicultural curriculum and learning experiences for students. Efforts have been made to enrich students’


classroom and field experiences to present many cultures and to incorporate this learning in students’ day-to-day instruction. In an effort to support this work, teachers have been asked to participate in extra-duty activities around multi-cultural planning, as well as collaborative curriculum development activities to support diverse learner groups.

A final cross cutting theme is in the area of Special Education. Like LEA’s across Maryland and schools across the nation, Somerset has struggled to improve Special Education achievement and improve the program in a way that meets the needs of diverse student populations. In particular, Somerset has certainly struggled to increase student achievement in reading and math. Unfortunately, gaps between Special Education and their non-Special Education peers have persisted despite our efforts. While progress has been made in some schools, the progress has been inconsistent and has proven challenging to sustain. The program was restructured and reorganized in 2011-2012. However, consistency continues to be a challenge, and in some cases, schools have actually regressed in their Special Education subgroup achievement. Moving forward, Somerset will continue to evaluate the program and make efforts to improve. In doing so, the district will closely examine efforts that are successful and those that are not in order to refine practices that are effective and eliminate those that are not. As part of our continuing efforts to improve Special Education, Somerset has engaged in collaboration with the Center for Autism and Related Disorders through an MSDE discretionary grant to provide evidence-based practices for students ages 3-8. We will also begin implementing the Applied Behavior Analysis best practices and strategies to foster positive and appropriate behaviors in students. Finally, we are making efforts this year to schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum to receive remediation and review of skills.

Universal Design for Learning

How is UDL being implemented for students with disabilities? For ELL students?

Special Education teachers are co-planning, co-teaching and co-analyzing student data through the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to identify the strengths and needs of their students. Through intervention services, students with learning disabilities are provided an opportunity to hear, see, and process the lesson content in a modified manner to best suit their individual needs.

To better meet the needs of how our students with disabilities learn, teachers have received professional development in a variety of research-based, best practices. Kagan’s Structures of Cooperative Learning is a structured peer interaction approach which emphasizes positive human relationships, collaboration between peers, active learning, academic achievement, equal participation and equal status of students in the classroom. VIOLETS (Vocabulary Improvement & Oral Language Enrichment through Stories) is a research-based approach designed to develop oral language, pre-literacy skills, and background knowledge in young English Language Learnings and children with low expressive language skills. To stimulate interest and motivation for learning mathematics, students are provided the opportunity to experience math activities through Dreambox. Through this program, math becomes real and relevant as students gain a


conceptual understanding and the ability to solve real-world problems while applying standards of mathematical practices.

For GT students?

The following is a list of stimulating and motivating GT activities that allow these students an opportunity to experience a higher level of “what” they learn and a varied approach to address “how” they are learning.

GT Challenge to showcase STEM related projects Dreambox Learning activities the provide individualized acceleration of students in math Robotics classes Student Expositions of Learning Participation in the Green Engineers Club All-Shore and All-State competition and recognition for musically and vocally talented

students. Advanced Placement and Honors courses in high school Dual Enrollment courses with Wor-Wic Community College, University of Maryland

Eastern Shore, and Salisbury University

How are all students included in intervention and enrichment, particularly SPED, GT, and ELL students?

All students in grades K-8 are involved in intervention or enrichment activities to address their comprehension and advance their knowledge of required concepts and skills associated with the College & Career Readiness Standards. These sessions are regularly scheduled and conducted during the reading and math blocks of instruction.

How are UDL principles used in curriculum, instruction, and assessment development/implementation to eliminate barriers?

Throughout the development of curriculums, implementation of instruction, and creation/administration of assessments, multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement are infused. Instructionally, teachers are implementing research-based strategies to meet the learning needs of all students. Assessments are differentiated to provide students multiple ways of demonstrating their mastery of the concepts. Curriculum development is completed at the local level in a manner that is mindful of UDL principles. Every effort is made at each level to eliminate learning barriers that exist among our student bodies.


I.B

Finance Section

IntroductionThe Master Plan Annual Updates provide insight into the work in which school systems engage on a daily basis, demonstrating their commitment to accelerating student achievement and eliminating achievement gaps. 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, Race to the Top Scope of Work grant documents and Project Budget workbooks, and analyzing questions. Together, these documents illustrate the LEA’s alignment of the annual budget with the Master Plan priorities.

Background

In FY 2009, the finance structure created through the Bridge to Excellence Act was fully phased-in. In August of 2010, Maryland was awarded a federal Race to the Top grant which is assisting the State and its participating LEAs implement Maryland’s third wave of education reform. The focus of the finance section will be the total budget and all budgetary changes (retargeted funds, redistributed resources, and new funds) as opposed to only looking at uses of new funds. This focus is indicated in the Executive Summary and the supporting tables.


1.1A: Current Year Variance TableLocal School System: Somerset County Public SchoolsLocal Appropriation $8,785,412 Other Local Revenue $974,932 State Revenue $27,753,669 Federal Revenue* 84.010 Title I $1,384,718 Federal Revenue* 84.010 Title I - School Improvement $70,217 Federal Revenue* 84.027 IDEA, Part B $884,918 Federal Revenue* 84.395 Race to the Top $193,942 Other Federal Funds** $817,012 Other Resources/Transfers $392,281 Total $41,257,102

Instructions: Itemize FY 2015 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 AssessmentsReform 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 FTETextbooks and Materials Unrestricted $ 320,280 Textbooks and Materials Restricted $ 8,120 RTTT Project 2 Race to the Top $ 587 RTTT Project 4 Race to the Top $ 679 Assessment System Race to the Top $ 53,726

Section C - Data Systems to support instructionReform 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 FTEData Analyst and Associate Unrestricted $105,629 2.00Equipment Unrestricted $402,990 Infrastructure (including software and licenses) Unrestricted $ 91,486 Network administration and technicians Unrestricted $ 180,130 4.00Software and Equipment Title I $ 21,081 Software and Equipment Restricted $ 24,301

Section D: Great Teachers and LeadersReform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed

most.Expenditures: Source Amount FTEExtra Duty Contract Unrestricted $160,000 Instructional Leadership Unrestricted $739,607 Instructional Staff Unrestricted $12,678,177 231.00


1.1A: Current Year Variance TableLocal School System: Somerset County Public SchoolsOffice of Human Resources Unrestricted $ 288,661 4.00Professional Development Unrestricted $ 349,380 School Leadership Unrestricted $2,108,068 31.00Special Education Services Unrestricted $2,174,321 39.00Student and Health Services Unrestricted $ 930,457 12.00Technology Unrestricted $ 189,556 5.00Instructional Staff Title I $ 647,320 11.00Professional Development Title I $ 247,868 Instructional Staff Restricted $ 37,755 1.00Instructional Assistants Restricted $ 38,610 1.00Professional Development Restricted $ 43,414 Teacher & Principal Evaluation Race to the Top $ 33,875 Promising Principals Technology Race to the Top $ 1,750 Instructional Staff IDEA $ 34,741 1.00Instructional Assistants IDEA $ 9,319 0.25Professional Development IDEA $ 21,839 Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieving SchoolsReform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools

Expenditures: Source Amount FTEAttendance Clerk Unrestricted $ 9,927 0.25Extracurricular Activities Unrestricted $ 28,000 Instructional Assistants Unrestricted $ 781,570 20.00Learning Support Specialists Unrestricted $ 199,209 4.00Summer/Extended Education Unrestricted $ 132,535 School Improvement Title I - School Improvement $ 70,217 Parent Involvement Title I $ 13,856 Contracted Services Title I $ 5,500 Parent Involvement Restricted $ 3,206 Student Work Experience Restricted $ 21,178 Early Childhood Race to the Top $ 17,028 College and career Race to the Top $ 16,038 Student Instructional Intervention System Race to the Top $ 70,259

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 FTEBoard of Education Unrestricted $ 115,540 1.00Building Operations and Maintenance Unrestricted $3,179,952 34.00Clerical Suport Unrestricted $ 138,119 5.00Consortium Dues Unrestricted $ 45,000 Finance Office Unrestricted $ 455,113 6.00Fringe Benefits Unrestricted $8,321,722


1.1A: Current Year Variance TableLocal School System: Somerset County Public SchoolsInsurance Unrestricted $ 24,000 Office of Superintendent Unrestricted $ 340,779 3.00Public Relations Unrestricted $ 99,760 1.00Supplies, Postage and Equipment Unrestricted $ 155,470 Transportation Unrestricted $2,938,856 6.00Supplies, Postage and Equipment Title I $ 43,298 Fringe Benefits Title I $ 357,706 Mid Level Administration Title I $ 47,089 0.50Transportation Title I $ 1,000 Special Education Restricted $ 7,782 Clerical Restricted $ 502 Supplies, Postage and Equipment Restricted $ 19,272 Fringe Benefits Restricted $ 8,131 Transportation Restricted $ 9,709 Special Education IDEA $ 787,422 14.50Supplies, Postage and Equipment IDEA $ 13,451 Fringe Benefits IDEA $ 14,221 Transportation IDEA $ 3,925 Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category.

Expenditures: Source Amount FTEOut of County and Non Public Placement Unrestricted $12,000 Special Education - High Roads Unrestricted $170,000 Dual Enrollment Unrestricted $40,000 Judy Center Restricted $330,000 2.50Migrant Restricted $ 265,033 1.00**Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds.

**all other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds.


1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures)

Local School System: Somerset County Public Schools

FY 2014Original Budget

FY 2014 Final Budget

Revenue 7/1/2013 6/30/2014 Change%

Change

Local Appropriation 8,778,969 8,778,969 - 0%

State Revenue 26,691,167 26,596,515 (94,652) 0%

Federal ARRA Funds 84.395 RTTT 353,217

427,800

74,583 21%

Federal Revenue 84.010 Title I 1,321,800

1,385,148

63,348 5%

84.027 Spec Ed 786,327

716,907

(69,420) -9%

Other Federal Funds 799,941

1,496,797

696,856 87%

Other Local Revenue 843,570

801,225

(42,345) -5%

Other Resources/Transfers 7,851 7,851 - 0%

Total 39,582,842

40,211,212

628,370 2%




Change in Expenditures - Instructions: Itemize FY 2014 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

ExpenditureActual

ExpenditurePlanned FTE

Actual FTE

Standards and Assessments Unrestricted SAT Preparation Staff 12,800

-

0.25

-

Standards and Assessments Unrestricted Textbooks and Materials 544,668

368,547

Standards and Assessments Restricted Restricted Textbooks and Materials 1,815

63,312

Standards and Assessments 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 2

2,469

522

Standards and Assessments 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 4

2,720

2,041

Standards and Assessments 564,472

434,421

0.25

-

Data Systems to Support Instruction Unrestricted Data Analyst and Associate




94,814 99,289 2.00 2.00

Data Systems to Support Instruction Unrestricted Equipment 384,050

525,459

Data Systems to Support Instruction UnrestrictedInfrastructure (Including software and licenses)

78,034

72,621

Data Systems to Support Instruction Unrestricted Network administration and technicians 233,383

189,469

5.00

4.00

Data Systems to Support Instruction Restricted Restricted Software and Equipment 74,948

79,129

Data Systems to Support Instruction 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 11

76,872

67,895

1.00

1.00

Data Systems to Support Instruction 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 9

4,893

4,893

Data Systems to Support Instruction 84.010Title I Software and Equipment

32,307

41,901

Data Systems to Support Instruction 979,302

1,080,657

8.00

7.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Extra Duty Contract 155,000

160,260




Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Instructional Leadership 674,805

502,513

8.00

6.50

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Instructional Staff 12,483,761

11,982,994

222.00

213.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Office of Human Resources 180,776

158,334

4.00

4.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Professional Development 330,240

253,269

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted School Leadership 2,095,833

2,075,510

31.00

31.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Special Education Services 1,988,574

2,190,153

38.50

38.50

Great Teachers and Leaders UnrestrictedStudent and Health Services

597,351

877,987

12.00

12.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Unrestricted Technology 174,750

218,617

5.00

5.00

Great Teachers and Leaders Restricted Restricted Instructional Assistants 41,876

157,265

1.00

1.00

Great Teachers and Leaders RestrictedRestricted Instructional Staff

344,070

460,536

6.00

8.00




Great Teachers and Leaders Restricted Restricted Professional Development 43,886

56,336

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.395Race to the Top Educator Effectiveness Academy

16,821

12,202

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 15

85,852

100,187

1.00

1.00

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.395 Race to the Top RTTT TPE -

79,686

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.027 IDEA Instructional Staff 395,858

359,537

8.40

8.40

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.027IDEA Professional Development

20,265

15,388

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.010 Title I Instructional Staff 398,880

396,357

7.00

7.00

Great Teachers and Leaders 84.010 Title I Professional Development 438,029

451,027

Great Teachers and Leaders 20,466,627

20,508,157

343.90

335.40

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools Unrestricted Attendance Clerk 9,135

29,425

0.25

0.50




Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools Unrestricted Extracurricular Activities 24,000

24,424

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools Unrestricted Instructional Assistants 712,956

706,219

19.00

19.00

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools UnrestrictedLearning Support Specialists

389,428

170,794

6.00

3.00

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools UnrestrictedSummer/Extended Education

79,472

104,720

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Project 19

150,932

150,932

2.00

2.00


2,000

1,000


5,000

6,000


5,659

1,659

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 84.395Race to the Top RTTT Coll Career

785

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 84.010 Title I Parent Involvement 59,924

49,649




Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 84.010 Title I School Improvement -

45,600

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 1,438,505

1,291,206

27.25

24.50

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Board of Education 118,800

119,051

1.00

1.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Building Operations and Maintenance 3,004,993

2,997,636

34.00

34.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Clerical Suport 120,527

139,473

5.00

5.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Consortium Dues 32,000

41,913

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Finance Office 333,831

356,425

5.00

5.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Fringe Benefits 7,754,767

6,828,216

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Insurance 20,000

27,963

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Office of Superintendent 294,952

321,466

3.00

3.00




Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Public Relations 99,794

98,772

1.00

1.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Supplies, Postage and Equipment 136,708

136,788

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Unrestricted Transportation 2,961,355

2,802,990

6.50

5.50

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Restricted Restricted Clerical 6,792

34,238

0.25

1.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Restricted Restricted Fringe Benefits 20,443

200,150

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business RestrictedRestricted Special Education

29,395

161,795

0.50

3.50

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business RestrictedRestricted Supplies, Postage and Equipment

36,543

100,201

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business Restricted Restricted Transportation 5,723

25,948

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.027 IDEA Fringe Benefits 201,197

193,543

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.027 IDEA Special Education 146,432

135,510

2.50

2.50




Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.027 IDEA Supplies, Postage and Equipment 19,975

11,354

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.027 IDEA Transportation 2,600

1,575

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.010 Title I Fringe Benefits 326,821

326,650

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.010Title I Mid Level Administration

62,139

61,488

1.00

1.00

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.010 Title I Supplies, Postage and Equipment 2,000

12,476

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 84.010 Title I Transportation 1,700

-

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business 15,739,487

15,135,620

59.75

62.50

Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education Unrestricted Out of County and Non Public Placement

30,000

80,794

Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education Unrestricted

Special Education - High Roads

170,000

441,000

Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education Restricted

Restricted Lower Shore WIA

116,841

113,405

1.00

1.00




Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education Restricted Restricted Migrant

77,609

44,482

1.00

1.00

Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education Unrestricted

Excess Revenue to Fund Balance

-

1,081,470

Other items deemed necessary by the Local Board of Education

394,450

1,761,152

2.00

2.00

Total 39,582,841

40,211,212

441.15

431.40


Revenue and Expenditure Analysis

1. Did actual FY 2014 revenue meet expectations as anticipated in the Master Plan Update for 2013? If not, identify the changes and the impact any changes had on the FY 2014 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 FY 2014 met budget projections in Unrestricted Local/State funding and Restricted Federal funding with a total variance of only +2%. There were additional RTTT funds received for implementing Teacher Principal Evaluation (TPE) plans in support of sustaining and creating Great Teachers and Leaders. Restricted revenues used for instructional staff/assistants and professional development were higher than expected resulting in additional support for providing Great Teachers and Leaders.

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 AssessmentsOverall, spending in this category was below the planned expenditure. Some purchases of textbooks and materials using Unrestricted funds during FY 2014 were delayed due to curriculum changes and lack of updated items.

Data Systems to Support InstructionThe school system purchased software and equipment using both Unrestricted and Restricted Funding 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.

Great Teachers and LeadersWe used additional funding for Teacher Principal Evaluation planning to further advance the Great Teachers and Leaders goal. Our school district continues to support the goal of creating and maintaining Great Teachers and Leaders by providing competitive salaries and benefits including professional development opportunities.

Turning Around Lowest Performing SchoolsThe Summer School program was extended this year to provide students with additional time to turn around their performance. The school district continues to improve policies, procedures and administrative functions with a focus on improving the lowest performing schools.

3. Please describe the steps that the school system proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries to overcome barriers that impede access to, or participation in, a program or activity.Somerset County Public Schools makes every effort possible to provide interpreters for parents of our ESOL students when they come to our schools for meetings and parent involvement activities. Whenever possible documents sent home to these families are translated into their native language as well. Transportation is an issue for many families in our school system; therefore, transportation is provided for students in order for them to be able to participate in


programs such as summer school and our migrant programs. In addition, our adult education program provides vouchers for student and parents to ride the commuter bus to Greenwood Elementary School and other Adult education classes.

4. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds?“Funding cliffs” challenge our school system to evaluate the funded programs and positions to establish a priority within the unrestricted budget for maintaining those services considered to be essential to meeting our goals.


Race to the Top Monitoring Questions

1. Is a balance available in any project? If so, please provide, for each project, the balance available, a narrative explanation for the balance, and the LEA’s plan to fully expend the balance, include a date by which the funds will be expended.

All LEA RTTT funds have been spent to $0 by August 2014.

2. If the balance available is not obligated, for each project with a balance, please provide a narrative description of the impact on Project Year 5 planning.

N/A

3. What programmatic changes or accelerations have been made to ensure that activities and goals are met within the grant period?

N/A4. What will the LEA do differently in Project Year 5 as a result of lessons learned in

implementing Project Year 4?

Somerset did not apply for an extension. N/A

5. Does the LEA anticipate any challenges in implementing Project Year 5? If so, please identify the challenges at the grant and project level, if applicable.

Somerset did not apply for an extension. N/A


LEA 2014 Race to the Top Close Out ReportPlease complete and submit as part of the Master Plan by October 15, 2014.

LEA: Somerset County Public Schools

Person submitting report:

Patricia J. West-Smith

If you do not have a project in an Assurance Area, please mark it “N/A.” If a project applies to multiple Assurance Areas, please select one and make a note of explanation in the “Rationale” column. Please create additional lines if you need them.

Assurance Area A: Executive Summary

OVERVIEW SUMMARY: In this box, please provide a brief summary of your LEA’s accomplishments in this Assurance Area.

Somerset County Public Schools (SCPS) has developed a local plan, fully aligned with MSDE’s statewide plan, for implementation of the Common Core in both math and English Language Arts (ELA). The SCPS focus has been on professional development around the “shifts” and instructional implications of the changes. As part of their plan, district and school-level personnel have continued to participate in curriculum development activities to support MSDE. Ongoing work will include revisions to curriculum and assessments, as needed.

SCPS continued to participate in MSDE’S Educator Effectiveness Academy (EEA) in the summers, sending a team from each school site. Afterwards, a “train-the-trainers” model was utilized, and participants worked within existing structures to provide necessary professional development for the transition. Following the summer Educator Effectiveness Academies in 2012, content area supervisors developed year-long transition plans to outline critical areas including making arguments, text-dependent questioning, increasing rigorous informational text, incorporation of math practices, and efforts to re-align curriculum. This work began in July 2012 and continued throughout the 2012-2013 school year. Summer professional development activities to continue this work were planned for July 2013. The same process was replicated in 2013-2014. This summer, the EEA’s have been replaced by MSDE’s College and Career Readiness Conferences (CCRC). Again, teams from each school in Somerset will attend, and the knowledge from these conferences will be integrated in 2014 Summer professional development and throughout the 2014-2015 school year within existing professional development frameworks.

SCPS has continued implementation of MSA/HSA until the PARCC assessment system is fully operational. PARCC piloting began this year, and schools are preparing to make a full transition to PARCC next year. Teachers have begun training in using the new assessment tools, as well as the MSDE-developed data dashboards and other tools, to make data-driven instructional decisions that meet the needs of all students, as they are available. SCPS also anticipates the need to enhance their existing STEM activities and support network through the addition of professional development activities designed to improve teachers’ knowledge of instructional practices relating to a STEM curriculum; SCPS has also named a STEM leader at each school to coordinate STEM activities and coach teachers on effectively


incorporating STEM into their curriculum.

Be sure to…

-Anchor your updates in annual milestones.

-Discuss what you promised to do in your projects and how you did it.

-Provide evidence/data to support your accomplishments.

-Include dates and impact of this project on your students, teachers and principals.

-Discuss quality of implementation. If applicable, discuss anything you were unable to accomplish and provide an explanation/justification.

What is your sustainability plan for your work in Assurance Area A? Identify the resources you will be using to sustain this work.

Somerset will be able to sustain our efforts in Assurance Area A through locally funded activities, such as large scale assessments and school/district based personnel. Throughout the life of the grant, we have used a train-the-trainer model for the EEAs/CCRCs, utilizing individuals with extended contracts to avoid incurring additional costs for stipends while still ensuring that individuals within the system are able to train our staff.

NOTE: If you have received a No Cost Extension, please identify the project(s) and funding for Year 5 and itemize the goals and activities in the attached Action Plan

Project # Summary of Work & Implemented Activities, including Quality of Implementation

Rationale/Obstacles(related to amendments,

activities, timeline, and/or funding)

2 College and Career Readiness Conferences

This project began to support the Educator Effectiveness Academies, and each school sent a team to the Educator Effectiveness Academies to assist in full implementation of the Common Core Standards and prepare for transitions to new evaluation systems, as well as the PARCC assessments. Team members worked to develop transition plans, and individuals from the team acted as trainers in their buildings. In

Consistency has been a problem as we have had a number of transitions in school leaders, as well as other team members however, the Central Office staff has remained stable this year.

In recent years, there has been significant turn-over at the district level as well


2014, the EEA’s have been replaced by the CCRC’s. Somerset has maintained a small project with funds to support attendance at and participation in the CCRC’s. Largely, the funds are allocated for travel expenses; funds will be distributed by the end of July, 2014

Follow-up at the schools is not completely consistent. Leaders are required to integrate transition activities into their professional development plans; however, implementation is varied. Newer principals have struggled more than veteran principals, in leading this change. However, the efforts made at the district level have ensured a minimum level of fidelity and where turn-over has been high, district level administrators have worked to support schools in moving forward. Information and ideas from EEA’s has been integrated into summer professional development work in all content areas. Even into 2014, information from previous EEA sessions is utilized in PD work. Teams from CCRC’s will also bring back content that can be integrated into summer PD, as well as ongoing professional development in the 2014-15 school year.

Rating: 4

For already busy professionals, the “train the trainers” model is sometimes difficult as it means adding another layer of responsibility

The time lapse between sessions and the relevance to their daily work is difficult to manage

Some EEA/CCRC sessions have been more organized and better implemented than others

Principals have had a difficult time gaining a deep understanding of all the areas of transition

4 The focus and emphasis on writing as part of Maryland’s transition required all districts to work to increase teacher capacity in the area of writing instruction. Somerset believed that this was a critical area of need for students, but also believed that teachers needed a great deal of support in this area. Their survey of teachers indicated that even ELA teachers often had little formal training in writing instruction. This project was designed to support professional learning activities in this area.

Somerset’s work in this area is on track with what they planned in their original Scope of Work, and in the past year, the LEA has made significant progress. As more information has been released from PARCC and MSDE, the path forward has become clearer, and they have been able to progress in improving writing instruction and assessment. Teachers have gained a deeper understanding of how to use performance based assessment and their instruction and assessments have begun to change in a way that is better aligned with the demands of the Common Core and the PARCC

Challenges:

The task is bigger than anticipated. More time, more funding, and more resources are needed.

The timeline for transition is not in line with the resources of most districts, including Somerset. The PD that teachers need is difficult to fit within the available time, and the funding for this work is insufficient. Even by re-allocating RTTT funds, SCPS cannot do all that they need to do to the degree that it needs to be done. In difficult economic times, LEA’s are challenged to supplement RTTT funding.

While they have learned much


assessments.

Rating: 4

and accomplished much, their needs in terms of growing teacher capacity in the area of writing instruction is still significant, even though the funding is coming to an end.

Writing professional development will continue throughout the summer of 2014 and beyond, far past the scope of RTTT funding.

Assurance Area B: Standards and Assessments


Somerset County Public Schools fully supports Maryland’s commitment to creating and using a state wide Longitudinal Data System (MLDS). Additionally, SCPS understands and supports the overall goal of the 10-step MLDS and the MLDS-EAP expansion program is to provide data to various stakeholders to improve instruction and increase student achievement. The high-quality Instructional Improvement System (IIS) will give Somerset teachers and administrators on demand access to student achievement data, curriculum resources, assessments, and online professional development. The use of this system will benefit all Somerset County students by providing instructional and intervention tools and resources to every teacher in order to improve instruction.

Beginning in the winter of 2011, a team began looking at the existing data collection systems to determine what systems will be used to report data to the MLDS. It was determined then that the Student Information System, PowerSchool, would be used to provide all student, course and grade data. A greater need at that time was for an HR system that could be used to report staff and teacher/principal evaluation data. A new HR system was purchased and a Data Design Specialist was hired in Year 2 in order to begin working toward providing the necessary staff data to MSDE and the MLDS. The finance and HR modules were installed in January 2012 and staff went through training and conversions of data over the next several months. The finance module went live on July 1, 2012 and has since been the main area of focus for the implementation team. The HR system is integrated with the finance module so some data was converted to the new system as part of the finance process, which required the HR staff to spend input additional HR data. The focus for this year has been full implementation of the HR module, including work to input all necessary data elements needed to submit existing state reports to MSDE. In Year 4, the data design specialist has been working to collect and report on additional data for teacher and principal evaluations.

SCPS began to address the issue of providing adequate bandwidth for teachers and administrators during Year 2 of this grant in conjunction with the Maryland Broadband Grant Initiative. Year 2 funds from Project 9 were used to purchase all of the equipment in anticipation of the coming broadband network. In


Year 4, Somerset has kept up-to date with the timeline and installation schedule of the Broadband initiative and installed equipment to connect all schools. Amended funds from Project 9 have been used to purchase any additional equipment and to hire a consultant to help with the connections.

Be sure to…






What is your sustainability plan for your work in Assurance Area B? Identify the resources you will be using to sustain this work.

Plans have been made in the local budget to assume the cost of positions and infrastructure for this assurance area. Additionally, in the local budget, the district added the position of Network Technology Coordinator, as well as an Instructional Technology Coordinator. These two positions will significantly supplement Somerset’s existing IT/technology staff and capacity.

NOTE: If you have received a No Cost Extension, please identify the project(s) and funding for Year 5 and itemize the goals and activities in the attached Action Plan Template


Rationale/Obstacles(related to amendments, activities,

timeline, and/or funding)

11 PROJECT #11: Data Design SpecialistThe purpose of this project is to provide the personnel needed to design (set-up) and implement the new HR/Finance system, as well as providing ongoing training for Central Office and school personnel in its use. The HR system will be used to provide information for the Teacher Principal Evaluation system and the Maryland Longitudinal

Challenges:

One of the biggest challenges has been the conversion of their HR data from the old AS400 system into the eFinance HR module. The Data Design Specialist has played a significant role in this process. The HR data in the old system was


Database.

The project is on track and is high quality. The Data Design Specialist has been able to set up the new HR system and has been instrumental in ongoing training of staff on implementation, reporting, and expansion.

Rating: 4

inaccurate and incomplete. As the data was plugged into the new system it had to be completed, corrected and verified for accuracy. The conversion and implementation has been ongoing, as is the reporting required by MSDE.

One challenge has been staff turnover in the Finance/HR departments, as well as in Central Office and school based leadership personnel. One of the main responsibilities of the Data Design Specialist is training staff to use the new eFinance system. Staff turnover means that the same training has to be repeated several times in order to make sure staff knows how to use the system.

19 PROJECT#19: Secondary Instructional Technology Facilitators

This project actually supports all of the assurances, as it is a step in the transition to Common Core/PARCC assessments, in the Great Teachers, Great Leaders, in data, and in turning around low-achieving schools.

The project is on track and is high quality. The Data Design Specialist has been able to set up the new HR system and has been instrumental in ongoing training of staff on implementation, reporting, and expansion.

Rating: 4

Challenges: In addition to their responsibilities as technology integration leaders, data analysts, professional development leaders, etc., these individuals have taken on the role of Site Testing Coordinators (STC) in their buildings. They even have a role in coordinating Bridge efforts. With so many roles/responsibilities, it is difficult to focus on any one of them and give it the effort and dedication it merits. For our high school people, the task is additionally complicated by the sheer amount of testing that happens in their buildings. Somerset has grades 8-12 in the high school buildings, which means that the STC has the responsibility for MSA reading, MSA math, MSA science, HSA


testing in October, January, April, and May (in all content areas), as well as local testing (i.e. common assessments, benchmarks, SRI testing, etc.). The task can be daunting and often detracts from the time the individuals can give to their other responsibilities.

Assurance Area C: Data Systems to Support Instruction


Somerset signed up to participate in the state’s pilot of its teacher/principal evaluation process and moved forward with that work in 2013-2014. Training has been completed with all teachers and administrators on Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and how they can be used effectively. The SLO process has been incorporated into both teacher and principal evaluation in 2013-2014. Many teachers and administrators have been excited about the dialogue made possible with SLO implementation. For the remaining 50 percent of the teacher evaluation framework, SCPS worked with the bargaining unit to develop an observation tool that is based on and aligned with Charlotte Danielson’s framework. The elements for this 50% include planning and preparation; classroom environment; instruction; professional responsibilities; and additional agreed upon domains.

Throughout the pilot year, a RTTT sub-grant was used to conduct training and collaboration sessions on the use of the state model, including SLOs, replacing the project in this main RTTT grant. Finally, teacher and principal evaluations are being used to make induction, tenure, and/or full certification decisions as well as to inform placement, individual professional development plans, promotion, and removal decisions, once those rated Ineffective have had ample support and opportunity for improvement. The process for making these decisions was mutually agreed to with bargaining units.

Somerset County Public Schools continued to participate in the Educator Effectiveness Academies and the Teacher Induction Program. Moving into Summer 2014, teams are continuing to participate in the College and Career Ready Conferences, which replace the EEAs. The system will also provide additional support to principals from lowest-achieving schools to MSDE’s Priority Schools Academy. Promising Principals will participate in the summer Governor’s Academy, and prospective leaders will participate in the Aspiring Leaders Academy sponsored by MSDE. Additionally, several administrators are working with the Lower Easter Shore School Leadership cohort with additional training in leadership, culminating in a doctoral program.

Somerset County Public Schools’ professional development plan focuses on transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and the PARCC assessments. In order to supplement the district-wide professional development for low-achieving schools in particular, support will continue through After School Professional Development activities (75 minutes weekly) for grades 6-12 and the Elementary Extended Day Professional Development Program (scheduled days in each marking period where students leave early and professional development with teachers is conducted). The intended outcomes of this additional


support are as follows:

To increase the rigor of the classroom instruction To develop the skills and knowledge necessary for teachers to make the required shifts in the

curriculum evident in the Common Core State Standards To build the capacity of the school leadership teams to provide job-embedded professional

development to increase student achievement.

In addition, teachers are able to participate in a “flex day” differentiated professional development opportunity. Teachers select the PD they want, which is then subject to district approval. The teacher’s participation is then recorded and compensatory time is rewarded to be used the day before Thanksgiving. Teachers who choose not to participate in this self-selected approach, must attend district professional development on that November date.

In 2012-2014, a Mentor Coordinator and mentors have worked non-tenured teachers. The use of “buddy” mentors will continue in the buildings to provide day-to-day support of new teachers. Once the new evaluation system is fully implemented, Somerset County Public Schools will also use a similar approach to support teachers rated Ineffective for two consecutive years and who have been put on a second-class certificate. What is your sustainability plan for your work in Assurance Area C? Identify the resources you will be using to sustain this work.

A district instructional supervisor has assumed leadership of the mentor program, and the funding for 2 additional contractual mentors has been added to the local budget.





15 PROJECT #15: Mentor ProgramSomerset has a comprehensive induction program that addresses critical needs of new teachers, supports improvement of instructional quality, and helps new teachers achieve success in their initial assignments, with the aim of improved student learning and higher retention rates. The comprehensive program includes: a three day orientation in August, three focused professional development sessions throughout the year, a school-level buddy mentor, and a district level mentor for all non-tenured teachers.

Somerset County Public Schools has in place all of the necessary components of an effective Teacher Induction program: orientation prior to the start of the new year for first year teachers; professional development seminars three times a year to increase professional knowledge and provide support to new teachers; on-going support provided by school buddy and district level mentors. Each of these


components has a feedback/evaluation completed by the participants so that we can continue to improve that aspect of the program and provide the support the new teachers feel they need. In addition the new teachers are given a quarterly TELL-like Survey so the district mentors can gauge the impact of their work and make adjustments where needed.

Rating: 3

Assurance Area D: Great Teachers and Leaders


Somerset County Public Schools supports the State of Maryland in its efforts to turn around the lowest achieving schools. Locally, SCPS defines a low achieving school as a school identified in need of improvement based on the spring 2010 administration of the Maryland School Assessment as well as by the English and Algebra HSA and graduation rate. Through this process, the LEA identified the two high schools: Crisfield High School (CD) and Washington High School (CD). In an effort to improve these schools, the LEA has duplicated practices successful elsewhere, including School Improvement Plans utilizing the 10 key components of Title I school plans. Embedded into the plans were successful strategies such as content area leaders, trained in data analysis and the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP), who will continue to meet bi-weekly with content teams beginning to review instruction and plan remediation. Additionally, SCPS has used technology to improve the two high schools in order to increase student engagement. To make this successful, teachers have had intense training in technology tools and technology integration.

The Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (P.B.I.S.) initiative has been enhanced to decrease office referrals and suspensions, and RTTT funds have been used for P.B.I.S. incentives. Somerset County Public Schools has also continued to engage families and community members in the collaboration for improvement, though in Year 4, much of this work was integrated into locally-funded activities. Each high school planned and conducted four parent activities in Year 3. These activities have been designed by school leaders during the School Improvement Plan process and have been based on identified needs of each school.

What is your sustainability plan for your work in Assurance Area D? Identify the resources you


will be using to sustain this work.

The local budget now includes money to support these programs. Additionally, schools are fund raising to support similar activities.

NOTE: If you have received a No Cost Extension, please identify the project(s) and funding for Year 5 and itemize the goals and activities in the attached Action Plan Template .




20 Funds were allocated to conduct a climate survey. As part of the MDS3 grant, which Somerset is also involved with, the survey was conducted at a reduced cost. The survey was conducted at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, and data results are currently being analyzed. Results will be used in school and district improvement planning, moving forward into the 2014-2015 school year.

Challenges:

Leadership teams at both high schools have experienced ongoing turn-over, making it difficult to assess climate issues

Leadership teams are still inexperienced with analyzing climate data, as opposed to student achievement data

Teams are challenged by the time needed to effectively analyze and utilize the data results from the surveyRating: 3

21 PROJECT #21: PBIS Incentives

The Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (P.B.I.S.) initiative has been enhanced to decrease office referrals and suspensions, and RTTT funds have been used for P.B.I.S. incentives.

Challenges

Numerous workshops being held in the summer at the same time so team membership lacks some of the instructional team members

Continual funding for PBIS incentives and developing incentives that are engaging to the student population

Consistent, building-wide implementation of PBIS program is harder to accomplish at the secondary level


All six of SCPS PBIS schools have applied for a State Award for their initiative. Four of the six received Gold awards (the highest award) and two of the six received Silver awards. All of the schools have continued to improve and modify their incentives based on student feedback. They have also incorporated staff in the program.

Rating: 422 PROJECT#22: Secondary Parent Involvement

Funds were included to implement four parent meetings per year at the two high schools. Funds cover materials and incentives for each meeting. All planned activities were integrated into locally-funded initiatives. This project was amended in the May 2014 amendment submission. Funds were moved to other projects with shortages.

Challenges:

Will continue to struggle with numbers due to transportation issues and pervasive beliefs about parent involvement at the secondary level

The parents who do not attend are the ones that school staff would like to see

Rating: 3 Assurance Area E: Turning Around Low Performing Schools


Be sure to…







What is your sustainability plan for your work in Assurance Area E? Identify the resources you will be using to sustain this work.





Race to the Top Scopes of WorkSection B: Standards and Assessments

Section B: Standards and Assessments

2014 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

Annual Measurable Objective targets are unique to specific schools and subgroups; schools are striving to meet their individual targets to support the achievement of all students while closing the achievement gap and decreasing the number of non-proficient students. Through Maryland’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver, each Maryland school will reduce its percent of non-proficient students for each of its subgroups and overall by half in the upcoming six years (2017).


LEA Level AMO Analysis for Reading and Mathematics:

Maryland School Assessment Reading----ElementaryTable 2.1: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading Elementary

Table 2.1: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading Elementary

Subgroup

All Students2011 2012 2013 2014

# Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested #

Prof.%

ProfAll Students 623 539 86.5 642 573 89.3 658 558 84.8 630 525 83.3Hispanic/Latino of any race 41 38 92.7 37 37 100 41 36 87.8 52 39 75

American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1 100 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0

Asian 9 9 100 4 4 100 4 4 100 3 3 100Black or African American 263 210 79.8 280

232 82.9 277 216 78.0 253 202 79.8

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0

White 271 245 90.4 294 275 93.5 300 271 90.3 288 257 89.2Two or more races 38 36 94.7 27 25 92.6 35 30 85.7 34 24 70.6

Special Education 100 82 82.0 102 84 82.4 93 74 79.6 104 79 76

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 24 22 91.7 19 18 94.7 17 14 82.4 20 13 65

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 442 372 84.2 470 408 86.8 481 395 82.1 460 365 79.3

Male

All Students

2011 2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

#Tested

#Prof.

% Prof

All students 301 256 85.0 313 269 85.9 328 269 82 317 254 80.1

Hispanic/Latino of any race 19 16 84.2 17 17 100 16 14 87.5 26 19 73.1

American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1 100 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

Asian 4 4 100 2 2 100 1 1 100 1 1 100Black or African American 123 96 78 144 115 79.9 141 104 73.8 129 95 73.6

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

White 133 118 88.7 136 123 90.4 150 133 88.7 140 124 88.6


Two or more races 21 21 100 14 12 85.7 20 17 85 21 15 71.4Special Education 60 49 81.7 60 50 83.3 58 45 77.6 57 44 77.2Limited English Proficient (LEP) 11 9 81.8 11 10 90.9 7 5 71.4 12 8 66.7

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 216 177 81.9 237 197 81.9 243 192 79 243 183 75.3

Females

All Students2011 2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All students 322 283 87.9 329 304 92.4 330 289 87.6 313 271 86.6Hispanic/Latino of any race 22 22 100 20 20 100 25 22 88 26 20 76.9

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 1 100 0 0 0

Asian 5 5 100 2 2 100.0 3 3 100 2 2 100Black or African American 140 114 81.4 136 117 86 136 112 82.4 124 107 86.3


0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

White 138 127 92 158 152 96.2 150 138 92 148 133 89.9

Two or more races 17 15 88.2 13 13 100 15 13 86.7 13 9 69.2Special Education 40 33 82.5 42 34 81 35 29 82.9 47 35 74.5Limited English Proficient (LEP) 13 13 100 8 8 100.0 10 9 90 8 5 62.5



ELEMENTARY READING1. Based on the examination of the AMO Data for Reading/Language Arts (Elementary),

describe what challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. The All Student group and seven of the nine represented subgroups decreased in proficiency from 2013 to 2014. Subgroup proficiency needs to increase in order to reach proficiency goals.

Decrease in overall proficiency from 84.8% in 2013 to 83.3% in 2014; a 1.5 percentage point decrease

Decreases in the LEP (17.4% points), White (1.1% points), Hispanic (12.8% points), and Two or More Races (15.1% points) subgroups

Decrease in (SPED) Special Education subgroup from 79.6% in 2012 to 76% in 2014, this follows a drop in 2013 and against the trend toward rising scores and closing gaps over the previous five years before 2013

Decrease in the FARMS (Free, and Reduced, Meal Status) subgroup from 82.1% in 2013 to 79.3% in 2014

b. Several key elementary Special Education initiatives still need focused attention and ongoing professional development.

The Special Ed subgroup has had only an average increase of less than 4% points over the past 4 years before 2013 and this year dropped from 79.6% to 76%. It will be difficult to meet proficiency goals if improvement does not increase.

Inconsistent participation in Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) by Special Educators.

Inadequate collaborative planning sessions between Special Ed and Regular Ed teachers due to scheduling and staffing issues

Inadequate evidence of modified lessons for Special Education students in observations or walkthroughs.

Inconsistent implementation of identified effective strategies for special education students by elementary staffs;

Lag in Special Education students’ scores on local assessments throughout the year; scores are below grade level

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure progress and include timelines where appropriate. Include a description of corresponding resource allocations.

a. The duties of the Reading Coaches will be realigned to focus on activities with high impact on student achievement.

It has been emphasized in a number of studies that the reading instruction training most teachers get is often limited both in time and quality. A handful of teachers go above and beyond the most basic training to get richer, more advanced training in reading instruction. Those teachers may become reading specialists—highly trained, often certified professionals who specialize in helping students who are struggling with learning to read in the regular classroom. Schools have come to


depend upon reading specialists to help struggling readers and are more willing to make substantial investments in the professional growth and development of these reading specialists. These reading specialists become literacy coaches and work with both students and teachers. These coaches lead the CFIP process and instructional team meetings.

Increase Reading Coaches’ use of the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) protocols

Increase coaches’ time spent on leading professional development, doing walk-throughs, providing teachers with feedback, and monitoring students’ work

Focus on accountability and documentation by teachers during Reading Team meetings

Create and use a new electronic CFIP document for easier tracking of formative assessments

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesUse of CFIP process by Reading CoachesCollection of Reading Assessments & DIBELS

Timeline: August 2014-June 2015

Reading CoachesStaffing and Scheduling Assessments-DIBELS & County Created

Federally Funded –Title I Monitor Reading Coach Responsibilities

Reading Coach logs monitored.


Elementary Principals, Supervisor of Elementary

Staffing and Scheduling /Staff Time

Local Funding/Title I Collect reading team meeting SANE (Sign-In, Agendas, Notes, and Evaluations) documentation to guide planning and improving strategies along with updating School Improvement Team Planning

Elementary Principals, Supervisor of Elementary Education

Staffing and Scheduling /Staff Time

Local Funding/Title I

b. Integrate formalized and institutionalized site based collaboration into EDPD (Early Dismissal Professional Development), Faculty Meetings, SIT (School Improvement Team) Meetings, Cross Grade Level Meetings, LST (Learning Support Team Meetings), IEP (Individualized Educational Program) and Leadership Team Meetings.

Almost every approach to school reform requires teachers to refocus their roles, responsibilities, and opportunities and, as a result, to acquire new knowledge and


skills. The success of efforts to increase and reach high standards depends largely on the success of teachers and their ability to acquire the content knowledge and instructional practices necessary to teach to high academic standards. Teaching to high standards, however, requires many educators to teach in ways they have never been taught before. There is a dramatic difference between the way teachers learned during their internships as students or as new teachers in traditional classrooms and the effective innovations of today. Like students, teachers must be actively involved in learning and must have opportunities to discuss, reflect upon, try out, and hone better instructional approaches. Professional development strategies implemented by schools also must take into account the importance of support. Teachers need professional learning communities and they need opportunities to learn how to question, analyze, and change instruction. Professional development opportunities that see professional growth as central to school change exist both inside and outside the school, and include teacher-research groups, peer review groups, teacher networks and organizational partnerships, and programs that involve teachers in national, state, and local school and curriculum reform activities.

Enhance existing CFIP procedures to include an evaluation and post-intervention step, to determine the effectiveness of the planned intervention in targeting the identified student weakness;

Implement follow-up assessments, after intervention, to re-assess student needs and the success of intervention;

Track documentation of interventions and re-assessments. Continue school leadership team meetings to determine staff professional

development needs and plan for implementation, based on feedback forms, evaluations, observations, and walk-through documents;

Monitor collaborative work through collected SANE (sign-ins, agendas, notes, and evaluations), walk-through data, and formal/informal observations;

Maintain four EDPD sessions in the 2014-2015 calendar. Maintain monthly SIT meetings with all staff involved in order to provide

more collaboration opportunities.

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress Resources Clarify targets and outcomes for reading collaboration

Classroom Visitations and Student AssessmentsSANE Documentation- Sign-ins, Agendas, Notes, and Evaluations,


Reading Coaches-StaffingElementary PrincipalsReading Supervisor

Locally Funded &Federal Funding-Title I

Follow CFIP process Weekly & Quarterly with Common Core Benchmarks

Team Meeting, EDPD, SANE Documentation - Sign-ins, Agendas, Notes, and Evaluations

Core ProgramData Warehouse-Performance Matters for CC Benchmarks

Reading Coaches, Principal, Supervisor for weekly assessments


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress Resources Timeline: September 2014-June 2015

Federal & Local Funding Maintain Early Dismissal Professional Development – (4 Half Days)

Team Meeting, EDPD, SANE Documentation - Sign-ins, Agendas, Notes, and Evaluations

Timeline: September 2014-June 2015

Embedded Professional Development – Staff Time /Team Collaboration

Local Funding Some PD State & Some Federally Funded with Coaches

c. Student engagement will increase through the integration of technology into reading instruction.

Being able to use technology will help meet the individualized learning needs of today’s students. Using technology in reading reflects the need for students to develop learning skills that enable them to think critically, analyze information, communicate, collaborate, and problem-solve, and the essential role that technology plays in realizing these learning skills in today's knowledge-based society.

Hired a county level instructional technology coordinator to train staffs on ways to improve their use of instructional technology;

Require teachers to record their use of technology on daily lesson plans; Provide training to increase teachers’ effective use of technology and to

ensure staffs use Promethean boards, classroom computers, ActiVotes, and laptop carts effectively;

Provide a dedicated professional development day on using technology; Increase use of the Promethean Boards by students; Increase teacher use of electronic reviews through the use of ActiVotes; Use Edlio and My Big Campus to communicate to parents the strategies being

taught and to allow students access to current skills and work; Monitor lessons to ensure the appropriate use and level of technology to

increase student engagement; Increase access to and use of interactive technology.

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesProvide PD on integrating technology into lessons

SANE Documentation

Timeline: July 2014-June 2015

Professional Development Staff Time -Explicit and EmbeddedPrincipals SupervisorsTechnology Coordinator

Local Funding and Title I Monitor the appropriate use of technology in the classroom.

Reading Coaches, Principal, SupervisorsTechnology Coordinator


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesWalk-Through Documents and Teacher Observations.


Staff Time

Local & Federal Funding Provide PD on the use of Activotes


Professional DevelopmentSupplies and materials (CIA)

Local Funding Monitor the use EdLio and My Big Campus


Principals

Local Funidng

d. All elementary schools will continue to implement researched-based instructional practices and supplemental services.

Multiple consensus reports have provided converging evidence regarding effective instruction for students who have difficulty learning to read. Evidence-based instruction in general education classrooms must be in place in order to implement response-to-intervention models.

Continue the successful classroom practice of teaching test taking strategies; Use materials from the CORE reading program, SBRR (Scientifically Based

Reading Research) and/or intervention materials to identify and respond to students’ needs for intervention, remediation and enrichment.

Order additional licenses for Read Naturally Live Web based Intervention Program;

Provide training for staff to make full use of instructional strategies and materials from the core and intervention programs to allow consistency between classrooms;

Provide specialized teachers and paraprofessionals in the classrooms during reading to provide additional individualized support for at-risk students;

Implement Peer Observations as another means for increasing collaboration opportunities;

Increase the use of mentors for at risk students; Meet with Reading Coaches to collaboratively to review benchmarks, check

for appropriate alignments, eliminating distracters in questions and answers, and improving scoring tools.

Continue reviews and revisions of local benchmarks to raise the standard for expected performance and changes in instruction.

Investigate new intervention programs and strategies to meet new found deficits


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesPurchase additional Read Naturally LIVE Intervention & SIPPS Materials, SAXON Phonics, Smarty Ants

Reading Benchmark Assessments


Read Naturally & SIPPS Intervention Materials

Locally Funded

Provide training on the intervention programs

SANE Documentation


Professional Development-Staff Time

Locally Funded & Title I

Provide Reading Tutors and paraprofessionals in the classrooms

Reading Coach Meeting Minutes & SANE Documentation for training. Also Reading Assessments for results.


Staffing Reading Tutors/Para Professionals

Local & Federally Funded

Provide release time for Peer Observations

Timeline: October 2014-May 2015

Staff Time

Locally Funded Maintain monitoring of student learning

CFIP Documentation & team Meetings- Faculty and SIT Meetings


Supplies and Materials Staff Time Data Warehouse- Performance Matters

Locally Funded Train staffs during team meetings on programs, strategies, grouping, etc.

Staff TimeSupplies and Materials

Title I Funding & Local Funding

e. Balance the focus for Special Education teachers between compliance/IEP issues and instruction.

Require elementary Special Education teachers to meet regularly and attend collaborative team planning meetings;

Assign elementary Special Education teachers to core area professional development during Early Dismissal Professional Development (EDPD) days;

Utilize simulations and inquiry-based learning to explore the topics of co-planning, lesson modification, and application of learner profile to instructional planning to strengthen targeted intervention strategies.

Document accommodations provided during classroom instruction and assessments on a daily basis in an electronic format;

Evaluate individual student data at IEP and data meetings to improve individual student achievement;

Use aggregate data to identify professional development needs;


Streamline reporting/documentation requirements to allow Special Educators more time to be in classrooms;

Monitor implementation of co-teaching strategies through mentoring, observations, walk-throughs, and reflective conferences with regular education teachers and Special Education teachers.

Observe and provide data on the frequency and type of modified lessons delivered to Special Education students;

Embed instructional professional development in monthly Special Education staff meeting.

Collaborate with Center for Autism and Related Disorders consultant through a MSDE discretionary grant to provide evidence-based intervention practices for age’s three to eight.

Implement Applied Behavior Analysis best practices and strategies to foster positive and appropriate behaviors in students.

Schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum to receive remediation and review of skill.

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesMonitor effectiveness of Co-teaching during intervention times.


Scheduling-Universal BlockStaff Time

Locally Funded Add oversight of Special Education Instruction as well as compliance.


Staffing: SupervisorStaff Time

Locally Funded Provide co-planning opportunities beyond the school day.


Co-Planning OpportunitiesStaff Time

Local & Federal Funding Continue to support the Co-teaching model


Professional Development ConsultantsStaff Time

Local & Federal Funding Elementary Special Education teachers will meet regularly with core academic teams using CFIP strategies.

Timeline: August 2014-May 2015

Meeting timeInterventionStaff Time

Locally Funded Elementary Special Education teachers participate in activities with regular education teachers EDPD

Timeline: September 2014 – June 2015

Early Dismissal Professional Development & Team Meetings

Locally Funded Monitoring of student learning through local Common Core benchmark assessments


Formative AssessmentsSupplies and MaterialsStaff Time

Locally Funded


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesReview and improve Common Core Benchmark assessments.


Reading Coaches and Supervisor of Special Ed Staff Time

Local & Federal Funding Monitor Special Education instructional activities

Timeline: September 2014 –May 2015

Administrative DutiesStaffing (Time ) & Scheduling

Locally Funded Provide “Co-teaching” Professional Development

Timeline: August 2014–June 2015

Professional Development

Local Funding Provide Sessions on Research Based instructional strategies for Special Educators


Professional Development Central Office & Staff (time) Meetings

Local Funding

f. Community and parent partnerships will increase building stronger School Improvement Teams.When schools engage families in ways that improve learning and support parent involvement at home and school, students make greater gains. When schools build partnerships with families that respond to parent concerns, honor their contributions, and share decision-making responsibilities, they are able to sustain connections that are aimed at improving student achievement.The earlier in a child’s educational process parent involvement begins, the more powerful the effects. The most effective forms of parent involvement are those, which engage parents in working directly with their children on learning activities at home.

Continue to include all staff as members and key participants of School Improvement Teams;

Include outside agencies in Title I SIP Teams, which plan for professional development, events/activities for students and families, and applying transition plans;

Increase collaboration between home and school on strategies for moving forward and improving communication;

Use Connect Ed as a communication tool for both students and parents. Utilize the Family/Parent Coordinator to increase volunteers and build family

and community connections; Coordinate between SIP teams and parent coordinators to further develop

outreach strategies and strengthen partnerships by incorporating students, parents, and community as part of schools’ decision making

Coordinate with community organizations that provide school care and instruction. Include community members as part of SIT Teams for planning, programs, events, and activities.

Conduct site level staff meetings on the value of parental involvement in the schools


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesUtilize Family/Parent/Community Coordinator

Timesheet Logs & Mileage

Timeline: July 2014- August 2015

HR Staff timeStaffing

Federally Funded

Coordinate with community organizations


Parent & Community Involvement

Local & Federal Funding Conduct site level meetings and trainings



Local Funding Continue the use of Connect Ed



Local Funded

g. Regular education teachers’ knowledge of and skills in effectively working with LEP students will increase.

Align interventions with best practices of English Language Acquisition; Implement “Look-For’s for the overall monitoring of effectiveness in working

with LEP students; Provide co-planning opportunities beyond the school day for general

education, Special Education, and ESOL teachers; Solicit ESOL teachers’ collaboration and consultation on developing new

curriculum to support Common Core Curriculum, PARCC assessments, and the WIDA language proficiency assessments.

Provide professional development sessions for regular education classroom teachers on best practices to support language acquisition, including techniques to support increased verbal interaction between LEP students, their teachers, and their peers.

Provide FLEX Time for teachers to maximize opportunities for LEP students to increase their English Proficiency.

Provide opportunities for ESOL teachers to collaborate with other classroom teachers in order to enable analyze students’ strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate strategies to support.

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesProvide additional Reading Fluency Training

Timeline: September 2014

Read Naturally Consultant & Read Naturally Live Training

Local & Federally Funded Provide ongoing support for effective implementation of Read Naturally Live

Reading Coaches


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress Resources

Timeline: September 2014-June 2015 Federally Funded Provide professional development in written communication and test taking strategies in Reading


Reading Coaches & Supervisors Staff Time

Local & Federally FundedMonitored student learning through local benchmark assessments and Formative Assessments


Staff Time

Locally Funded Monitoring of Special Ed and ELL Initiatives


Staff Time

Locally Funded Train ELL & Early Childhood Teachers to on VIOLETS program


Staff TimeSupplies & Materials

Federal Funding

h. Intensive targeted intervention and enrichment instruction using research-based programs and strategies will be implemented in order to impact individual student achievement.

Select intervention and enrichment programs based on DIBELS testing, data analysis of benchmark assessments and CFIP Data;

Provide thirty minutes daily for additional reading intervention during a Universal Access time;

Use small group instruction with flexible groupings where appropriate; Use of classroom centers to provide targeted instruction; Provide extra support for classroom teachers, classroom aides, or parents; Use of computer aided instruction; Integrate activities with the Promethean Board and other technologies into full

and small group instruction ; Use of Read Naturally Live to target fluency and Word Warm-Ups to target

vocabulary; Provide targeted SPED and LEP intervention; VIOLETS Increase elementary reading teachers’ planning, instructional, and assessment

skills through ongoing work with site based reading coaches assigned to each elementary school;

Include responsibilities for guiding collaborative meetings with the CFIP protocols during team time, coaching teachers, facilitating Response to Intervention, plug in during flex group support, and during pull out reading targeted interventions to Reading Coaches job.

Complete training with staff on the selected interventions as well as targeted strategies;

Provide site based professional development activities for all elementary special education and ELL teachers in conjunction with core subject regular education teachers.


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesCore Program Scheduling


Universal Time Slot for InterventionFlexible GroupingTime & Scheduling

Locally Funded Intervention Staffing


Small Group Instruction with Classroom Teachers, Paraprofessionals, Special Education Staff, ELL Staff, and Intervention Teachers (Time)

Locally Funded Intervention Program Trainings


PD: Small Group instructional strategies training by Reading Coaches Staff Time

Locally Funded Intervention Materials

Intervention Programs

Timeline: August 2014-Septemer 2015

SIPPS-Systematic Instruction in Phonemic Awareness, Phonics and Sight WordsSAXON PhonicsRead Naturally & LIVEERI-Early Reading Intervention

Locally Funded Review & Revise Reading Coaches Responsibilities


Reading Coaches and Supervisor of Special Ed & ELL Instruction

Locally Funded

i. Increase the use of leadership personnel to drive instructional alignment, rigor, and effectiveness through strong professional development, as well as observation and evaluation.

Utilize Special Education Supervisor to lead professional development, particularly in the area of effective instructional practices and co-teaching;

Re-align the instructional supervisor’s responsibilities to provides a more focused leadership in the area of Reading/English/Language Arts

Dedicate one full-time reading coach at each elementary level to Reading/English/Language Arts;

Participate in the MSDE-led Educator Effectiveness Academies to increase knowledge and understanding of the Common Core Curriculum transition and the instructional implications, including issues of text complexity, close reading of text, text-dependent questions, and writing.


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesUtilization of Special Education Supervisor


Administrative Staffing, Professional Development

Locally Funded Re-Organization and Re-Alignment of Instructional Supervisors responsibilities



Locally Funded Utilization of Instructional Facilitator & Reading Coaches


RTTT, Staffing, Professional Development

Locally & Federally Funded Reallocation of responsibilities to focus on instructional improvement


Staffing

Locally Funded

j. Professional development and supplemental programs will be implemented to support high needs and/or diverse student populations.

Train all teachers and para-professionals in Universal Design for Learning (UDL), including technology integration and tools to support diverse learners.

Train all teachers and paraprofessionals on brain research and the instructional implications of the research, particularly important distinctions about effective instruction and preferred learning styles for males and females.

Provide workshops on Culturally Responsive Teaching to staff, including workshops designed to help staff reflect on their own biases and how they might impact interactions with students and families. Workshops for staff will be conducted during Early Dismissal Professional Development (EDPD) sessions throughout the year.

Provide professional development on distinguishing between symptoms of a learning disability and language proficiency challenges (ELL) in order to best diagnose appropriate instructional approaches and/or intervention, as needed.

Solicit ESOL teachers’ collaboration and consultation on developing new curriculum to support Common Core Curriculum, PARCC assessments, and the WIDA language proficiency assessments.

Provide professional development sessions for regular education classroom teachers on best practices to support language acquisition, including techniques to support increased verbal interaction between LEP students, their teachers, and their peers. Sessions will be led by ESOL teachers.

Enable ESOL teachers to collaborate with other classroom teachers in order to analyze students’ strengths, weaknesses, and identify appropriate strategies to support instruction.

Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesESOL Best Practices Professional Development Professional Development, ESOL


Adjustment & Timeline & Measuring Progress ResourcesSessions

Timeline: November 2014-June 2015

Staff, All Staff Time

Federal, State & Locally FundedUniversal Design for Learning Professional Development


Professional Development, Staff Time

Locally Funded Instructional Implications of Brain Research Professional Development Sessions



Locally Funded Participation in the Educator Effectiveness Academies and follow-up activities


Professional Development, RTTT Project Funding, Staff Time

State & Locally Funded Supplemental co-planning opportunities, diverse populations (ESOL, Special Education, etc.)


Staff Time, Restricted Funds

Federal, State, & Local Funding Culturally Responsive Teaching workshops

Timeline: October 2014-June 2015

Afternoon Professional Development (APD) time, Professional Development, Staff Time

Locally Funded

Middle Level Reading/Language Arts

Subgroup

All Students2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 567 469 82.7 600 484 80.7 595 444 74.6Hispanic/Latino of any race 28 23 82.1 34 23 67.6 34 28 82.4American Indian or Alaska Native 2 2 100.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 7 7 100.0 7 7 100.0 6 4 66.7Black or African American 255 194 76.1 258 196 76.0 255 169 66.3Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 246 221 89.8 267 232 86.9 262 217 82.8Two or more races 29 22 75.9 33 25 75.8 38 26 68.4Special Education 90 67 74.4 102 68 66.7 92 42 45.7Limited English Proficient (LEP) 8 3 37.5 12 5 41.7 9 4 44.4Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 412 327 79.4 442 340 76.9 442 317 71.7


Subgroup

Male2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 273 226 82.8 297 231 77.8 292 205 70.2Hispanic/Latino of any race 16 12 75.0 16 9 56.3 13 10 76.9American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1 100.

0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 5 5 100.0 5 5 100.0 2 1 50.0

Black or African American 116 84 72.4 128 89 69.5 126 74 58.7Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0


Subgroup

Female2011 2012 2013

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.




1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in Reading/Language Arts. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. The All Student group and seven of the represented subgroups decreased in proficiency from 2013 to 2014.

Decrease in overall proficiency from 82.7% in 2012 to 80.7% in 2013 and down to 74.6% in 2014;

Decrease in grades 6, 7, and 8 for overall proficiency; Decreases in the African American (9.8% decrease since 2012), White (7 %

since 2014), and Two or More Races (7.5% since 2012) subgroups Decrease in Special Education subgroup from 74.4% in 2012 to 66.7% in

2013 to 45.7% in 2014, continuing the downward trend from 82% in 2011 to 74.4% in 2012, this downward trend reverses the progress made in the


previous five years (prior to 2012) toward rising scores and closing gaps Decrease in the FARMS subgroup from 79.4% in 2012 to 76.9% in 2013 to

71.7% in 2014

b. Somerset County middle level reading data indicates a number of gender gaps. Gap between Female and Male groups in every sub-group persists; the Female

subgroup outperforms the Male group in each measurable subgroup Gap between Hispanic males and females, with Hispanic males trailing

Hispanic females by 8.8% in 2014 Gap between Limited English Proficient (LEP) males and females, with LEP

males trailing by 35% in 2014 Gap between Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) males and females, with

FARMS males trailing by 10.5% in 2014 Gap between African American males and females, with African American

males trailing by 19.9% in 2014

c. Curricular and assessment changes impact middle level performance in Reading.

Full implementation of Common Core curriculum results in instructional gaps between the delivered curriculum and the assessed curriculum

Transition of local assessments to performance-based assessments, with a heavy emphasis on writing, results in gaps in the assessment model and the MSA

Professional development shifts reflect Common Core standards and PARCC assessments, including a heavy emphasis on writing instruction which results in a distinct gap in the curriculum and local assessments as compared with the MSA


a. Increase expert leadership personnel to drive instructional alignment, rigor, and effectiveness through strong professional development, as well as observation and evaluation.

Continue collaboration between Special Education Supervisor and Instructional Supervisors to lead professional development, particularly in effective instructional practices and co-teaching, with all instructional staff, including school-based administration, facilitators, Special Education teachers, general education teachers, instructional assistants, etc.

Continue Supervisor of Instructional Programs’ targeted oversight of the 6-12 Reading/English/Language Arts (RELA) program to provide more focused leadership of the program, including regular data analysis meetings to identify and track ongoing progress, planning and providing professional development as part of a transition plan for the move to the Common Core and PARCC assessments, etc.

Continue a full-time instructional facilitator at each 8-12 school so that each school has two full-time facilitators (up from 1.5 at each school); previous


facilitator received a promotion, leaving the position vacant for several months and then filled on an interim basis

Adjustment & Timeline Resources RationaleCollaboration between Special Education Supervisor and Instructional Supervisors to lead professional development with all instructional staff



Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

Targeted oversight of RELA program, including ongoing root cause analysis to evaluate transition to Common Core and PARCC assessment system

Timeline: July 2014 – June 2015

Staffing—Local funding,

Ongoing data analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the RELA instructional program

Continue a full-time instructional facilitator to lead job-embedded professional development and data analysis work with RELA teachers, at the building level


Staffing—Local funding Building level job-embedded professional development and ongoing data analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the RELA instruction program

b. Initiate professional development and supplemental programs to support high needs and/or diverse student populations.

Continue to utilize the High Roads Program, a one-to-one, tutorial-based classroom model, designed to support both disabled and non-disabled students with severe emotional and behavioral issues, not meeting success in traditional classroom settings. The program promotes a relationship between student and teacher that is built on trust, with an appropriate balance between empathy and accountability. It also utilizes a combination of the highly individualized instructional model and a values-driven rewards system to create an environment where even the smallest academic successes become powerful reinforcement for building student confidence and competence.

Continue and enhance training for all teachers and administrators in Universal Design for Learning (UDL), including technology integration and tools to support diverse learners.

Participate in the MSDE-led College and Career Readiness Conferences to increase knowledge and understanding of the Common Core Curriculum


transition and the instructional implications, including issues of text complexity, close reading of text, text-dependent questions, and evidence-based responses/writing.

Continue to provide co-planning opportunities beyond the school day for general education, Special Education, and ESOL teachers

Continue to participate in curriculum and assessment development projects, as well as professional development planning, in collaboration with the Eastern Shore Language Arts Group (ESLAG), a partnership of ELA experts across the 9 Eastern Shore counties

Continue to solicit ESOL teachers’ collaboration and consultation on developing new curriculum to support Common Core Curriculum, PARCC assessments, and the WIDA language proficiency assessments.

Continue to provide professional development sessions for regular education classroom teachers on best practices to support language acquisition, including techniques to support increased verbal interaction between LEP students, their teachers, and their peers. Sessions will be led by ESOL teachers.

Continue opportunities for ESOL teachers to collaborate with other classroom teachers in order to analyze students’ strengths, weaknesses, and identify appropriate strategies to support instruction.

Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to existing middle school reading intervention programs, in order to address the needs of students with foundational reading challenges, such as fluency.

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to existing middle school reading intervention programs to replace older intervention system with one that contains a more advanced data/differentiation system, higher level progress monitoring, writing, and digital literacy content in order to better align with increasingly rigorous standards (i.e. Common Core)

Provide professional development for middle school teachers, as well as high school teachers not previously trained, in the components of the Read 180 program

Provide leadership training to content area experts in the components of the Read 180 program in order to ensure that the program is implemented with fidelity and create a systemic approach that is more likely to positively impact student achievement and graduation rates

Continue to provide disciplinary literacy professional development opportunities to all secondary teachers to ensure that effective literacy instruction is present in all courses, regardless of content.

Implement Applied Behavior Analysis best practices and strategies to foster positive and appropriate behaviors in students

Schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum of services to receive remediation and review of skills

Adjustment & Timeline Resources RationaleContinue High Roads Academy Special Education

funding, local funding, Support teachers and leaders in


Adjustment & Timeline Resources Rationale

Timeline: July 2014 - June 2015


utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

ESOL Follow-up Sessions—Differentiation and Close Reading for ELL’s (for general education and ELL staff)


Professional Development, ESOL Staff, All Staff Time


Universal Design for Learning Professional Development


Professional Development (including Leadership), Staff Time


Participation in the College and Career Readiness Conferences and follow-up activities




Supplemental co-planning opportunities, diverse populations (ESOL, Special Education, etc.)




Culturally Responsive Pedagogy workshops


Afternoon Professional Development (APD) time, Early Dismissal Professional Development, Staff Time


Disciplinary Literacy and Performance Assessment Workshops

Afternoon Profession Development (APD) time, Professional Development, Staff Time

Literacy standards and assessments incorporate literacy across content areas and are assessed in a performance based manner; in order to properly prepare students for



Timeline: July 2014 – June 2015college and career readiness

Administer assessments aligned with new standards and curriculum (i.e. PARCC)

Timeline: December 2014—June 2015

Staff Time Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

c. Continue to implement data-based instructional practices and supplemental services.

Continue to utilize the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to track individual and sub-group progress and make instructional adjustments accordingly.

Continue to support effective co-teaching practices through collaboration as a part of co-planning time, professional development time, and other supplemental opportunities—to all staff supporting students requiring supplemental services, such as Special Education, English Language Learners, Gifted and Talented, etc.

Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to existing middle school reading intervention programs, in order to address the needs of students with foundational reading challenges, such as fluency

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to existing middle school reading intervention programs to replace older intervention system with one that contains a more advanced data/differentiation system, higher level progress monitoring, writing, and digital literacy content in order to better align with increasingly rigorous standards (i.e. Common Core)

Develop and utilize walkthrough tools to regularly provide feedback on established “look fors” to support effective literacy instruction, including disciplinary literacy, specific to content areas (i.e. Read Like a Historian, Read Like a Scientist, etc.)

Adjustment & Timeline Resources Rationale Regular CFIP (Classroom Focused Improvement Process) meetings by Instructional Leadership Teams


Staff time, Professional Development, School Improvement Planning, APD


Co-teaching professional development


Supervisor of Special Education, Professional development, APD



Adjustment & Timeline Resources Rationale Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to intermediate school

Timeline: August 2014 – June 2015

Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to intermediate school

Timeline: August 2014—June 2015

Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based practices to support all learners

Provide training in program components, effective implementation, and progress monitoring in the Read 180 program


Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based practices to support all learners; Ongoing data analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the RELA instructional program


Elementary Mathematics

Somerset County reports as follows:

Based upon the examination of the AYP Math Proficiency Data for Elementary Schools

Subgroup


# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 640 580 90.6 661 585 88.5 558 424 76.0Hispanic/Latino of any race 36 35 97.2 41 38 92.7 49 36 73.5American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0Asian 4 4 100.0 4 4 100.0 2 2 100.0Black or African American 279 239 85.7 280 238 85.0 222 160 72.1Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0


Male


# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All students 313 286 91.4 330 296 89.7 281 216 76.9Hispanic/Latino of any race 17 17 100.0 16 15 93.8 25 20 80.0American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0Asian 2 2 100.0 1 1 100.0 1 1 100.0Black or African American 144 127 88.2 143 124 86.7 112 79 70.5Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0



Female


# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All students 327 294 89.9 330 289 87.6 277 208 75.1Hispanic/Latino of any race 19 18 94.7 25 23 92.0 24 16 66.7American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0Asian 2 2 100.0 3 3 100.0 1 1 100.0Black or African American 135 112 83.0 137 114 83.2 110 81 73.6Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0


ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in Mathematics (Elementary). In

your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. The All Student group and seven of the eight represented subgroups decreased in proficiency from 2013-2014.

Within the elementary band, the total percentage of students achieving proficiency or higher performance declined;

The aggregate decreased from 88.5% to 76% however, this was an expected drop due to the full transition to the Maryland College and Career Ready Standards;

The white subgroup scored 79.6% proficient compared to the African Americans group which scored 72.1% proficient.

Special Education students continue to decline; proficiency decreased from 74.5% in 2013 to 58.5% in 2014.

The male subgroup of Limited English Proficient students showed the greatest overall decline, dropping 35.7 percentage points from 2013 to 2014.

Special Education female students scored 17.9 percentage points below their male Special Education counterparts.

African American male subgroup scored 3.1 percentage points below the female African American counterparts.

The Limited English Proficient (LEP) students scored 33.9 percentage points lower than in 2013.

b. Elementary Special Education Teachers do not consistently participate in mathematics meetings.

Special educator’s attendance at the bi-weekly math meetings held by the facilitators at the individual schools is inconsistent;

Scheduling prevents special education teachers from participating in collaborative team planning;


Caseloads impact the amount of time that special education teachers have to work in classrooms and provide targeted assistance

c. Issues related to the elementary math program are impacting student achievement.

Students are not fully engaged in the learning process; Intensive structured/standardized intervention is needed for subgroups which

continue to fall behind their counterparts; Differentiation of subject matter continues to be a challenge for teachers in

meeting the individual needs of students; Dedicated Math intervention is not always available to students who are also

in need of Reading intervention.


a. Collaboration sessions in mathematics between and among site based grade level teachers will be targeted to address the specific needs of the subgroups.

Increase data analysis through use of the CFIP process (Classroom Focused Improvement Process);

Improve lessons through differentiation; Discuss and plan strategies to engage all students; Match student need with available interventions and supports; Discuss ways to actively engage parents in their child’s educational success; Monitor and assist students in Pre-K to grade 5 as they fully transition to the

Maryland College and Career Ready Standards; Focus on best instructional practices for development of mathematical content

as part of bi-monthly math meetings Train teachers in the use of cooperative learning structures that will better

engage students in the learning process

ADJUSTMENTS, RATIONALE & TIMELINE

RESOURCE

Continue to schedule School Improvement Team Meetings once per month Rationale: Continuity in providing and applying best practices in response to school wide data


Instructional LeadershipSchool Improvement Team Leaders

Source: Local FundingHold bi-monthly grade level meetings at each schoolRationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

Timeline: September 2014—June 2015

Embedded Professional DevelopmentInstructional Facilitators

Source: Local FundingProvide cross content collaboration opportunities during EDPD days

Rationale: To provide content teachers with time for discussion and reflection of best practices in instruction

Instructional Leadership

Source: Local Funding



RESOURCE

Timeline: September 2014—June 2015Utilize Connect Ed messages to communicate with parents

Rationale: To communicate effectively with parents


Connect Ed


b. Efforts to include Special Education teachers in instructional meetings with regular education teachers will continue.

Assigned elementary special education teachers to meet regularly with the core academic teams;

Assigned elementary special education teachers to a core area professional development during all PD days


RESOURCE

Elementary Special Education teachers meet with core academic teamsRationale: To maintain continuity between regular and special education teachersTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Instructional LeadershipSchool Improvement Team Leaders

Elementary Special Education teachers’ participate in activities with regular education teachers on early dismissal days (EDPD).Rationale: To allow time for joint collaboration and communication in best practicesTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Early Dismissal Professional Development


Assign Special Education teachers to core areas during day long professional development days.Rationale: To allow time for joint collaboration and communication in best practicesTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Professional Development Days


c. The use of technology will increase student engagement during mathematics classes.

Provide continued professional development in the use of technology to increase student engagement;

Utilize collaborative planning time to discuss student engagement and strategies for incorporating available technology into the curriculum;

Assist teachers that do not have access to extensive technology such as Promethean Boards, with ways that they can still utilize their available technology to their best possible advantage.



RESOURCE

Provide training on the use of Promethean boards Rationale: To effectively use technology in the classroom to support instructionTimeline: August 2014-June 2015

Explicit and Embedded Professional Development

Tech and Instructional StaffingSource: Local Funding

Improve quality of staff’s skills in the area of technologyRationale: With improved skills in the area of technology, teachers will be better able to effectively engage students during lessonsTimeline: August 2014-June 2015

Explicit and Embedded Professional Development including one full professional development day devoted solely to technologyTech and Instructional StaffingSource: Local Funding

d. Increase individualized math instructional opportunities for all students. Provide additional training on Dreambox Learning for all elementary math

teachers; Assign special education teachers and paraprofessionals to math classrooms to

support at-risk students; Provide additional intervention for students who are experiencing difficulty in

math; Monitor student learning through local benchmark and common assessments

in grades PK-5


RESOURCE

Training on Dreambox LearningRationale: Teachers and facilitators will be better able to analyze and interpret reports generated by the program regarding student achievementTimeline: July 2014—June 2015

Dreambox Learning

Explicit and Embedded Professional DevelopmentSource: Local Funding

Special Ed teachers and paraprofessionals are assigned to math classroomsRationale: Special Education students need additional support to ensure success in the classroomTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Staffing


Additional intervention for students who are experiencing difficulty in math.Rationale: Additional intervention enables teachers to address areas of weakness with studentsTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

StaffingMath/Reading Intervention Teachers at Greenwood Elementary School, Princess Anne Elementary School and Woodson Elementary SchoolSource: Title I and Local Funding

Local benchmark assessments and common assessments in grades K-5 will be used to monitor interventionRationale: Analysis of data will reveal where areas of weakness are and what students need the additional interventions

Formative and Benchmark Assessments

Instructional FacilitatorsSource: Local Funding and Title I



RESOURCE

Timeline: September 2014—June 2015e. Formative assessments will continue to be monitored and adjusted to better

measure student proficiency and inform instruction in grades K-5. Meet monthly with facilitators to review and discuss data related to common

assessments; Continue refining CFIP process to more fully analyze common assessment to

make plans for remediation and intervention; Administer a pre and post assessment in grades Pre-K-5 to monitor student

growth in the Common Core State Curriculum;


RESOURCE

Review and work to improve diagnostic assessments Rationale: Assessments need to be continually revised to increase their validity and qualityTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Math Facilitators and Supervisor

Performance Matters

Source: Local Funding and Title IMonitor student growth by utilizing the Data WarehouseRationale: Monitoring student data and growth will lead to improved classroom instruction through targeted intervention strategiesTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Performance Matters


Administer Common Core pre and post assessment Rationale: Pre and post assessments allow for the tracking of student growth and ultimately student achievement due to the adjustments made to instructionTimeline: September 2014 and May 2014

ES9 Common Core Pre and Post Tests for Grades Pre-K-5th grades


f. Key instructional initiatives will be kept in the forefront of professional development during 2014—2015.

Continue to support the co-teaching initiative through observation and feedback to both special and regular education teachers, and ELL Staff;

Provide professional development on the use of best practices throughout the year.


RESOURCE

Administrators will closely monitor and offer suggestions for co-teaching initiative Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Staffing


Provide training on the modifications and accommodations Special Education



RESOURCE

that are needed to ensure successful rigor while meeting the Individual Education Plan (IEP)Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Supervisor


g. Implementation of strategies outlined in the Local Scope of Work under the Race to the Top Initiative will continue in 2014-15.

Participate in College and Career Conferences sponsored by MSDE; Critical personnel will use a “train the trainers” model and provide

professional development on transition to the Maryland College and Career Ready Standards at individual school sites per information provided at the College and Career Conferences.


RESOURCE

Training on increasing number sense and fluency in the Maryland College Career Ready Standards (MCCRS)Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: July 2014

Staffing


Monitor and evaluate teachers’ implementation of the MCCRS through observations and walk throughs.Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Administration


Timeline: Leadership teams that attended the College and Career Ready Conferences this summer will work to train teachers on the information that was presented throughout the yearRationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersAugust 2014—June 2015

Leadership Teams



Maryland School Assessment Mathematics---Middle

Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - MiddleAll Students

2012 2013 2014#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.All Students 568 456 80.3 599 474 79.1 562 293 52.1Hispanic/Latino of any race

30 24 80.0 34 25 73.5 32 22 68.8

Am. Indian orAlaska Native

2 2 100.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 7 7 100.0 7 7 100.0 6 4 66.7Black or African Am.

254 187 73.6 257 191 74.3 240 92 38.3

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 246 212 86.2 267 225 84.3 247 156 63.2Two or more races

29 24 82.8 33 25 75.8 37 19 51.4

Special Education

88 59 67.0 102 59 57.8 86 18 20.9

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

11 8 72.7 12 7 58.3 9 4 44.4

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

413 318 77.0 441 329 74.6 419 198 47.3

Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - MiddleMale

2012 2013 2014#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %


18 14 77.8 16 11 68.8 12 8 66.7


1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0


114 81 71.1 127 90 70.9 119 50 42.0


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 121 105 86.8 130 105 80.8 122 75 61.5Two or more 14 12 85.7 18 15 83.3 21 10 50.0


Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - MiddleMale

2012 2013 2014#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.racesSpecial Education

55 41 74.5 68 40 58.8 53 11 20.8


8 6 75.0 7 4 57.1 4 2 50.0


194 149 76.8 226 164 72.6 206 98 47.6

Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - MiddleFemale

2012 2013 2014#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %

Prof.#

Tested# Prof. %


12 10 83.3 18 14 77.8 20 14 70.0


1 1 100.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0


140 106 75.7 130 101 77.7 121 42 34.7


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 125 107 85.6 137 120 87.6 125 81 64.8Two or more races

15 12 80.0 15 10 66.7 17 9 52.9

Special Education

33 18 54.5 34 19 55.9 33 7 21.2


3 2 66.7 5 3 60.0 5 2 40.0


219 169 77.2 215 165 76.7 213 100 46.9


MIDDLE MATHEMATICS

1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in Mathematics (Middle). In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.a. The All Students group and all eight of the eight represented subgroups has a

significant decrease in proficiency from 2013 to 2014. Overall the math proficiency decreased from 79.9% in 2013 to 76.4% in 2014; Special Education students subgroup decreased from 57.8% in 2013 to 20.9%

in 2014 which was the largest percentage drop of all subgroups; Black or African American subgroup decreased from 74.3% in 2013 to 38.3%

in 2014 which was the second largest percentage drop in all of the subgroups Hispanic/Latino of any race subgroup decreased from 73.5% in 2013 to 68.8%

in 2014 which was the smallest percentage drop in all of the subgroups. The Special Education Female subgroup decreased from 55.9% in 2013 to

21.2% in 2014, but performed better than the Special Education Male subgroup which decreased from 58.8 in 2013 to 20.8 in 2014.

The gap between males and females showed a significant decrease with the gap dwindling from 5.4 percent in 2013 to 1.1% in 2014.

b. Curriculum and teacher schedules are having a negative impact of MSA proficiency.

Attendance at math meeting held by facilitators and the math supervisor by special educators is inconsistent;

Scheduling continues to be a concern with having special education teachers participate in collaborative team planning;

Lack of ELL teachers to serve the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population makes it difficult to meet the needs of the LEP students;

Lack of highly qualified mathematics teachers, in that last year, a long term substitute taught several sections of middle school mathematics;

Moving to the Common Core Standards from the Maryland State Curriculum decreased the amount of time that was spent on many of the MSA standards;

Moving standards from one grade level to another decreases the comfort level and efficiency of teachers

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure progress and include timelines where appropriate.a. A comprehensive professional development plan will be implemented for

secondary teachers in 2014-2015. Develop a schedule of Afternoon Professional Development (APD)

concurrently for 2014-2015 with the intent to achieve a balance of collaboration between teacher of like subjects, ELL teachers, and Special Education teachers designed to improve teacher capacity to facilitate the success for diverse learners especially the LEP and the Special Education Population


Provide professional development on difficult standards and coherency as well as incorporating conceptual models in instruction

Inclusion of vertical teams in APD, grades 5 – 8, 7 – 9, and 9 – 12 Work with the Human Resource Department in hiring highly qualified

teachersb. Strategies to be implemented with staff to increase the effectiveness of the

secondary math program Invest in a math intervention program that can be used with students

struggling with skills and concepts Work with the Special Education Supervisor to provide instructional strategies

for working with the Special Education Students. Schedule time for the ELL teachers and Special Education Supervisors to

meet with math teachers to discuss effective strategies that can be used with ELL students and Special Education students.

Encourage ELL and Special Education teachers to attend APD when difficult standards are being presented

Require all math teachers to identify their special education and ELL students and indicate the adjustments being made to the lesson within their lesson plan.

Monitor implementation of adjustments being made to the lesson through walk-throughs, reflective conferences, and observations of regular education teachers and Special Education teachers

Increase coherency within lessonsc. Increased use of data to guide instruction and intervention will impact student

proficiency on PARCC for all students Utilize Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to analyze

assessment data and student work in an effort to improve instruction throughout the school year

Evaluate individual student data at IEP meetings and data meeting held between regular education teachers and special education teachers to improve individual achievement.

Observe and provide data on the use of various methods being used in the classroom to teach difficult standards

Discussions of data at APD with regards to difficult standards and alternate ways of presenting the material.

Monitor the amount of time spent on intervention and student data Provide opportunities for Special Education teachers to collaborate with

general education teachers during data meetings

ADJUSTMENTS And TIMELINE RESOURCESAfternoon Professional Development Plan (APD)

SalaryExtended Contract for Professional Development


Timeline: September 2014 – May 2015 Local Funds and StaffProfessional Development on Difficult Standards

Timeline: September 2014 – May 2015

Math Supervisor, Facilitators, Secondary Math Teachers, Teachers who attended the College and Career Readiness Conference

Professional Development on Coherence


Math Supervisor, Facilitators, 5th Grade Math Teachers, Secondary Math Teachers, Teachers who attended the College and Career Readiness Conference

Monitor accommodations and coherence in lesson plans


PrincipalsSpecial Education SupervisorSecondary Math SupervisorMath Facilitators


Elementary Science

Subgroup


# Tested # Prof. % Prof.





White 108 91 84.3 85 70 82.4 93 78 83.9Two or more races 8 5 62.5 13 12 92.3 10 6 60.0Special Education 44 30 68.2 31 15 48.4 29 14 48.3Limited English Proficient (LEP) 3 2 66.7 6 5 83.3 2 2 100.0

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 158 117 74.1 157 109 69.4 147 98 66.7

Male



# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested # Prof.

% Prof.

All students 103 80 77.7 104 76 73.1 103 72 69.9Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 2 100.0 5 4 80.0 11 7 63.6

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0




Female



# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested # Prof.

% Prof.


All students 110 86 78.2 99 71 71.7 104 81 77.9Hispanic/Latino of any race 4 4 100.0 7 7 100.0 7 6 85.7

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0




1. Evidence of Elementary Science Challenge

a. Elementary students’ science proficiency is still below the desired proficiency of 100%.

Slight increase of 1.5 percentage points in 2014 up from 72.4% proficient in 2013 to 73.9% proficient in 2014 but still not at the 77.9% proficient level achieved in 2012 and well below the state’s targeted proficiency of 100%.

b. Significant disparities exist between subgroups. Increase in African American subgroup, from 57.1% proficient in 2013 to

64.7% proficient in 2014, which still represents a gap below the Caucasian subgroup with a slight increase from 82.4% proficient in 2013 to 83.9% proficient in 2013.

Decline of Two or More Races subgroup from 92.3% proficient in 2013 to 60.0% proficient in 2014, a loss of 32.3 percentage points.

Slight decline of Special Education subgroup from 48.4% proficient in 2013 to 48.3% proficient in 2014, a loss of .1 percentage points

Decline in the FARMS subgroup from 69.4% proficient in 2013 to 66.7% proficient in 2014.

Decline in male students by 3.2 percentage points, dropping from 73.1% proficient in 2013 to 69.9% proficient in 2014.

Increase in female students by 6.2 percentage points moving ahead of their male counterparts by 8 percentage points scoring 77.9% and 69.9% respectively.

African American males scored 13.2 percentage points below their Caucasian male counterparts scoring 65.9% and 79.1% proficient respectively.

African American females scored 24.6 percentage points below their Caucasian female counterparts scoring 63.4% and 88.0% respectively.

c. In analyzing data and the conditions of curriculum, instruction and assessment in the elementary band during 2013-2014, several concerns were identified.


Student engagement is not optimized during all science classes. Limited background knowledge and vocabulary among students, impeding

their learning of higher level content in science. Decreased science instructional time negatively impacted performance. Due to scheduling and staff conflicts, Special Education and ELL teachers are

often not available to support instruction in science.

Elementary Science Benchmark ScoresGrade Level

2011-2012 Benchmark Scores



Percentage Points Difference

K 99% 99% 98% 01st 90% 96% 82% -142nd 82% 90% 73% -173rd 78% 70% 66% -44th 73% 76% 71% -55th 69% 74% 80% +6

d. In analyzing the county benchmark data it was noted that there were areas of concern among grade levels. Decrease in 1st grade scores by 14 percentage points. Decrease in 2nd grade scores by 17 percentage points below the previous year. Decrease in 3rd grade scores by 4 percentage points from the previous year and 12

percentage points from 2012 to 2014. Increase of 6 percentage points in 2013-2014 benchmark scores for 5th grade only.

2. Changes or Adjustments That Are Being Made to Ensure Sufficient Progress

a. ADJUSTMENT: Make the development of rich inquiry based lessons part of the ongoing professional development offered to teachers.

Continue to schedule monthly SIT Meetings and provide more collaboration opportunities for teachers of science.

Continue to discuss science at instructional meetings held bi-weekly at each of the elementary schools.

Discuss student engagement at grade level meetings and how it relates to science instruction.

Continue to monitor student performance on county level benchmarks and classroom assessments making adjustments as necessary.

ADJUSTMENTS, RATIONALE & TIMELINE RESOURCEJob embedded professional development during instructional team meetings with facilitatorsRationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: September 2014-June 2015

Instructional Facilitators

Source: Local and Title I

Monitor student performance on county level benchmarksRationale: To ensure that student achievement and to plan for future instructionTimeline: November 2014—May 2015

Instructional FacilitatorsCounty Level BenchmarksPerformance MattersSource: Local and Title I


ADJUSTMENTS, RATIONALE & TIMELINE RESOURCEOffer collaborative planning sessions for movement to the Next Generation Science Standards at various times throughout the yearRationale: To ensure that Next Generation Science Standards are implemented by the target year of 2017-2018Timeline: August 2014-June 2015

Supervisor

Facilitators

Source: STEM 2015 Grant (Restricted)b. ADJUSTMENT: Target collaboration sessions in science between and among

site based grade level teachers to the extent that it is possible.Targets include:

Analyzing data to guide instruction using the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) model.

Improve lessons by including strategies for engaging students. Continue collaboration during SIT and team meetings as well as during EDPD

and PD days.

ADJUSTMENTS, RATIONALE& TIMELINE

RESOURCE

Continue to analyze data to inform instructional strategies and practice to optimally engage all studentsRationale: To improve student achievement and teacher pedagogyTimeline: September 2014-June 2015


Administrators

Source: Local FundingAnalysis of science benchmark data during team meetingsRationale: To ensure student achievementTimeline: November 2014—May 2015

Performance MattersInstructional Facilitators

Source: Local FundingImplement and encourage use of the 5E Model of lesson planning to all science teachersRationale: The 5E Model of lesson planning is a best practice to ensure student achievement in science through an inquiry based approachTimeline: August 2014-June 2015

Supervisor

Instructional FacilitatorsSource: Local Funding

c. ADJUSTMENT: Increase science instructional opportunities for students. Science will be taught daily in grades Pre-K through 5. Increased focus on experiments, investigations, the scientific process and

performance based tasks. Monitor use of hands on activities through use of grade level tracking

calendars as well as walk through data. Continue to maintain a minimum of 45 min. daily for Grades 3-5 and 30 min.

daily in Grades Pre-K-2 for science instructional time. Implement two units from the Primary Talent Development curriculum, in

addition to current science curriculum, for all students in Pre-K to Grade 2. Implement EiE instructional units (Engineering is Elementary) as part of 1st –

5th grade students in their Science class



RESOURCE

Primary Talent Development (PTD Units)Rationale: To develop early talent in the primary grades (Pre-K-Grade 2)Timeline: November 2014-May 2015

Supplies and MaterialsSource: Local

PTD Curriculum EiE Units (Engineering is Elementary) in grades 1st- 5th will be incorporated into the existing curriculumRationale: To offer rich STEM lessons to students in grades 1st-5th Timeline: September 2014—May 2015

EiE Units

Source: STEM Grant Funding from 2011—2015

d. CHANGE: Use Facilitators and/or outside consultants to provide science professional development in particular areas of need.

Emphasize students’ problem solving, background knowledge building, and vocabulary development.

Provide assistance to teachers on planning and implementing hands on lessons that follow the 5 E Model of Instruction.

Provide professional development on successful implementation of existing STEM units in 1st-5th grade.


RESOURCE

Engineering Is Elementary refill materials will be purchased for Grades 1-5Rationale: Materials are needed each year to ensure the successful implementation of the EiE unitsTimeline: October 2014

EiE units

Source: STEM Grants 2014 & 2015

Collaborative planning time will be given to those teachers responsible for teaching the EiE units in their classroomsRationale: To ensure that teachers are trained to teach the EiE units with fidelity Timeline: September 2014-June 2015

EDPD and PD Days


Assist teachers with planning and implementing hands on lessons that follow the 5 E Lesson format.Rationale: The 5E Model of lesson planning is a best practice to ensure student achievement in science through an inquiry based approachTimeline: August 2014-June 2015

Facilitators

Local Funding—Staffing

e. ADJUSTMENT: Increase student engagement in science through the availability and integration of technology into science instruction.

Increase number of elementary teachers with high tech classrooms. Continue training in the area of technology integration.


RESOURCE

Increase the number of elementary teachers with high tech equipment in their classrooms including:

Document cameras

Equipment



RESOURCE

Laptops Promethean Boards

Rationale: Technology enables teachers to make learning more meaningful and engaging for studentsTimeline: August 2014-June 2015

Source: Local

Continue to provide training to ensure staff can make full and beneficial use of Promethean Boards and other high tech equipment.Rationale: Teachers need ongoing professional development in order to successfully incorporate technology into their lessonsTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Explicit and embedded professional development

Tech and Instructional StaffSource: Local

Discovery Education Plus K-8 and Discovery Education Streaming will be renewed to offer teachers yet another way to build background knowledge and vocabulary.

Rationale: Discovery Education allows teachers to bring science to life in their classrooms and better engage students in the lessons that they teach


License


Maintain Instructional Technology CoordinatorRationale: An instructional technology coordinate can plan and provide professional development to teachers on the use of the technology in their classroomsTimeline: September 2014 – June 2015

Staffing


f. ADJUSTMENT: All teachers will continue to utilize data effectively: Review individual student data at IEP and data meetings to improve

individual student achievement. Administer district wide science benchmarks three times per year to monitor

student growth in the area of science. Require teachers to give students prescriptive, informative feedback regarding

their performance in science. Integrate writing prompts into science classes on a regular basis.


RESOURCE

Special Education teachers will closely monitor and document the services given to students using the data collected to guide and inform instructional planning.Rationale: To inform instructional planning and better coordination of services to the students with IEP’sTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Staffing


Continue to review and improve Quarterly assessments checking for appropriate alignment, eliminating distracters in questions and answers and improving scoring tools.Rationale: Assessments need to be continually revised to ensure quality and validity of the testsTimeline: August 2014—June 2015


Performance Matters

Source: Local Funding & Title I



RESOURCE

Bi-weekly meetings will be held to offer embedded professional development as well as opportunities to discuss student data on science benchmarks and writing.Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: September 2014—June 2015


Source: Local Funding and Title I

g. ADJUSTMENT: Promote and encourage the use of inquiry based teaching as well as other highly effective teaching strategies throughout the year.

Support the co teaching initiative through observation and feedback to both special and regular education teachers, and ELL Staff.

Continue instructional professional development as part of monthly special education meetings.


RESOURCE

Continue to provide embedded professional development at bi-weekly instructional meetings as well as during SIT meetingsRationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learnersTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Facilitators

Source: Local Funding and Title I

Emphasis on effective instructional strategies will be a part of monthly special education meetingsRationale: Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support students with IEP’sTimeline: August 2014—June 2015

Special Education Supervisor

Source: Local Funding and SPED grants

Maryland School Assessment Science (Middle Level)

Table 2.8: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science Middle Level (Grade 8)Subgroup All Students

2012 2013 2014#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.All Students 180 133 73.9 198 137 69.2 194 142 73.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race

6 6 100.0 13 8 61.5 15 11 73.3

American Indian or Alaska Native

0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 1 1 100.0 2 2 100.0 3 2 66.7


Subgroup All Students

2012 2013 2014#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.Black or African American

84 49 58.3 85 52 61.2 81 53 65.4


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 80 71 88.8 93 72 77.4 75 62 82.7

Two or more races 9 6 66.7 4 2 50.0 20 14 70.0

Special Education 24 10 41.7 37 16 43.2 23 8 34.8


1 0 0.0 5 1 20.0 5 1 20.0


121 80 66.1 139 89 64.0 138 97 70.3

Male

All Students

2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All students 88 69 78.4 97 68 70.1 94 74 78.7


3 3 100.0 8 5 62.5 6 6 100.0

Am. Indian or Alaska Native

0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 1 1 100.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100.0

Black or African American

40 26 65.0 38 23 60.5 37 25 67.6


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 40 36 90.0 47 37 78.7 38 32 84.2


Male

All Students

2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

Two or more races 4 3 75.0 2 1 50.0 12 10 83.3


Limited English Proficient

1 0 0.0 3 0 0.0 2 1 50.0


55 38 69.1 72 49 68.1 67 51 76.1

Female


# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All students 92 64 69.6 101 69 68.3 100 68 68.0


3 3 100.0 5 3 60.0 9 5 55.6


0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 2 1 50.0


44 23 52.3 47 29 61.7 44 28 63.6


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 40 35 87.5 46 35 76.1 37 30 81.1

Two or more races 5 3 60.0 2 1 50.0 8 4 50.0



0 0 0.0 2 1 50.0 3 0 0.0


66 42 63.6 67 40 59.7 71 46 64.8


MIDDLE LEVEL SCIENCE (Grade 8)

1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in Science (Middle level, grade 8). In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. Middle level science proficiency decreased for the Special Education subgroup in 2014.

Special Education proficiency decreased by 8.4% points from 43.2% in 2013 to 34.8% in 2014

Male Special Education students proficiency decreased by 12 % points from 52.0 % in 2013 to 40.0 % in 2014

b. Subgroup achievement gap at the middle level science increased with in two of the represented subgroups.

The African American subgroup performance of 65.4% is 17.3%points below that of the white subgroup in 2014. This is an increase over the gap of 16.2% points in 2013.

Special Education subgroup performance of 34.8% is 38.4 % points below that of the aggregate in 2014. This is an increase over the gap of 26.0% points in 2013.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate.

Provide Professional Development that will focus on ways to provide differentiated instruction

Utilize professional development time to align curriculum to Next generation Science Standards.

Use limited flex grouping, pullout intervention and added intervention sections Develop the Afternoon Professional Development (APD) schedule to continue to

provide at least one data meetings per month to achieve the proper balance of collaboration between teachers of like subjects and new learning

Use data from common assessments, benchmarks and teacher assessments to develop flexible groups within classrooms to provide remediation to struggling students

Provide professional development on Student Learning Objectives (SLO) for the 2014-2015 school year.

Provide Professional Development on effective Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) Lesson plans for entire staff

Incorporate Universal design for learning practices to reach all students preferred learning styles

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.

Use My Big Campus as a professional learning community. Development of field experiences in all science course to promote environmental

literacy


ADJUSTMENT and TIMELINE

RESOURCES CATEGORY and FUNDING

Process/Teacher Collaboration between like subject teachersAugust 2014 – June 2015

Afterschool Professional Development:Collaboration

Staff Time Cost: $0

STEM Lessons plan developmentJuly 2014 – June 2015

Career and College readiness ConferenceProfessional Development to share with whole staff

Local cost summer PD ($1800) secondarywill use APD time for staff lesson development

Universal Design for learningSeptember 2014 – June 2015

Professional Development Local cost

Student Learning ObjectivesJuly 2014 – June 2015

Summer Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development during school year

Local cost


SECONDARY SOCIAL STUDIES

10th Grade Students 12-13

Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not

TakenAll Students 169 69.8 118 23.1 39 7.1 12Hispanic/Latino of any race 8 50.0 4 37.5 3 12.5 1American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0Asian 3 66.7 2 33.3 1 0.0 0Black or African American 60 61.7 37 33.3 20 5.0 3Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0White 85 76.5 65 15.3 13 8.2 7Two or more races 13 76.9 10 15.4 2 7.7 1Special Education 15 33.3 5 66.7 10 0.0 0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 1

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 109 65.1 71 27.5 30 7.3 8

Subgroup

MalesNumber

of Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

% Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 91 70.3 64 22.0 20 7.7 7

Hispanic/Latino of any race 5 40.0 2 60.0 3 0.0 0

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Asian 2 100.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0

Black or African American 40 67.5 27 25.0 10 7.5 3

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

White 40 75.0 30 15.0 6 10.0 4

Two or more races 4 75.0 3 25.0 1 0.0 0

Special Education 12 33.3 4 66.7 8 0.0 0

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


Subgroup Females


Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 78 69.2 54 24.4 19 6.4 5



Asian 1 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0



White 45 77.8 35 15.6 7 6.7 3

Two or more races 9 77.8 7 11.1 1 11.1 1




11th Grade Students 12-13

Subgroup

All Students

Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 164 3.7 6 3.0 5 93.3 153



Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0



White 81 2.5 2 3.7 3 93.8 76

Two or more races 14 7.1 1 7.1 1 85.7 12





Subgroup

Males

Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 82 6.1 5 3.7 3 90.2 \74



Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

White 47 4.3 2 4.3 2 91.5 43

Two or more races 4 25.0 1 25.0 1 50.0 2




Subgroup

Females

Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 82 1.2 1 2.4 2 96.3 79



Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

White 34 0.0 0 2.9 1 97.1 33

Two or more races 10 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 10





1. Based on available data, please identify any challenges to attaining the stated goal.

a. 2012-13 Government HSA (High School Assessment) data illustrated some obvious challenges and revealed some emerging problems within sub-groups. This group of students was reintroduced to the Government test after it had been temporarily eliminated. The reintroduction meant that passing it wasn’t required for graduation. This explains the overall drop in pass rate from previous years where the pass rates were much higher.

Overall pass rate of 69.8% significantly lower than in previous years Overall pass rate of 50% for Hispanic/Latino student Overall pass rate of 33% for Special Education students Achievement Gap

a. White students outperformed African American students by 13.7%b. White students outperformed Hispanic/Latino students by 26.5%

b. Challenges to using CFIP (Classroom Focused Improvement Process) & revision of assessments to reflect instructional changes

Filling the position of Social Studies supervisor (did not happen) Adjusting to staffing changes related to social studies curriculum and

leadership at one high school Providing high quality instruction via long term substitutes for one high

school teacher that was out for an extended time during the year Achieving consistent collaboration with special education teachers in data

analysis meetings Achieving consistent collaboration with ELL (English Language Learners)

teachers in social studies data analysis meetings Maintaining consistent data meetings despite leadership changes and holes

c. Provide professional development for social studies teachers on argumentative writing and 6 Traits + 1 rubric

Providing consistent professional development regardless of staffing changes Re-structuring focus of school based instructional leaders to include social

studies at both high schools Effectively schedule collaborative scoring of writing Ensure special education teachers are invited to content professional

development Ensure ELL teachers are invited to social studies content professional

development Utilize table scoring of student writing to diagnose specific writing problems.


2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Use CFIP as a foundation for collaborative meetings to adjust instruction Continue assessment revisions by updating the CR’s(constructed responses) to

include more substantial stimuli Review and adopt rubrics collaboratively to determine which is best for scoring,

grading, and feedback Increase professional development on historical investigations/research simulations Re-structure financial literacy lessons to fit new social studies scope and sequence Update curricular documents and augment with additional resources in a shared,

cloud curriculum Enroll ELL students with significant language challenges in reading intervention

using READ180 Provide social studies and special education teachers with technology strategies for

differentiated instruction and UDL accessibility to students. Notify special education and ELL teachers of APD (Afternoon Professional

Development) agendas, locations, etc…

Adjustment and Timeline Resources Category and Funding

Professional Development on How social studies fits into PARCC’s

research based simulation Using Primary Source Documents Thinking and Writing Like an

Historian Discuss rubrics for argumentative

writing & adopt a common rubric Update curricular documents Technology for UDL (Universal

Design for Learning) and differentiation


Secondary Instructional SupervisorsPrincipals FacilitatorsAPD coach

Local Funding

Embedded Assessment Refinement Update all CR’s on all assessments Create two performance based

assessments for grades 6 and 7 Add some EBSR’s (Evidence Based

Selected Response)to assessmentsTimeline: 2014-2015 school year

Secondary Instructional SupervisorsFacilitatorsTeachers

Local funding

3. If applicable, based on trend data, identify whether the changes or adjustments stated above are the same from last year. Describe the rationale for continuing the change or adjustments if the data was stagnant or decreased.


a. CFIP will continue to be used to evaluate student learning and make adjustments to instruction. While this was planned last year, the lack of dedicated content leaders at both the building and district levels led to sporadic implementation. Experienced facilitators at both high schools, and an APD coach will ensure data meetings are held and instructional decisions based on data.

b. Assessments will be continually updated; however, these updates will reflect instructional shifts and include more performance based items where students respond to primary source stimuli.

c. Professional development on primary sources will continue; however, it will be more focused. Instead of simply providing locations for finding primary sources, the focus will be creating historical investigations and research based simulations to assess those skills.


Maryland High School Assessment (HSA)—English

English 2013 HSA Subgroup Data by Gender

Subgroup

All Students2010 2011 2012 2013

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 167 127 76 159 123 77.4 173 141 79.7 165 130 78.8

Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 2 100 4 1 25 6 5 83.3

American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1 100 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 100

Asian 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 3 3 100

Black or African American 73 47 64.4 76 62 81.6 70 50 71.4

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0

White 78 68 87.2 81 68 80 78 66 84.6

Two or more races 5 5 100 12 10 83.3 7 5 71.4

Special Education 15 4 26.7 16 8 50 19 8 42.1 13 5 38.5

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 100


Subgroup

Male

Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 93 73.1 68 26.9 25 0.0 0Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 66.7 2 33.3 1 0.0 0American Indian or Alaska Native 1 100 1 0 0 0.0 0Asian 2 100 2 0 0 0.0 0Black or African American 41 63.4 26 36.6 15 0.0 0Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0White 44 81.8 36 18.2 8 0.0 0Two or more races 2 50 1 50 1 0.0 0Special Education 11 45.5 5 54.5 6 0.0 0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 100 1 0 0 0.0 0Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 56 66.1 37 33.9 19 0.0 0

Subgroup All Students

Subgroup

Female

Number of

Students

% Taken

and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 72 86.1 62 13.9 10 0.0 0Hispanic/Latino of any race 3 100 3 0 0 0.0 0American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0Asian 1 100 1 0 0 0.0 0Black or African American 29 82.8 24 17.2 5 0.0 0Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0White 34 88.2 30 11.8 4 0.0 0Two or more races 5 80 4 20 1 0.0 0Special Education 2 0 0 100 2 0.0 0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 100 1 0 0 0.0 0Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 34 79.4 27 20.6 7 0.0 0

English High School Assessment


1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in English. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. Five represented subgroups in 12 th grade data decreased in proficiency from 2012 to 2013, including the All Students group.

Decrease in All Students group from 79.7% in 2012 to 78.8% in 2013, against the trend of rising scores over the previous 3 years

Decreases in the African American (from 81.6% in 2012 to 71.4% in 2013) and Two or More Races (from 83.3% in 2012 to 71.4% in 2013) subgroups

Decrease in Special Education subgroup from a 50% in 2011 to 42.1% in 2012 to 38.5% in 2013, against the trend toward rising scores and closing gaps up through 2011

Decrease in FARMS subgroup from a 79.2% high in 2012 to 71.1% in 2013, against the trend toward rising scores and closing gaps over the previous three years

b. Somerset County HSA English data indicates a number of gaps between subgroups.

Gap persists between the All subgroup in 2013, 12th grade and four other 2013 12th grade subgroups, as well as between and among subgroups

Gap between the 2013 12th grade All subgroup and the 2012 12th grade Special Education subgroup of 40.3%; gap between the All subgroup and the Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) subgroup of 7.7%; gap between the All subgroup and the Two or More Races subgroup of 7.4%; gap between the All subgroup and the African American subgroup of 7.4%

Five subgroups exceed the 2013 12th grade All subgroup, including Hispanic/Latino, American Indian, Asian, White, and LEP; however, some group sizes are too small for statistical significance

Gap persists between the 2013 12th grade subgroups receiving special services and the All subgroup with the 2013 Special Education subgroup at 38.5% proficiency and the FARMS subgroup at 71.1% subgroup while the All Students subgroup is at 79.7%; the SPED subgroup marks a two-year decline and a widening of the gap between SPED and non-SPED student achievement

Gap persists between African American subgroup, at 71.4% taken and passed in 2013, and the Caucasian subgroup, at 84.6% taken and passed; the African American group’s achievement creates a widening of the gap between African American students and their Caucasian counterparts

c. Somerset County HSA English data indicates a number of gender gaps.

6 subgroups indicate that males in a subgroup achieved lower than females of the same subgroup


The 2013 12th grade male ALL subgroup proficiency was 24% lower than 12 th

grade female ALL subgroup, a larger gap than the previous year. Gap between the African American male subgroup at 63.4%, 19.4% lower

than the African American female subgroup at 82.8%, a larger gap than the previous year

Gap between the Hispanic male subgroup at 66.7%, 33.3% below the Hispanic female subgroup at 100%; however, these are both small sample sizes, which undermines the statistical validity of comparison. Both groups saw significant gains from 2012-2013.

d. Staffing changes impact HSA English performance. Loss of dedicated reading intervention teachers at the two high schools; cuts

in staffing resulted in difficult in scheduling ongoing, consistent, high-quality intervention for students

Enhanced administrative challenges at both high schools due to transitions, retirements, reorganization, and other moves

2. Moving forward to support student achievement, describe the changes or strategies, and rationale for selecting strategies, and/or evidence-based practices that will be made to ensure progress. Include timelines and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate (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 explain the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted. If the source is restricted IDEA, Title I or ARRA funding – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source as unrestricted and include attributable funds.)

a. Increase expert leadership personnel to drive instructional alignment, rigor, and effectiveness through strong professional development, as well as observation and evaluation.

Continue collaboration between Special Education Supervisor and Instructional Supervisors to lead professional development, particularly in effective instructional practices and co-teaching, with all instructional staff, including school-based administration, facilitators, Special Education teachers, general education teachers, instructional assistants, etc.

Continue Supervisor of Instructional Programs’ targeted oversight of the 6-12 Reading/English/Language Arts (RELA) program to provide more focused leadership of the program, including regular data analysis meetings to identify and track ongoing progress, planning and providing professional development as part of a transition plan for the move to the Common Core and PARCC assessments, etc.

Continue a full-time instructional facilitator at each 8-12 school so that each school has two full-time facilitators (up from 1.5 at each school); previous facilitator received a promotion, leaving the position vacant for several months and then filled on an interim basis


Adjustment & Timeline Resources RationaleCollaboration between Special Education Supervisor and Instructional Supervisors to lead professional development with all instructional staff




Targeted oversight of RELA program, including ongoing root cause analysis to evaluate transition to Common Core and PARCC assessment system


Staffing—Local funding,


Continue a full-time instructional facilitator to lead job-embedded professional development and data analysis work with RELA teachers, at the building level


Staffing—Local funding Building level job-embedded professional development and ongoing data analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the RELA instruction program

b. Initiate professional development and supplemental programs to support high needs and/or diverse student populations.

Continue to utilize the High Roads Program, a one-to-one, tutorial-based classroom model, designed to support both disabled and non-disabled students with severe emotional and behavioral issues, not meeting success in traditional classroom settings. The program promotes a relationship between student and teacher that is built on trust, with an appropriate balance between empathy and accountability. It also utilizes a combination of the highly individualized instructional model and a values-driven rewards system to create an environment where even the smallest academic successes become powerful reinforcement for building student confidence and competence.

Continue and enhance training for all teachers and administrators in Universal Design for Learning (UDL), including technology integration and tools to support diverse learners.

Participate in the MSDE-led College and Career Readiness Conferences to increase knowledge and understanding of the Common Core Curriculum transition and the instructional implications, including issues of text complexity, close reading of text, text-dependent questions, and evidence-based responses/writing.

Continue to provide co-planning opportunities beyond the school day for general education, Special Education, and ESOL teachers


Continue to participate in curriculum and assessment development projects, as well as professional development planning, in collaboration with the Eastern Shore Language Arts Group (ESLAG), a partnership of ELA experts across the 9 Eastern Shore counties

Continue to solicit ESOL teachers’ collaboration and consultation on developing new curriculum to support Common Core Curriculum, PARCC assessments, and the WIDA language proficiency assessments.

Continue to provide professional development sessions for regular education classroom teachers on best practices to support language acquisition, including techniques to support increased verbal interaction between LEP students, their teachers, and their peers. Sessions will be led by ESOL teachers.

Continue opportunities for ESOL teachers to collaborate with other classroom teachers in order to analyze students’ strengths, weaknesses, and identify appropriate strategies to support instruction.

Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to existing middle school reading intervention programs, in order to address the needs of students with foundational reading challenges, such as fluency; this is an early intervention strategy, designed to have a long term impact on students’ readiness for high school and the graduation requirements

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to existing middle school reading intervention programs to replace older intervention system with one that contains a more advanced data/differentiation system, higher level progress monitoring, writing, and digital literacy content in order to better align with increasingly rigorous standards (i.e. Common Core); this is an early intervention strategy, designed to have a long term impact on students’ readiness for high school and the graduation requirements

Provide professional development for high school teachers not previously trained in the components of the Read 180 program

Provide leadership training to content area experts in the components of the Read 180 program in order to ensure that the program is implemented with fidelity and create a systemic approach that is more likely to positively impact student achievement and graduation rates

Continue to provide disciplinary literacy professional development opportunities to all secondary teachers to ensure that effective literacy instruction is present in all courses, regardless of content.

Implement Applied Behavior Analysis best practices and strategies to foster positive and appropriate behaviors in SPED students, as well as general education students

Schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum of services to receive remediation and review of skills

Adjustment & Timeline Resources RationaleContinue High Roads Academy Special Education

funding, local funding, Professional

Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-



Timeline: July 2014 - June 2015

Development based best practices to support all learners

ESOL Follow-up Sessions—Differentiation and Close Reading for ELL’s (for general education and ELL staff)


Professional Development, ESOL Staff, All Staff Time


Universal Design for Learning Professional Development


Professional Development (including Leadership), Staff Time


Participation in the College and Career Readiness Conferences and follow-up activities




Supplemental co-planning opportunities, diverse populations (ESOL, Special Education, etc.)




Culturally Responsive Pedagogy workshops


Afternoon Professional Development (APD) time, Early Dismissal Professional Development, Staff Time


Disciplinary Literacy and Performance Assessment Workshops

Afternoon Profession Development (APD) time, Professional Development, Staff Time

Literacy standards and assessments incorporate literacy across content areas and are assessed in a performance based manner; in order to properly prepare students for college and career


Adjustment & Timeline Resources RationaleTimeline: July 2014 – June 2015 readinessAdminister assessments aligned with new standards and curriculum (i.e. PARCC)

Timeline: December 2014—June 2015

Staff Time Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

c. Continue to implement data-based instructional practices and supplemental services.

Continue to utilize the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to track individual and sub-group progress and make instructional adjustments accordingly.

Continue to support effective co-teaching practices through collaboration as a part of co-planning time, professional development time, and other supplemental opportunities—to all staff supporting students requiring supplemental services, such as Special Education, English Language Learners, Gifted and Talented, etc.

Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to existing middle school reading intervention programs, in order to address the needs of students with foundational reading challenges, such as fluency; this is an early intervention strategy, designed to have a long term impact on students’ readiness for high school and the graduation requirements

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to existing middle school reading intervention programs to replace older intervention system with one that contains a more advanced data/differentiation system, higher level progress monitoring, writing, and digital literacy content in order to better align with increasingly rigorous standards (i.e. Common Core); this is an early intervention strategy, designed to have a long term impact on students’ readiness for high school and the graduation requirements

Develop and utilize walkthrough tools to regularly provide feedback on established “look fors” to support effective literacy instruction, including disciplinary literacy, specific to content areas (i.e. Read Like a Historian, Read Like a Scientist, etc.)

Adjustment & Timeline Resources Rationale Regular CFIP (Classroom Focused Improvement Process) meetings by Instructional Leadership Teams


Staff time, Professional Development, School Improvement Planning, APD


Co-teaching professional development

Supervisor of Special Education, Professional development, APD

Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-




based best practices to support all learners

Continue Read Naturally Live reading intervention to intermediate school


Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based best practices to support all learners

Add Read 180 reading intervention program to intermediate school


Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based practices to support all learners

Provide training in program components, effective implementation, and progress monitoring in the Read 180 program


Local Funding Support teachers and leaders in utilizing evidence-based practices to support all learners; Ongoing data analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the RELA instructional program

Based on the examination of 2013 High School Assessment Test Participation and Status results for English:

1. Identify any additional challenges that are evident.

All challenges identified within trend data analysis. Participation rates in Somerset are consistently strong.

2. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a 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. The LEA should explain the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted. If the source is restricted IDEA, Title I or ARRA funding – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source as unrestricted and include attributable funds.)

See discussion in previous section of analysis.



While some of the changes and adjustments continue from previous years, many require multiple years to see an impact. Additionally, large scale transitions in curriculum and assessment—distinct from LEA-level changes and adjustments—add variables to the change process. For example, while the strategies outlined previously began in earlier years, the effectiveness can be impacted by transitions in leadership or ELA staff, as well as variables such as transition to Common Core and the PARCC assessments. These changes are so broad that they impact every aspect of the instructional program, including HSA pass rates and remediation efforts. Consequently, some strategies’ effectiveness is difficult to evaluate currently. The decrease or stagnancy in data may be attributed to external variables. As such, it is important to maintain continuity of evidence-based, research-proven strategies that may still be able to positively impact ELA.

Despite these variables, however, Somerset is urgently aware of the impact of HSA proficiency on graduation rates, as well as overall college and career readiness. As a system, Somerset feels a strong moral obligation to help students meet with success as defined by graduation and readiness for post-secondary plans, recognizing that proficiency on the HSA’s is a critical component. The English HSA, in particular, has the potential to have significant impact on students’ overall success as literacy is such an integral component of any post-secondary endeavors.


Algebra/Data Analysis

Table 2.6: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis)All Students

2012 2013 2014#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.All Students 177 137 77.4 176 137 77.8Hispanic/Latino of any race 5 3 60.0 6 5 83.3

Am. Indian orAlaska Native 0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0

Asian 0 0 0.0 3 3 100.0Black or African Am. 81 59 72.8 79 51 64.6

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 79 64 81.0 81 71 87.7Two or more races 12 11 91.7 6 6 100.0

Special Education 21 6 28.6 20 5 25.0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 960 0.0 2 2 100.0

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 96 72 75.0 95 68 71.6

Table 2.6: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis)Male

2012 2013 2014#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%








49 36 73.5 60 39 65.0


Table 2.6: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis)Female

2012 2013 2014#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%

Prof.#

Tested#

Prof.%








1. Based on available trend data, describe the challenges in Algebra/Data Analysis. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. HSA Algebra/Data Analysis Performance increased in 2013 overall and for some subgroups

Algebra proficiency increased form 77.4% in 2012 to 77.8% in 2013. Hispanic/Latino of any race increased from 60.0% to 83.3% White subgroup increased from 81.0% to 87.7% Black or African American subgroup decreased from 72.8% to 64.6% Special Education subgroup decreased from 28.6% to 25.0%; however the

male special education subgroup increased from 27.3% to 29.4% Free/Reduced subgroup decreased from 75.0% to 71.6%; however the female

special education subgroup increased from 76.6% to 82.9%

b. HSA Algebra/Data Analysis data from 2013 indicates a number of gender gaps 2013 data shows an overall gap of 15.8% when comparing All Females

(86.6%) to All Males (71.0%), increasing the previous year’s gap of 12.6% Female African Americans outperformed males in the same subgroup by

26.4%, achieving a proficiency of 80.6% compared to 54.2% Female Caucasian subgroup proficiency (88.9%) was 2.2% greater than the

male Caucasian subgroup (86.7%), decreasing the gap from 2012. Female Free/Reduced Meals subgroup (82.9%) outperformed males in the

same subgroup by 17.9%


c. HSA Algebra/Data Analysis data from 2013 indicates a number of gaps between subgroups

Gap persists (23.1%) and increased significantly (14.9%) in 2013 between the Caucasian subgroup (87.7%) and the African American subgroup(64.6%).

Gap between White males (86.7%) and Black or African American males (54.2%) continues to grow

Gap between White females (88.9%) and Black or African American females (80.6%) shifted in 2013 with the White females outscoring Black or African American females by 8.3%

d. Changes in staff and curriculum creates unique challenges Move to common core standards while testing the Maryland State Curriculum

will detract from the focus of the Maryland State Curriculum which in turn will impact student performance

Attrition of the mathematics staff will impact student performance Lack of highly qualified staff will have significant impact on student

performance 8th and 9th grade Common Core Algebra students will not have the benefits of

the previous year’s Common Core curriculum and are accountable for mastering State Curriculum.

2. Moving forward to support student achievement, describe the changes or strategies, and rationale for selecting strategies, and/or evidence-based practices that will be made to ensure progress. Include timelines and method(s) of measuring student progress where appropriate.

a. Provide professional development at the county level and individual schools to support high needs and diverse learners.

Provide additional professional development for all mathematics teacher in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) practices, including technology integration and tools to support diverse learners

Provide professional development for all mathematics teachers in difficult standards

Provide a “Bridge to Algebra 2 class” for those students who took and passed the HSA Algebra class to provide instruction in the Common Core standards that they will need for Algebra 2.

Discuss and enhance co-teaching practices by implementing the strategies and best practice of Special Education

Schedule time for Special Education, ELL and regular mathematics teachers to meet to discuss best practices

Include Special Education teachers in Afternoon Professional Development (APD) Mathematics content sessions throughout the year

ADJUSTMENTS And TIMELINE

RESOURCES RATIONAL

Afternoon Professional Development Plan (APD)

SalaryExtended Contract for Professional

Afternoon Professional Development allows



DevelopmentLocal Funds and Staff

teachers who teach Algebra to collaborate on lesson plans as well as activities.

Professional Development on Difficult Standards


Math Supervisor, Facilitators, Secondary Math Teachers, Teachers who attended the College and Career Readiness Conference

As we transition from the HSA to Common Core, many of the topics have been moved from upper level courses to lower level course. Many teachers do not feel comfortable teaching the new standards

Professional Development on Coherence


Math Supervisor, Facilitators, 5th Grade Math Teachers, Secondary Math Teachers, Teachers who attended the College and Career Readiness Conference

It has been shown that if students can tie new learning to something that they already know the new learning becomes easier. In addition, at the elementary level student learning is conceptual and teachers need to show students how to move from the conceptual to the abstract.

Monitor accommodations and coherence in lesson plans


PrincipalsSpecial Education SupervisorSecondary Math SupervisorMath Facilitators

In order to keep accommodations and coherence in the front of teachers’ minds, monitoring both accommodations and coherence will help teachers remember that they need to constantly be looking at these areas when planning their lessons.

b. Implement data-based instructional practices Continue to utilize the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to

track subgroup and individual student progress and make instructional adjustments and differentiate as indicated.

Administer and analyze diagnostic Algebra assessments Provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate in creating an assessment

bank aligned to Common Core course standards, thus generating student-specific information to drive daily instruction and better utilize classroom time

Require teachers to complete data analysis on all Benchmark and diagnostic tests in order to identify gaps and drive instructional decisions

Provide opportunities for Special Education teachers to collaborate with general education teachers during data meetings.

Adjustment and Timeline Resources Category and FundingContinue Inclusion of CFIP Process/Teacher Collaboration

Collaboration, Instructional Leadership Team

Source: Staff Time, Extended Contract for Professional Development


Timeline: August 2014 – June 2015 Local FundingDiagnostic Algebra tests


Supervisor, facilitators, professional development

Source: Staff Time, Extended Contract for Professional DevelopmentLocal Funding

Development of assessment bank


Professional development

Source: Staff Time, Extended Contract for Professional DevelopmentLocal Funding

c. Plan strategically for continue transition to Common Core Curriculum in Algebra

Continue to facilitate successful curriculum change by thoroughly analyzing the new State Common Core Curriculum, and identifying gaps, or mismatched standards

Provide collaboration opportunities through required after-school professional development sessions to understand and address current challenges, relating to difficult standards

Continue the development of new quarterly assessments to reflect curriculum changes to better provide feedback on student strengths and weaknesses

Continue representation at Eastern Shore 9 Mathematics Consortium meetings to maintain collaboration with regards to newly developed assessments, scope and sequences, long-term transitional plans, and keeping all updated on the dynamic emergence of new Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) information

Update all secondary mathematics teachers on the latest PARCC assessment advances, scrutinizing prototypes upon release

Develop and utilize updated walkthrough tools for administrators in order to provide feedback on “look fors” to support successful mathematics instruction in all secondary mathematics classes

Require all mathematics teachers to infuse the 8 Mathematical Practices and tasks in the curriculum and their daily lessons

Provide models of lesson infused with Mathematical Practices Encourage the use of the Maryland Blackboard for lesson stems Work with teachers in implementing conceptual models in their lessons as

well as algorithmic models

Adjustments and Timelines Resources Category and FundingProfessional Development Common Core Curriculum, Shifts, PARCC assessments

Professional Development Local Funding – Professional Development, Staffing

Development of new Benchmarks

Facilitators, Staff, Professional Development

Local Funding – Professional Development, Staffing

ES9 Involvement (monthly meetings and electronic collaboration

Staffing Local Funding – Travel Expenses, Staff Time


2013 High School Assessment Test Participation and Status results for Algebra/Data Analysis:

Table 3.4: HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2013Population: All 10th Grade Students

All StudentsSubgroups Number

of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 169 78.1 132 18.9 32 3.0 5Hispanic/Latino of any race 8 62.5 5 25.0 2 12.5 1

Am. Indian orAlaska Native 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Asian 3 100.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0Black or African Am. 60 65.0 39 31.7 19 3.3 19

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

White 85 87.1 74 10.6 9 2.4 9Two or more races 13 84.6 11 15.4 2 0.0 2Special Education 15 40.0 6 60.0 9 0.0 9Limited English Proficient (LEP) 11 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 1



MaleSubgroups Number

of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 91 80.2 73 15.4 14 4.4 4Hispanic/Latino of any race 5 60.0 3 20 1 20.0 1

Am. Indian orAlaska Native 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0

Asian 2 100.0 2 0 0 0.0 0Black or African Am. 40 77.5 31 17.5 7 5.0 2


White 40 85.0 34 12.5 5 2.5 1Two or more races 4 75.0 3 25.0 1 0.0 0Special Education 12 41.7 5 58.3 7 0.0 0




of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken




FemaleSubgroups Number

of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken


Am. Indian orAlaska Native 0 0

0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0







of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken










of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken







Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2013

Population: All 10th Grade StudentsFemale

Subgroups Number of

Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken






White 34 85.3 29 11.8 4 2.9 1Two or more races 10 100 10 0.0 0 0.0 0Special Education 7 42.9 3 57.1 4 0.0 0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0




of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken









of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken





White 44 88.6 39 11.4 5 0.0 0


Two or more races 1 100.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0Special Education 12 31.3 4 66.7 8 0.0 0Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 100.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0



FemaleSubgroups Number

of Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken







Based on the examination of 2013 High School Assessment Test Participation and Status results for Algebra/Data Analysis:

1. Additional challenges that are evident.a. Percent of students not taking and not passed the Algebra/Data Analysis slightly

increases from grade to gradeb. Percent of males not taking and not passed the Algebra/Data Analysis increases from

the 10th grade (17.5%) to 11th grade (40.7%) and then to 12th grade (40.5%)c. Percent of special education students not taking and not passed the Algebra/Data

Analysis increases from 10th grade (58.3%) to 11th grade (68.4%) to 12th grade (66.7%)

2. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. a. Concentrated effort on providing remediation for students who fail the assessment


b. Investigate an online remediation program that students can use on their own or in conjunction with the next math course they are taking to provide additional assistance in skills which are lacking or need strengthening (This strategy will also be applied to students taking the PARCC assessment)

c. Target students identified as failing benchmarks to provide additional assistance prior to the initial testing window to increase the number of first time test takers that meet with success (While there are no more first time test takers for High School Assessments, this strategy will be applied to students taking PARCC for the first time.)

d. Work with teachers in incorporating conceptual models in their lessons as well as algorithmic models


Maryland High School Assessment Science Performance Science High (Biology)

Table 2.9: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Science High (Biology)Subgroup All Students

2012 2013 2014

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

All Students 176 142 80.7 178 140 78.7


5 3 60.0 6 5 83.3


0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0

Asian 0 0 0.0 3 3 100.0


78 57 73.1 81 52 64.2


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 81 71 87.7 81 73 90.1

Two or more races 12 11 91.7 6 6 100.0

Special Education 21 10 47.6 22 9 40.9


1 0 0.0 2 2 100.0


97 74 76.3 97 67 69.1

Male


All Students

2012

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof. # Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

All students 84 68 81.0 102 77 75.5


2 1 50.0 3 2 66.7


0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0

Asian 0 0 0.0 2 2 100.0


37 25 67.6 50 29 58.0


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 39 36 92.3 45 42 93.3

Two or more races 6 6 100.0 1 1 100.0



0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0


49 38 77.6 62 41 66.1

Female

All Students

2012

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested


# Prof. % Prof.

All students 92 74 80.4 76 63 82.9


3 2 66.7 3 3 100.0


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Asian 0 0 0.0 1 1 100.0


Female

All Students

2012

# Tested

# Prof. % Prof.

# Tested


# Prof. % Prof.


41 32 78.0 31 23 74.2


0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

White 42 35 83.3 36 31 86.1

Two or more races 6 5 83.3 5 5 100.0



1 0 0.0 1 1 100.0


48 36 75.0 35 26 74.3

1. Based on the available trend and 2013 data, describe the challenges in Biology. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

a. Overall Proficiency in High School Assessment (HSA) Biology is lagging for certain subgroups

The aggraded data shows a decrease from the 2012 school year 80.7% to 78.7% in the 2013 school year. This is a decrease of 2% points.

The African American subgroup decreased from 73.1 % in 2012 by 8.9% points in 2013 to 64.2%

The Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) subgroup decreased from 76.3% in 2012 by 7.2% points in 2013 to 69.1%

The Special Education subgroup decreased from 47.6 % in 2012 by 6.7% points in 2013 to 40.9%

b. There are significant gaps between subgroup performance in 2012 and 2013. 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 2012 and 2013. The gap of 49.2% points between the White subgroup (90.1%) and the Special Education subgroup (40.9%)

c. HSA Intervention has not been effective in raising the HSA proficiency rates. Scores have not risen to meet county established achievement targets Present funding does not provide pay for after school tutoring for HSA


2. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations.

a. Somerset County Public Schools (SCPS) High Schools will implement proven strategies as budgets allow.

Schedule special education teachers with regular education teachers to provide more co-teaching sections for students

Provide professional development that will focus on ways to provide differentiated instruction

Continue bridge projects to provide effective intervention



Process/Teacher Collaboration between like subject teachersAugust 2014 – June 2015

Collaboration Staff Time Cost: $0

b. 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 Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) at

the high school level to lessen the need for outside and/or extra intervention

c. Staff will continue to collaborate, analyze data, and modify instruction. Develop the Afternoon Professional Development (APD) schedule with both

high school principals to provide at least one biology 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

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

d. Science teachers and staff will participate in continuing Professional Development

Balance Afternoon Professional Development (APD) between collaboration for teachers of like subjects and new learning

Provide Professional Development on the Next Generation Science Standards and their link to the Core Learning Goals for Biology and all Science classes.


Provide Professional Development on effective Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) Lesson plans for entire staff

Utilize outside community partnerships such as university of Maryland extension

Provide Professional development on Student Learning Objectives (SLO) for the 2014-2015 session, the teacher evaluation will include measuring progress on Student Learning Objectives.



Next Generation Science Standards identification and implementation 6th – 8th gradeAugust 2014 – June 2015

Summer PD and APD Summer PD ($1800)

STEM Lessons plan developmentJuly 2014- June 2015

Summer PD and APD Summer PD ($1800)

Student Learning ObjectivesJuly 2014 – June 2015

Summer Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development during school year

Local cost($1800)

e. Science teachers will begin to 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



Common Core literacy standards for scienceAugust 2014 – June 2015

Professional Development None using staff specialist


Specific Student Groups

Limited English Proficient Students

No Child Left Behind Goal 2: All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 2.1: The percentage of limited English proficient students who have attained English proficiency by the end of the school year.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 2.2: The percentage of limited English proficient students who are at or above the proficient level in reading/language arts on the state's assessment.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 2.3: The percentage of limited English proficient students who are at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the state's assessment.

This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient students in developing and attaining English language proficiency and making progress toward Maryland’s new accountability measures. School systems are asked to analyze information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs):

AMAO 1 is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students progressing toward English proficiency. For making AMAO 1 progress, Maryland uses an overall composite proficiency level obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment. Students are considered to have made progress if their overall composite proficiency level on the ACCESS for ELLs is 0.5 higher than the overall composite proficiency level from the previous year’s test administration. In order to meet the target for AMAO 1 for school year 2014-2015 56% of ELLs will make progress in learning English.

AMAO 2 is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students attaining English proficiency by the end of each school year. For determining AMAO 2 attainment, Maryland uses an overall composite proficiency level and a literacy composite proficiency level obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment. Students are considered to have attained English proficiency if their overall composite proficiency level is 5.0 and literacy composite proficiency level is 4.0 or higher. In order to meet the target for AMAO 2 for school year 2014-2015, 14% of ELLs will have to attain proficiency in English.

AMAO 3 represents making progress toward Maryland’s new accountability measures for the local education agency’s Limited English Proficient student subgroup.


Based on the Examination of AMAO 1, AMAO 2, and AMAO 3 Data (Please note that LEAs that have not met the AMAOs for two or more consecutive years will be required to submit a separate Improvement Plan to the Title III/ELL Office in addition to responding to the questions below.)

1. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient

students towards attaining English proficiency by each domain in Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing.

a. Somerset County’s AMAO 1 measure for Maryland’s 2013-2014 target was not met with 47.54% progressing toward English proficiency as measured by growth of at least 0.5 on the ACCESS for ELLs assessment.

b. Somerset County’s AMAO 2 measure exceeded Maryland’s 2013-2014 target with 18.39% attaining English proficiency as measured by achievement of a 5.0 composite score and a 4.0 literacy composite on the ACCESS for ELLs assessment

Based on 2014 Access for ELLs English Language Proficiency TestGrade Listening Speaking Reading Writing

K(N=13)

85 38 31 0

1(N=25)

84 44 64 0

2(N=12)

83 75 66 0

3(N=15)

100 87 93 13

4(N=3)

33 100 66 0

5(N=2)

100 100 100 0

6(N=2)

50 50 50 0

7(N=3)

100 0 33 0

8(N=4)

75 0 25 0

9(N=5)

40 40 40 40

10(N=1)

0 100 0 0

11(N=2)

50 50 100 0

12(N/A)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

a. Listening Listening is weaker among 4th, 6th, 9th, and 11th grades.


Sample sizes are small, particularly at the secondary level; therefore, some conclusions may be more relevant to a specific cohort of students than to general conclusions about system-wide weaknesses

b. Speaking Kindergarten, 1st, 6th, 9th, and 11th grade speaking domain scores are lower than

those in the same domain across other grade levels/bands Sample sizes are small, particularly at the secondary level; therefore, some

conclusions may be more relevant to a specific cohort of students than to general conclusions about system-wide weaknesses

c. Reading Grade level reading domain scores dropped from last year’s passing

percentages in grades 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10; however, only 9th grade has sample size of 5 or more, which may undermine the validity of year-to-year comparisons from a statistical validity perspective

9th grade through 12th scores are particularly low; however, these are very small sample sizes, which can cause for statistically anomalies

This trend data may be reflective of developmental characteristics, as opposed to language proficiency. It may also be impacted by the size of the test group. Secondary test groups are very small; in some cases, the groups are only 1-2 students.

d. Writing Across all grade levels, writing is the biggest area of weakness, with very few

LEP students in the entire district achieving a score of 5 or 6. This is a continuing trend from historical data. Only 3rd and 5th grade writing scores went down. All other grade levels remained stagnant, except 9th grade where the scores did actually improve.

Only a small sample of students from the LEA achieved proficiency in this domain; all students were either Grade 3 or Grade 9

Even in larger sample groups, writing scores are almost universally low. Writing scores across the district, regardless of language proficiency are a

concern and a great deal of resources are focused on improving writing skills for all students.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. (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 explain the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted. If the source is restricted IDEA, Title I or ARRA funding – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source as unrestricted and include attributable funds).


a. Increase opportunities for data analysis and collaborative planning between coaches/facilitators, general education teachers, and ELL teachers through supplemental opportunities. Due to scheduling conflicts, ELL teachers are often not available during the regularly scheduled times.

b. An additional ELL teacher was requested in staffing in FY 2012 and FY 2013 budgets to increase ELD specific instructional support; beginning July 1, 2013, an additional ELL teacher was added to the division, resulting in realigning schedules and responsibilities across the ESOL department in the LEA. Somerset will request an additional ELL teacher for the 2015-2016 school year to accommodate increases in population and changes in population concentrations.

c. Enhance existing CFIP procedures to include an evaluation step, post-intervention, to determine the effectiveness of the planned intervention in targeting the identified student weakness in order to determine whether LEP students are making progress

d. Implement follow-up assessments, after intervention, to re-assess student needs and the success of intervention in order to determine whether LEP students are making progress

e. Increase regular education teachers’ knowledge of and skills in effectively working with LEP students.

f. Aligning interventions with best practices of English language acquisition/development

g. “Look-For’s” are put in place for overall monitoring of effectiveness toward English language development, including disciplinary literary to ensure effective literacy instruction across all grade levels and content areas

h. Solicit ESOL teachers’ collaboration and consultation on developing new curriculum to support Common Core Curriculum, PARCC assessments, and the WIDA language proficiency assessments.

i. Read Naturally Live licenses have been purchased and added to the intermediate school, for use with students demonstrating a gap in their foundational reading skills, including fluency

j. Read 180 program has been added at the intermediate school, to incorporate increased rigor and digital literacy standards, as well as supplemental progress monitoring capacity

k. Ongoing professional development in the area of writing instruction through summer sessions and throughout the year; Somerset has embraced the 6 Traits of Writing framework and is training teachers at all levels, in all content areas on its implementation

l. Addition of performance based writing assessments across grades 6-12, aligned to Common Core and PARCC models

m. Additional of writing professional development and resources for PK-5 teachers

3. If applicable, based on trend data, identify whether the changes or adjustments stated above are the same from last year. Describe the rationale for continuing the change or adjustments if the data was stagnant or decreased. While some of the changes and adjustments continue from previous years, many require multiple years to see an impact. Additionally, other large scale transitions in curriculum and assessment, add variables to the change process. For example, while the strategies


above began in previous years, the effectiveness can be impacted by transitions in leadership or ESOL staff, as well as variables such as transition to Common Core and the PARCC assessments. These changes are so broad that they impact every aspect of the instructional program, including the ESOL program. Consequently, some strategies’ effectiveness is impossible to evaluate currently. The decrease or stagnancy in data may be attributed to external variables. As such, it is important to maintain continuity of evidence-based, research-proven strategies that may still be able to positively impact ELL achievement in language proficiency.

Another factor that may impact the data is the comparison of different student cohorts. When analyzing student achievement data at the grade level, the student cohorts are changing; therefore, the comparison may not be entirely accurate.


Career and Technology Education

The Bridge to Excellence legislation requires that the Master Plan “shall include goals, objectives, and strategies” for the performance of students enrolled in Career and Technology Education (CTE) programs.

Instructions:Please respond to these questions/prompts:

1. Describe how the school system is deploying Maryland CTE Programs of Study as a strategy to better prepare students for college and career readiness. Include plans for expanding access to industry certifications and early college credit.a. Two new programs are continuing to develop.

Interactive Media Production was added at both high schools beginning in the fall of 2012. A total of 45 students are enrolled in this program.

Bio Medical Science has been offered at both of our high schools beginning in August 2013. Training for the teacher took place summer 2013 and summer 2014. Bio Medical Science has a current enrollment of 81 students.

PLTW Pre-Engineering has been postponed because there is no space for the program in the current CTE center.

b. Articulation agreements exist between the local colleges and five of the current CTE programs.

CTE teachers attend articulation meetings at Wor-Wic Community College each year to meet with the college instructors and stay abreast of the post-secondary entry requirements.

The following CTE programs currently have articulation agreements:

1. Protective Services (6 college credits) 2. Teacher Academy of Maryland (6 college credits) 3. Business (6 college credits)4. Allied Health (6 college credits) 5. Fire and Rescue (between 12 and 16 college credits).

c. Eight of the original eleven CTE programs offer end of course certification. Food Production, Management Services has received American Culinary

Federation and will students in both the Safe Serve Program and ACF assessments.

HVAC offers certification by NCCER Construction offers certification by NCCER Auto Technology is NATEF certified and will be certified in the new NATEF

standards by the end of the 2013-2014 school year Allied Health currently offers certification as a CAN and GNA Fire and Rescue is taught by MFRI and students are certified by MEMISS Business will use Microsoft Office Suite certification exams at the end of the

2014-15 session.


2. What actions are included in the Master Plan to ensure access to CTE programs and success for every student in CTE Programs of Study (http://www.msde.maryland.gov/MSDE/divisions/careertech/career_technology/programs/), including students who are members of special populations?

a. CTE staff makes sure all students are aware of the programs offered and are encouraged to pursue programs that interest them.

High school guidance counselors visit CTE programs so they are aware of what each CTE program has to offer and the rigor required in each

Guidance counselors meet with individual students to discuss future plans and are in constant contact with the Principal of the CTE School to ensure appropriate placement

All county 8th graders attend 1 quarter (marking period) of instruction at the county’s CTE School and survey all CTE Programs to help in making early career choices

All of Somerset’s School-to-Work transition students attend the CTE School and get instruction in a POS and work study opportunities

Professional development is provided to all CTE instructors on differentiated instruction and SLO development and attainment

CTE instructors have a close relationship with their PAC committee members which help students get employment after graduation

J.M. Tawes Technology and Career Center hosts a Career Program for all 10, 11, and 12th graders

A new school counselor position has been created and is split between the Promise Academy Alternative School and J. M. Tawes Technology and Career Center

The Naviance Career Exploration is being used in grades 6-12 throughout Somerset County

Two Self-Contained Special Education classes spend half of the day at J.M. Tawes and some students are enrolled in the Culinary Arts, HVAC, and Construction programs. Some students from this class are transported two days a week to Wor-Wic Community College to work on career and transition activities.

Many special education students are included in CTE programs at J.M. Tawes. School counselors ensure that all instructors are aware of and provide accommodations specified by the I.E.P.

Students of both genders are encouraged to enroll in any CTE program that they are interested in

3. Describe the school system’s strategies for increasing the number of CTE enrollees who become completers of CTE programs of study. Data points should include the number of enrollees, the number of concentrators, and completers.a. Data points should include the number of enrollees, the number of

concentrators, and completers


http://www.msde.maryland.gov/MSDE/divisions/careertech/career_technology/programs/

http://www.msde.maryland.gov/MSDE/divisions/careertech/career_technology/programs/

CTE Program Enrollment Concentrators CompletersAutomotive Technology 24 12 12Business 33 13 18Computer Networking & Repair 15 7 8Construction 11 8 3Fire & Rescue 3 1 2Food Production, Management 29 14 15Health Occupations/Allied Health 27 16 12HVAC 7 2 5Protective Services/Criminal Justice 24 13 11Teacher Academy of Maryland 10 7 3

SCPS will continue the 8th grade survey class which has improved CTE enrollment as the first cohort are now 12th graders.

b. Strategies to be utilized Continue 8th grade survey class, where every eight grade student spends one

week in each CTE program and learns what the program has to offer them. Allow CTE teachers to attend career days at the elementary school and high

school to meet students and make them aware of the available programs. Increase the number of CTE programs that have articulation agreements with

the local colleges in order to allow students to earn college credit. Expand the membership of the program PAC committees in order to develop

relationships within the community. Continue hosting the Career Day Program for all high school students. Celebrate the successes of CTE program completers Utilize the services of the new J.M. Tawes Counselor to work with students at

risk

4. CTE improvement plans are required if a local education agency does not meet at least 90% of the negotiated performance target for a Core Indicator of Performance under the Perkins Act. If your school system did not meet one or more Core Indicators of Performance, please respond to the following.a. Identify the Core Indicator(s) of Performance that did not meet the 90%

threshold. 2S2 Technical Skill Attainment 5S1 Placement 6S1 Non-Traditional Participation 6S2 Non-Traditional Completion

b. Analyze why the indicator was not met, including any disparities or gaps in performance between any category of students and performance of all students.

5S1 Placement- Placement continues to be a problem due to the soft economy and relatively high rates of unemployment in the local area. We continue to work with our local partners like Work Force Development to find employers to hire graduate students for our program. Employment is the same factor limiting students from entering college. They have not be able to save enough money to pay for school and are starting later once they have built up a nest


egg. Students are also reluctant to get financial aid for fear of not being able to pay it back. The auto mechanics teacher does a great job of exposing students to post graduate education opportunities.

6S1 Non-traditional Participation and 6S2 Non-Traditional Completion- There has been a shift in the current year towards more non-traditional students in programs, also due to the soft economy. Students have more role models of local people in non-traditional careers. The instructors and PAC are working to get students into the programs that best fit their needs. The numbers will look better this year because of the shift to Culinary Arts. In the current enrollment, seventeen out of thirty-one students are female.

2S2 Technical Skills attainment- Three of the ten CTE teachers at Tawes were first year teachers for 2013-14. Teachers will have a better idea of what is required of students by external assessments. Teachers will be able to adjust curriculum and use preparatory resources to better prepare students for the skills attainment.

c. Indicate the section/subsection in the CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement where the improvement plan/strategy is described in the FY 15 Local Plan for Program Improvement .

Local Perspective-1B, 2A Program Data Analysis-4A Secondary Strategy Worksheet-In all programs Strategy Worksheet B1-All areas Strategy Worksheet B3-

d. For each Core Indicator of Performance that was not met, describe how the Improvement Plan is being monitored to ensure progress toward meeting the 90% threshold.

2S2 Technical Skills Attainment- The administration will monitor teacher lesson plans and observations to see that teachers are spending time to assist students in gaining technical skills. Some teacher SLOs will focus on student skills attainment.

6S1 Non-traditional Participation and 6S2 Non-Traditional Completion- The 8th grade exploratory program exposes all students to all programs here at Tawes. During scheduling, every effort is made to encourage non-traditional students to enroll. The J.M. Tawes counselor will work with non-traditional students who are having trouble.

5s1 Placement- We are working to expand the PAC committees so that more employers are involved. We are hosting a Career Day program for all high school students. We are using Naviance Career Exploration program with all students so that they understand what is required of them.

e. If this is the third consecutive year that the same Core Indicator of Performance did not meet the 90% threshold, describe what new actions and strategies are being implemented to ensure progress toward meeting the 90% threshold.

(none)Early Learning


Early Learning Tables 8.1 and 8.2

Domain AbbreviationsSP: Social and PersonalLL: Language and LiteracyMT: Mathematical ThinkingST: Scientific ThinkingSS: Social StudiesTA: The ArtsPD: Physical Development

Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages

% Fully Ready % Approaching Readiness % Developing Readiness

SP LL MT ST SS TA PD Com

posi te


posi te


posi te

2004-2005 81 72 72 66 75 82 90 85 15 18 21 23 14 16 6 13 4 10 7 12 11 2 4 3

2005-2006 76 68 76 59 72 83 87 77 20 23 19 29 20 14 12 18 4 9 6 12 8 3 1 5

2006-2007 73 71 85 79 75 80 82 79 18 20 11 17 17 17 14 16 9 9 4 4 8 3 3 5

2007-2008 70 68 81 74 74 76 88 78 22 24 14 21 21 22 12 19 8 8 5 5 5 2 1 3

2008-2009 83 72 86 81 81 89 95 85 12 21 10 16 16 10 3 13 4 8 4 4 3 1 2 2

2009-2010 81 71 79 68 76 78 90 81 15 24 18 26 17 15 9 15 4 5 4 6 7 8 1 4

2010-2011 79 76 79 77 83 88 92 85 16 15 14 17 11 10 6 11 5 9 6 6 5 2 1 4

2011-2012 89 83 86 87 93 88 97 93 9 16 12 11 5 11 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

2012-2013 78 70 72 72 78 82 90 78 16 26 23 24 19 15 9 19 5 4 5 4 3 3 1 3

2013-2014 89 82 84 86 87 91 95 90 10 12 11 10 10 7 5 7 2 6 5 4 3 3 0 2

Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience


% Fully Ready

% Approaching Readiness

% Developing Readiness

LL MT LL MT LL MT2004-2005 81 8

111 16 8 3

2005-2006 74 81

19 15 7 4

2006-2007 80 90

13 7 7 3

2007-2008 78 90

18 8 4 3

2008-2009 79 91

18 8 4 1

2009-2010 79 88

18 11 3 1

2010-2011 77 79

15 15 7 5

2011-2012 85 89

15 11 0 1

2012-2013 71 74

25 21 4 4

2013-2014 86 89

11 9 3 2

School Readiness Composite Score by Sub-GroupSubgroup 2004-

20052005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

African American

79% 75% 67% 75% 88% 76% 87% 94% 76% 89%

White 92% 84% 90% 86% 83% 83% 84% 93% 85% 94%

Hispanic 90% 63% 85% 93% 81% 94% 85% 95% 55% 77%

Male 81% 69% 79% 77% 84% 76% 92% 74% 89%

Female 88% 86% 79% 83% 86% 86% 95% 83% 91%

Special Education

50% 33% 62% 57% 43% 47% 52% 89% 50% 68%

ELL 83% 50% 73% 88% 81% 91% 82% 93% 60% 100%

FARMS 59% 68% 72% 77% 83% 76% 85% 93% 75% 88%

Two or More Races

85% 89% 93% 100%

School Readiness by Prior Care


Prior Care % Fully Ready

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

Somerset Pre-K

86% 88% 90% 88% 87% 95% 79% 94%

Informal/ Home Care 77% 50% 65% 67% 33% 56% 60% 50%

Somerset’s Head Start

71% 62% 78% 64% 90% 100% 83% 75%

A. Based on the examination of 2013-2014 MMSR Kindergarten Assessment Data :

1. Describe the school system’s plans, including any changes or adjustments that will be made, for ensuring the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the Maryland Model for School Readiness Kindergarten Assessment. Please include a discussion of how the implementation of the Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards in prekindergarten and the new Ready for Kindergarten (R4K) assessment will address the school readiness gaps.

Many factors come into play when discussing school readiness gaps. Somerset County Public Schools(SCPS) will implement several strategies to help close this gap. These will include an increase to quality early care experiences, teacher training and quality professional development and parent education and outreach. Because SCPS understands the importance of the continuum in early care and experiences, the county will embrace the new Ready for Kindergarten (R4K) formative assessment which will help measure the gaps in our youngest learners (36-72 months) and will utilize the formative assessment with pre-kindergarten, once this assessment is ready to implement.

a. Prior Care Experiences:

Data shows that children enrolled in a quality early educational environment prior to kindergarten are more ready for school than their peers.

Percentage of SCPS students attending pre-kindergarten, Fully Ready for Kindergarten, increased by 15% over 2012-2013 data.

SCPS’s Pre-K and Somerset County’s Head Start program are both out performing students from informal and home care by 44 and 25 percentage points respectively.

SCPS attributes a strong Pre-K program for reducing the number of students’ not fully ready to enter kindergarten.

In the coming year SCPS will:

Add additional Pre-K sections (fall 2014). (One additional section of half day Pre-K at Woodson Elementary School and one half day program at Princess Anne Elementary School) These added sections help reduce class sizes and allow SCPS to meet the goal of Pre-K for all students.


Add three additional full day Pre-K programs (fall 2014). (One at Woodson Elementary School and Two at Princess Anne Elementary School)

Move one Pre-K classroom from Greenwood Elementary School to Princess Anne Elementary School to help build an early education centralized program at PAES (fall 2014).

Maintain paraprofessionals in kindergarten and pre-kindergarten classes in Core Subjects.

Hire new Early Childhood Coordinator who will oversee all early learning programming in the county (birth to Kindergarten) (spring 2014)

Begin operations of the new Judy Center Partnership at PAES (fall 2014). SCPS was the only county in the state without a Judy Center and the Judy Center Partnership (located in Princess Anne) will work to establish a coordination of services and help ensure school readiness in our county’s northern end.

Pursue MD EXCELS for all Pre-Kindergarten programs Pursue MSDE Validation for all SCPS Pre-K/K programs. Pursue Middle States Accreditation Pursue funding for a Judy Center Satellite at Woodson Elementary School. Assist local child care and Head Start with the Accreditation Process through

more direct and open communication between our schools and child care programs.

Assist local child care and Head Start with MD EXCELS and help promote the importance of quality child care.

ADJUSTMENTS & TIMELINE RATIONALE RESOURCEIncrease Pre-K to 6.5 FTE & maintain K (11 FTE) Teachers at the elementary sites.

Timeline: August 2014– June 2015

Increase pre-K to full day in two Princess Anne Elementary School classrooms and one Woodson Elementary School classroom. Somerset County Public Schools is working towards full day pre-K in an effort to increase the school readiness of the county’s kindergarten students. High Quality early learning experiences help increase the likelihood of school readiness.

Staffing & SchedulingCounty funded

Maintain Paraprofessionals where possible in K Core Subjects (11 FTE) & Pre-K (6 FTE) at the elementary sites.


Paraprofessionals provide assistance to early learning teachers which enable them to teach the domains all of learning effectively.

Staffing

Increase one half day paraprofessional (.5) at PAES

One half day pre-kindergarten program was increased to a full day pre-kindergarten program. The Judy Center promotes

Staffing, Judy Center funded


ADJUSTMENTS & TIMELINE RATIONALE RESOURCEschool readiness and increasing to a full day pre-k program will assist the county to better prepare students for kindergarten learning.

Move pre-k from Greenwood Elementary school to PAES Timeline: August 2014

Having all pre-k in one school helps centralize the early learning strategies in the Judy Center Catchment area. This is part of the counties plan to create an early learning school setting.

Staffing and Scheduling

b. Early childhood staff is improving instructional skills through professional development

Early learning staff will be provided with additional Professional Development opportunities throughout the year in an effort to increase the school readiness of the county’s youngest learners. SCPS will:

Provide Professional Development in the implementation of the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). (summer 2014) Tablets will be purchased for teachers to utilize for the implementation of the KRA. In addition, PD will be provided on utilizing tablets in an early learning setting.

Provide Kagan PD through Title I (summer 2014) Provide Vocabulary Improvement and Oral Language Enrichment through

Stories (VIOLETS) to pre-k teachers. (September 2014) Provide Accreditation/Validation Orientation for all pre-k/k and school

principals and follow up throughout the school year. (summer 2014-spring 2015)

Provide Kid Writing PD for all Pre-K/Kindergarten staff and follow up. (fall 2014-winter 2015)

Provide half day PD sessions for training on Common Core standards, grading, UDL, technology, writing, math practices, the ORIGO Math program, and Dreambox.

Provide local training which will focus on curriculum and instructional strategies provided by In house Experts- including all domains of learning.

Orient teachers to a variety of Pre-K/Kindergarten hands-on math strategies, building number sense, using spiral reviews and portfolios, implementing differentiating instruction, and using math data to guide instruction.

Incorporated math practices into all curriculum training along with the College and Career standards.

Attend state-wide early learning workshops (Ready at Five, MSDE etc) Attend Formative Assessment TOT (spring 2015)


ADJUSTMENTAnd TIMELINE

RATIONALE RESOURCE

Provide KRA training for kindergarten staff

Timeline: Summer 2014

To ensure student achievement and accurate assessment practices of Kindergarten students.

In-house leadership staff

KRA Grant /Stipends for summer workshops

Provide Vocabulary Improvement and Oral Language Enrichment through Stories (VIOLETS) training for per-kindergarten staff


VIOLETS early childhood curriculum is designed to develop oral language, pre-literacy skills, and background knowledge in young (ages 3-5) English Language Learners (ELLs) and children with low expressive language skills. To increase student oral language skills through reading.

Consultant RTT Early Childhood Council Grant

Provide Kid Writing Training

Timeline: October 2014

To increase student’s writing skills.

Consultant

Provide Validation training and technical assistance for all elementary sites

Timeline: Fall 2014-spring 2015

To increase the quality of early learning programs (pre-k and k) in Somerset County. Validation helps marks high quality, developmentally appropriate learning.

In-house / Early Childhood Coordinator

Provide training for all pre-kindergarten and kindergarten staff in RF4 and domains of learning and attend statewide training

Timeline: Fall 2014-Spring 2015

To ensure student achievement and accurate assessment practices of pre-kindergarten and special education students.

Mileage, Substitutes

Early Childhood Coordinator and special education supervisor attend Formative Assessment Training TOT

Spring 2015

To ensure student achievement and accurate assessment practices of pre-kindergarten and special education students.

Mileage, travel expensesR4K Grant funding

c. Programs and strategies will be enhanced to meet students’ needs

IPads purchased and utilized for Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) administration, observations and assessment.

Add stronger intervention component to help support reading initiative and the diverse needs of at-risk students by targeting individual needs

Hold weekly team level collaborative meetings for teachers, led by an Instructional Facilitator to analysis data, using the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) and target needs for intervention


Monitor progress of students using locally developed Common Core (CC) growth assessments and students’ work that document yearlong progress on the indicators of the KRA.

Store all assessment results in data warehouse, Performance Matters and use for data analysis and planning

Incorporate STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) units of study across every grade level this year, as well as STEAM lessons for Arts integration

Provide professional development for staff on writing and implementing STEM lessons

Schedule mobile STEM lab visits at Princess Anne and Greenwood Elementary Schools through a partnership with Lower Shore Resource Center at Salisbury University and Judy Center as well as for child care and Head Start partners.

Include both pre-kindergarten and kindergarten in school enrichment summer school (summer 2014)

Increase parent/ transition to school activities for Pre-K/ Kindergarten


RATIONALE RESOURCE

Purchase iPads for KRA


To ensure students have access to iPads for KRA implementation and to ensure teachers are able to use iPads for implementing and documentation.

KRA Grant

New Kid Writing incorporated into pre-kindergarten and kindergarten.

Timeline: Fall 2014-Spring 2015

To increase early learning writing skills.

Supplies and Materials

Mobile STEM lab visits all PAES and Greenwood

Timeline: winter 2014 spring 2015

To offer rich, age appropriate STEM activity.

Student Programming Judy Center Funded

Provide collaboration meetings for early childhood staff /early learning partner programs.Timeline: September 2014- June 2015

To build a collaboration of early learning teachers in an effort to increase communication. Ultimately, building an early learning continuum will help increase the school readiness of our learners.

Practice time

Provide new transition to school activities

Timeline: spring 2015

To help prepare our youngest learners for school success.

Early Learning Staff


2. Describe how the school system is working in collaboration with their local Early Childhood Advisory Council and other early childhood partners/programs (i.e., Preschool Special Education; Preschool For All sites; Head Start; Child Care Programs) to ensure that children are entering kindergarten “ready to learn”?

SCPS’s Early Childhood Coordinator co-chairs the Somerset Early Learning Advisory Council (SELAC), the local Early Childhood Advisory Council. This council is made up of local early childhood partner programs and has taken an active role in increasing awareness of the importance of school readiness in the county. SELAC has worked to create a school readiness campaign, Pre-K, Everyday! This council was also instrumental in SCPS obtaining a Judy Center (members of the council assisted with grant planning).

SCPS will continue to partner with partner programs, Head Start and Child Care Programs: Continue working with SELAC (co-chairing) and distribution of SELAC

school readiness materials. Continue the established Memorandum of Understanding between the Lower

Eastern Shore Public Schools and Shore-Up Head Start Offer afternoon Pre-K sessions to accommodate Head Start students enabling

many students to attend full day programming (half day pre-k/half day Head Start)

Partner with the Lower Shore Resource Center to work with Head Start, as well as local family childcare & centers, to provide tri-county meetings for guidance in Early Childhood education and Accreditation assistance.

Partner with the Lower Shore Child Care Resource Center to provide PD for in county child care and Head Start

Create stronger ties between SCPS and its child care/ Head Start partners through quarterly Round Tables and mentoring of child care teachers by public school teachers.

SCPS partners with parents through the School Improvement Teams and Title I parent involvement strategies, along with SELAC Strategies:

Early Childhood staff are key members of the School improvement Teams. Increasing parent and community awareness on the need for students to be

ready for Kindergarten will be a key focus of the School Improvement Teams. Increasing awareness for parents and committee to have students ready for

kindergarten is a main goal of the SELAC committee. Informational materials will be sent out to parents and the community to

increase awareness and incorporate transitioning strategies for parents. Title I SIP Teams will include outside agencies in SCPS professional

development for staffs, events and activities for the students, and their families.

Improving communication with parents and community members by collaborating on ways to move forward in the future including the creation of a community coordinated early childhood calendar and use of social media/website.


Strengthen partnerships with Somerset County Head Start staff, students, and parents. SIP teams and parent coordinators will work with the early childhood staffs on outreach strategies.

Increase transition activities between local child care/ Head Start and public schools. Provide open house, tours, and formal visits.


RATIONALE RESOURCE

Coordinate with community organizations and activities



Parent and Community Involvement

Create a collaborative Early Childhood Calendar and utilize website/ social media.



To help better plan events and activities in the community.

Transition Team/

SELAC Advisory Council

Include community as part of SIT teams and SELAC (early learning council) planning



Transition Team/ SELAC Advisory Council

Collaborate with outside agencies


Parent and Community Involvement

Strengthen partnership with Head Start and child care and SCPS staff, including trainings, articulation meetings and

To build a collaboration of early learning teachers in an effort to increase

Transition Team/ SELAC Advisory Council



RATIONALE RESOURCE

roundtables. Increase transition activities.


communication. Ultimately, building an early learning continuum will help increase the school readiness of our learners.To ensure all early learning teachers are able to provide high quality instruction to young learners.

B. Based on the examination of the 2013-2014 Public Prekindergarten Enrollment Data

Somerset Prekindergarten (4 year old) 9.30.12 Enrollment File

SchoolHalf Day

Session

Total # Students Enrolled 9.30.13

Income Eligible Students

13A.06.02.05 (A)

Students Enrolled

Under Other Criteria

13A.06.02.05 (B)

Number of

Students Placed

on Waiting

List

Number of Students enrolled

through early admission

13A.08.01.02 A(3)

If available: Number of Students enrolled

with ISFP or IEP

Deal Island 1 10 6 4 0 0 1Princess Anne 4 84 73 11 0 0 6

Woodson 4 79 67 12 0 0 4

Ewell 1 2 2 0 0 0 0Greenwood 2 42 35 7 0 0 2

TOTAL 11 217 183 34 0 0 13

1. Please verify the accuracy of the Prekindergarten enrollment data, as it was provided to MSDE, Division of Early Childhood Development Early Learning Office for school year 2012-2013.

Somerset County Public Schools (SCPS) verifies the accuracy of the Public Prekindergarten Enrollment data for school year 2013-2014 based on income criteria forms and FARMS data.

2. Describe the policies and practices put in place to ensure the enrollment of all eligible children into the Public Prekindergarten Program as described in COMAR 13A.06.02.

Somerset County Public Schools (SCPS) has increased the capacity and number of available slots for Pre-kindergarten students and has increased 3 pre-kindergarten classes to full day sessions.

SCPS has been able to meet the requirement of serving all economically disadvantaged and homeless students. In fact, SCPS policy admits all students into


pre-kindergarten, regardless of income. Full day slots are reserved for families with the greatest need (economically disadvantaged, families in transition or students with special needs)

3. Describe any policies the school system has put in place to work collaboratively with other early learning and development programs to provide a prekindergarten program for all eligible children, including any collaboration related to the Prekindergarten Expansion Grant program.

Somerset County collaborates with Shore Up Head Start to provide a full day learning experiencing for four year olds dually enrolled. Four year olds enrolled at Head Start are bussed to SCPS pre-kindergarten afternoon sessions.

SCPS partners with local child care programs (ex: UMES Child Development Center) to provide a full day pre-kindergarten experience for students. Students attend UMES in the morning and attend SCPS per-kindergarten in the afternoon.

SCPS has been fortunate to be able to meet the requirements of serving all economically disadvantaged and homeless students. Approximately 92% of four year old children in the county attend SCPS pre-kindergarten programming and all families requesting pre-kindergarten are admitted into the program.

Gifted and Talented Programs

COMAR 13A.04.07 §06 specifies that local school systems shall in accordance with Education Article §5-401 (c) report in their Bridge to Excellence Master Plans their “goals, objectives, and strategies regarding the performance of gifted and talented students along with timelines for implementation and methods for measuring progress.”

The Annotated Code of Maryland §8-201 defines a gifted and talented student as “an elementary or secondary student who is identified by professionally qualified individuals as: (1) Having outstanding talent and performing, or showing the potential for performing, at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with other students of a similar age, experience, or environment; (2) Exhibiting high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas; (3) Possessing an unusual leadership capacity; or (4) Excelling in specific academic fields.”

COMAR 13A.04.07 Gifted and Talented Education establishes the minimum standards for student identification, programs and services, professional development, and reporting requirements

The school system’s Master Plan Update on the Gifted and Talented Program will report the system’s progress on these three goals from COMAR 13A.04.07:

Goal 1. Student Identification


Each local school system shall establish a process for identifying gifted and talented students as they are defined in the Educational Article §8-201 [COMAR 13A.04.07 §.02 (A)].

Goal 2. Programs and Services

Each local school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential [COMAR 13A.04.07 §.03 (A)]l.

Goal 3 . Professional Development

Teachers and other personnel assigned to work specifically with students identified as gifted and talented shall engage in professional development aligned with the competencies specified by 13A 12.03.12 Gifted and Talented Education Specialist.

Use the chart below to report the school system’s 2012-2013 objectives and strategies for these three goals along with implementation timelines and assessment of progress


List the local school system’s 2012-2013 initiatives for gifted and talented students which support the three goals in COMAR 13A.04.07 Gifted and Talented Education.

Goal 1. Student Identification

Each local school system shall establish a process for identifying gifted and talented students as they are defined in the Educational Article §8-201 [13A.04.07 §.02 (A)].

Reference

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.02

Objectives and

Implementation StrategiesTimeline Methods for Measuring Progress

Assessment of Progress (Met, Partially Met,

Not Met)

An identification process is in place for identification of gifted students at the end of 2nd grade. All 2nd graders are screened.

End of Grade 2

End of Year Tracking Sheets and lists of identified students from each elementary school

Met

All students entering 3rd-5th grade at any point during the school year are screened for gifted and talented services.

Ongoing Tracking Sheet for Incoming Students Met

All students in grades Pre-K-2 receive instruction in Primary Talent Development and teachers maintain portfolios containing anecdotal records of individual student achievement to be used in formal identification at the end of Grade 2.

Pre-K—2nd

grade

2 Units per school year

Fall and Spring

Student Portfolios containing artifacts Met

Objectives and


Assessment of Progress (Met, Partially Met, Not Met)

SCPS uses multiple sources of data both Evidence Scores from the tests administered during the Met


qualitative and quantitative to identify students for the GT Enrichment program. These include: county benchmark scores in reading, math and science, report card data, student potential checklists completed by classroom teachers (adapted from Renzulli, 2004), parent and community nominations, Dreambox data, End of Course grade level, DIBELS data and PTD data from Pre-K to grade 2. In addition, the Naglieri Assessment is administered to all 2nd grade students and the data used as one of the indicators for GT Services.

collected throughout the year

year assembled on the End of Year Tracking Sheet and then analyzed for participation in GT

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.02

Parents are notified in writing at the beginning of 3rd –5th grade if their child was selected for participation in the Enrichment pull out program (GT). Students are re-evaluated at the end of each year.

August 2014

Copy of the letter sent to parents Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.02

A county wide early admission policy is in place and is available on the website. Procedures are in place for parents to appeal the decisions made by the school committees.

Ongoing As outlined in Policy 600-18 Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.02

If a parent disagrees with the findings of the GT committee at the school level an appeal may be made to the coordinator of GT services at Central Office.

Ongoing As outlined in policy 500-11 Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.02

All schools across the LEA follow the identification and acceleration procedures.

Ongoing N/A Met

Goal 2. Programs and Services


Each local school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential [13A.04.07 §.03 (A)]l.

Reference

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

Objectives and



Not Met)

One GT Challenge per year is scheduled to showcase STEM related projects that advance to the county level in their individual grade level.

April 2015 Evaluations from students, teachers and parents who participated in the event

Met

Use of Dreambox Learning as a supplemental program to enhance math instruction and provide individualized acceleration of students in math.

Ongoing Dreambox Data Met

Continue pull out program for identified students in grades 3rd-5th.

Ongoing Universal Time as shown on school’s master schedules

Met

Annual review of services offered to GT students. Yearly Agendas, Minutes, Sign Ins Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

Conduct Robotics class for GT identified students in 6th and 7th grades.

Ongoing Class Roster Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

Continue with Student Expositions of Learning to highlight student accomplishments.

Quarterly Expo Flyers and Evaluations from those in attendance

Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

Continued “Honors” courses in Core Areas for identified students in preparation for AP Classes

Ongoing AP Level Offerings Met


§.03

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

Offer Dual Enrollment Courses to qualifying students.

Ongoing Dual Enrollment Offerings Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

6th and 7th Grade students are invited to participate in the “Green Engineers Club” after school which involves the building of underwater sea perch robots

Yearly Attendance Sheets of After School Activity Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.03

Musically talented students are encouraged to audition and participate in All Shore and All State Band, held each spring

Yearly Student roster of those participating in All Shore Band

Met

Goal 3 . Professional Development

Teachers and other personnel assigned to work specifically with students identified as gifted and talented shall engage in professional development aligned with the competencies specified by 13A 12.03.12 Gifted and Talented Education Specialist.

Reference

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.04

Objectives and



Not Met)

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.04

Professional Development is offered to the staff at various times throughout the year on how to effectively reach gifted learners.

July 2014—June 2015

Sign Ins and Evaluations of PD Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

Teachers have the opportunity to sign up for online courses offered through MSDE and seek monetary expenses following successful completion of the

Ongoing Per Negotiated Contract Met


§.04 course

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.04

Teachers are encouraged to pursue Gifted and Talented specialist certification

Ongoing Emails and other correspondence Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.04

GT Coordinators for the county (elementary and secondary) attended the Maryland State Conference on Gifted and Talented Education at Perry Hall High School in Baltimore

October 2013

N/A Met

COMAR 13A.04.07

§.04

Supervisors attended GT Briefings Fall, Winter, Spring

Sign In Sheets at Briefings Met


2013- 2014 Gifted and Talented Enrollment

COMAR 13A.04.07 states that “gifted and talented students are found in all Maryland schools and in all cultural, ethnic, and economic groups” (§ .01); that “the identification process shall be used to identify students for participation in the programs and services” [§ .02 (D)]; and that “each school system shall review the effectiveness of its identification process” [§ .02 (E)].

Beginning with the grade level in which the system’s identification process is initiated, report the number of students identified for programs and services at each grade level. Observe the FERPA rules for reporting student data in small cells; however, include those students in the totals for “All GT Students.”

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

All GT Students 49 58 61 51 25 14 22 28 0 1


* * * * * * 0 0 0 0

American Indian or Alaskan Native

0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0


11 16 13 11 * * * 10 0 0

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 33 38 40 34 20 * 15 16 0 *

Two or more races * * * * * * * 0 0 0

Special Education * * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


* * * 0 * 0 * 0 0 0

Free/Reduced Meals FARMS

27 34 34 32 13 * 11 14 0 0

* Indicates a subgroup less than 10.


The school system may include below additional information on the gifted and talented program that pertains to local school system requirements.

It was Somerset’s prior practice to count students who participated in AP and Honors courses as gifted and talented. This is no longer the case as participation in these courses does not necessarily mean that a child is gifted or talented. From this point forward, once students are identified, they will be entered into Powerschool under “Special Programs” as having Gifted and Talented status and will remain with this status until graduation.


Special Education

Master Plan 2014-2015

Note: The information in blue is new.

Reading

Elementary

Decrease in special education subgroup from 79.6% in 2013 to 76.0% in 2014.

Collaborate with Center for Autism and Related Disorders consultant through a MSDE discretionary grant to provide evidence-based intervention practices for ages three to eight.


Schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum to receive remediation and review of skills

Assign all elementary Special Education teachers to meet regularly and attend collaborative team planning meetings

Assign all elementary Special Education teachers to core area professional development during Early Dismissal Professional Development (EDPD) days

Utilize simulations and inquiry-based learning to explore the topics of co-planning, lesson modification, and application of learner profile to instructional planning to strengthen targeted intervention strategies

Accommodations will be utilized per the child’s IEP during classroom instruction and assessments

Evaluate individual student data at IEP and data meetings to improve individual student achievement

Use aggregate data to identify professional development needs

Monitor implementation of co-teaching strategies through mentoring, observations, walk-throughs, and reflective conferences with regular education teachers and Special Education teachers


Observe and provide data on the frequency and type of modified lessons delivered to Special Education students

Embed instructional professional development in Special Education meetings

Middle



Schedule students with special needs that are in the general education classroom with other opportunities on the continuum to receive remediation and review of skills

Special education teachers will collaborate with general education teachers during team meetings

Special education teachers will be encouraged to attend professional development during APD

Evaluate individual student data at IEP and data meetings to improve individual student achievement

Use aggregate data to identify professional development needs

Monitor implementation of co-teaching strategies through mentoring, observations, walk-throughs, and reflective conferences with regular education teachers and Special Education teachers

Observe and provide data on the frequency and type of modified lessons delivered to Special Education students

Embed professional development in special education meetings.

Accommodations will be utilized per the child’s IEP during classroom instruction and assessments

Strategy Adjustments, Rationale &Timeline ResourcesMonitor effectiveness of Co-teaching during intervention times.

Co-teaching strategies discussed and reviewed during level meetings with staff.Rationale: Support teachers and leaders in finding productive ways to execute different

Scheduling-Universal Block Staff Time Source: Local Funding


Strategy Adjustments, Rationale &Timeline Resourcesco-teaching models. Timeline: August 2014-June 2015Provide co-planning opportunities beyond the school day. Timeline: August 2014-June 2015

Co-Planning Opportunities Staff Time

Continue to support the Co-teaching model (1:6) Timeline: August 2014-June 2015

Professional Development Consultants Staff Time

Elementary Special Education teachers will meet regularly with core academic teams using CFIP strategies.

Rationale: To improve student achievementTimeline: August 2014-May 2015


Administrators

Source: Local FundingElementary Special Education teachers participate in EDPD activities with general education teachers

Rationale: Provide professional development focused on evidence based strategies to support diverse learners in the classroomTimeline: September 2014 – June 2015

Early Dismissal Professional Development & Team Meetings

Source: Local FundingMonitoring of student learning through local benchmark assessments

Rationale: To ensure student achievement and provide data driven decisionsTimeline: September 2014-June 2015

Formative Assessments Supplies and MaterialsStaff TimeSource: Local Funding

Provide PD sessions on Models of Best Practice for Special Educator

Rationale: To improve outcomes for students Timeline: September 2014-June 2015


Kennedy Krieger ConsultantSource: State Discretionary Grant

Provide PD opportunities with Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD) Staff

Rationale: Increase the amount of time students ages 3-8 will spend in the general education classroom Timeline: September 2014-June 2015

Kennedy Krieger ConsultantAnnual Report identifying the distribution of students with disabilities by LRESource: State Discretionary Grant

Math


ElementaryDecrease in special education subgroup from 74.5% in 2013 to 58.5% in 2014.

Assign all elementary Special Education teachers to meet regularly and attend collaborative team planning meetings

Assign all elementary Special Education teachers to core area professional development during Early Dismissal Professional Development (EDPD) days

Assign special education teachers and paraprofessionals in room during math for support

Provide opportunities for special education teachers to collaborate with general education teachers during data meetings.

Middle

Decrease from 57.8 % in 2013 to 20.9% in 2014.

Discuss and enhance Co-teaching practices by implementing the strategies and best practices of Special Education

Schedule all Special Education teachers to meet regularly with math teachers of their assigned case loads

Assign special education teachers to math professional development whenever possible

Provide opportunities for special education teachers to collaborate with general education teachers during data meetings.

ADJUSTMENT, Rationale & TIMELINE ResourcesSpecial Education teachers meet with core academic teams Rationale: Allow special educators to collaborate with general education teachers to provide strategies/interventions to support students with special needs.Timeline: August 2014—June 2015

Instructional Leadership Staffing SIT Leaders Source: Local Funding

Special Education teachers’ participation in PD with regular education teachers on early dismissal days (EDPD). Rationale: To ensure that the special educators are able to effectively support the general education teachers in the classroomTimeline: September 2014—June 2015

Early Dismissal Professional Development

Source: Local FundingSpecial Education teachers participate in core areas during professional development days. Rationale: To ensure that the special educators have the knowledge base to effectively work with students in particular content areas

Professional Development Days



ADJUSTMENT, Rationale & TIMELINE ResourcesTimeline: August 2014—June 2015Monitor accommodations in lesson plans Rationale: To ensure that students with disabilities are provided with adequate support to be successfulTimeline: August 2014 – June 2015

Principals Special Education Supervisor Secondary Math/STEM Supervisor


Science

Middle


PD will focus on ways to provide differentiated instruction in the area of science.


Education that is Multicultural (ETMA)

The Local School System Compliance Status Report provides the critical indicators for the assessment of Education That is Multicultural and Achievement (ETMA) implementation in Maryland local public schools. The assessment categories reflect the level of compliance with the ETM Regulation (COMAR 13A.04.05) with emphasis on equity, access, support for success, academic achievement, and diversity in educational opportunities. The completion of the ETMA Protocol Form requires collaboration among the LSS ETMA Network contact person and appropriate LSS individuals. The ETMA goals for all of Maryland’s diverse students are to eliminate achievement gaps, accelerate academic achievement, promote personal growth and development, and prepare for college and career readiness.

1. What are your LEA’s major ETMA strengths?

As an unfunded mandate, many people in education and in the public are well aware of the flaws in the No Child Left Behind legislation; however, the law has forced states, districts, schools, and individual educators to closely examine gaps in the achievement of varying groups of students and to question why some groups of students have not achieved at the same level as others. Consequently, districts, leaders, and teachers today question what programs and practices perpetuate those gaps, which efforts can make an impact on closing those gaps and bring more equity to organized, public education. Somerset has found these high levels of accountability and the data rich culture it has created in our LEA to be the impetus for moving forward and uncovering areas of need. The accountability demands of AYP forced us to take a close, analytical look at our sub-group data, specifically in regards to gaps between those groups. As a result, Somerset has made great strides in narrowing those gaps over the years, particularly at the elementary and middle levels. Data driven decision-making and root cause analysis have become a part of how we do business. Even as we continue to transition to the Common Core and the PARCC assessment system, Somerset educators continue to mine their formative assessments, and the district leadership is working hard to revise and adjust local assessments to reflect performance assessments. Frankly, our teachers expect to have reliable, valid data to help them make informed instructional decisions, including for the purposes of differentiation and intervention. This shift in thinking reflects real progress in the district.

Instrumental in these efforts is the CFIP (Classroom Focused Improvement Process); at our middle and high school levels, we have weekly professional development sessions (Afternoon Professional Development or APD) where much of this work occurs. At our elementary schools, we have bi-monthly content-specific data meetings where the same work occurs. This collaborative, reflective practice has greatly impacted the growth of many sub-groups and the narrowing of gaps. Additionally, the system has added content specialists, coaches and facilitators, and specialized curriculum leadership at the district level. While we do not have the luxury of extensive curriculum divisions present in larger systems, the addition of this expert staff has helped to improve the quality of and alignment with state curriculum and assessment. As we continue with our full scale implementation of the


Common Core and the PARCC assessments, these individuals will be critical in the transition process. Their addition to the district’s leadership will greatly aid Somerset in the ongoing transition and reform.

2. What are your LEA’s major ETMA areas that need improvement?

As a small LEA, with limited resources, Somerset continues to struggle with the consistency of our ETMA programs. We do not have the formalized curriculum documents or capacity to develop them on a large-scale basis that many other, larger systems possess. Consequently, Education That Is Multicultural integration is sometimes inconsistent across schools, teams, and even content areas. Knowledge of and expertise with ETMA is varied, which of course, makes the integration inconsistent and varied as well. Some teachers are extremely effective at integrating ETMA; however, in other places, it is sporadic and not as strategic and purposeful as it should be.

We know that we—including the leadership—need additional training on culturally responsive pedagogy and how to combat systemic flaws in a way that supports equity and helps to eliminate disparities in achievement and discipline between and among cultural groups, particularly in the area of drop-out prevention. Some district level and many building level administrators completed one year of Cultural Sensitivity/Courageous Conversations work with the Pacific Group and Glenn Singleton; however, since that time, there have been significant changes in administrative positions, and the work was not extended into the second year or with school-based personnel, such as teachers and paraprofessionals. As a result of the high turnover and change in economic climate, the work was left incomplete. Some efforts have been made to lead small scale professional development with staff members; however, those efforts have been inconsistent.

Additionally, we still see the need to offer specific courses and workshops related to ETMA. While the work of ETMA is embedded in our curriculum and instruction work, it needs explicit attention in order to make practices more wide spread and consistent throughout the district. This is also true of our ETMA mission/vision/plan; while issues relating to ETMA are embedded throughout many of our policies and procedures, explicit attention to ETMA as a “stand alone” entity is not as thorough as it should be. Another area of concern is in the intersection of student services and instruction, particularly as it relates to ETMA. We continue to struggle with disproportionality in our discipline and suspension rates, and we know that culturally sensitive practices are a factor; the problem is complex because the impact is cyclical—it has an impact as a root cause, but it also perpetuates issues as we struggle to close achievement gaps. Somerset is not alone in this struggle, as districts across the nation face the same challenges, but we continue to struggle to meet our unique needs.


3. Summarize your progress on meeting last school year’s LSS ETMA goals. What are your three major ETMA goals for the next school year and strategies for meeting those goals?

2013-2014 Goal ProgressGOAL 1: Develop a specific, explicit mission and vision for ETMA in Somerset County, which includes consistent implementation practices; this may include the synthesis and organization of existing elements of policies/practices.

STRATEGY: Form a committee to evaluate the mission and vision for ETMA in Somerset County, including a variety of stakeholders from the school system and the community.

PROGRESS: In the spring of 2014, SCPS formally began the Excellence by Design (EbD) accreditation process, which includes a survey of stakeholders across a variety of systemic elements, including many areas related to ETMA. In the summer, the district EbD Steering Committee began compiling and analyzing the data, while simultaneously working to revise and update our system’s mission state. A large component of this work is relates directly to ETMA, and the group is finalizing a draft of a new mission statement, which encompasses the district’s vision, mission, and beliefs regarding ETMA.

GOAL 2: Train administrators and facilitators/coaches in Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices in a train-the-trainers model, so that these key individuals can then lead ongoing professional development and coaching with the instructional staff.

STRATEGY: Write a year-long professional development plan to integrate culturally responsive teaching practices into each site’s school improvement plan. STRATEGY: Organize and implement a training for school-based administration and content leaders (coaches/facilitators). These individuals will act as trainers at their individual sites. STRATEGY: Plan a series of school based workshops.

PROGRESS: As a result of the district’s efforts to completely re-evaluate our mission and beliefs, the decision was made to delay these efforts until after the new mission and beliefs were finalized and adopted, in order to ensure a greater alignment in the function of the system as a whole, particularly as ETMA was a large part of the revision work.

GOAL 3: Provide training for all staff in the area of Diversity through available online courses.

STRATEGY: The Maryland Association of Board of Education (MABE) provides access to the Safe Schools Website to all Maryland school


systems. This website provides training for staff in the form of online courses on a variety of topics. Staff will be encouraged to complete the courses on Diversity: Diversity Awareness: Staff to Staff & Diversity Awareness: Staff to Student.

PROGRESS: Some professional staff completed the MABE course offerings; however, as the courses were optional, participation was less than anticipated. As a result, the system has not been impacted to the degree outlined in the goal.

GOAL 4: Support and grow positive climate/culture building initiatives at the two high schools, particularly as it relates to better integration of culturally responsive practices.

STRATEGY: Conduct professional development on norms of a healthy school culture at each school. STRATEGY: Incorporate cultural capacity building activities in School Improvement Plans. STRATEGY: Distribute School Climate Surveys through the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3) Grant to all stakeholders of each high school.

PROGRESS: Both high schools have made significant progress in collecting and analyzing their school climate survey data; however, action oriented toward improving their school cultures has been inconsistent. Both schools incorporated activities in their school improvement plans, but the impact has been less than desired. The system now has several years’ worth of data, making it possible to analyze trends in school climate. This remains an area of need.

2014-2015 ETMA Goals

GOAL 1: As part of the accreditation process, develop a district mission, vision, and beliefs which includes equity and diversity in Somerset County, which includes consistent ETMA implementation practices; this may also include the synthesis and organization of existing elements of policies/practices.

STRATEGY: Accreditation steering team will meet monthly to brainstorm and collaborate around development of mission, vision, and beliefs.

STRATEGY: Stakeholder input will be gathered throughout the process, which will be used to guide development, revision, and adoption.

STRATEGY: Mission, vision, and beliefs will be submitted to school board for input, revision, and formal adoption. Quality criteria for evaluation will include analysis of ETMA components.


GOAL 2: As part of revising the district’s mission, vision, and beliefs around equity and diversity, train administrators and facilitators/coaches in Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices in a train-the-trainers model, so that these key individuals can then lead ongoing professional development and coaching with the instructional staff.

STRATEGY: Building and district representatives will participate in virtual and face-to-face trainings/workshops on Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices as trainers.

STRATEGY: Representatives will train administration and instructional leaders in CRT practices.

GOAL 3: Continue to support and grow positive climate/culture building initiatives at the two high schools, particularly as it relates to better integration of culturally responsive practices, based on climate survey data from a variety of stakeholders.

STRATEGY: Instructional leadership teams will meet at building levels to analyze climate survey data and identify building-level strengths and weaknesses. ILT’s will include district level leadership from Student Services and Instructional Division.

STRATEGY: Building-level ILT’s and elementary, middle, and high teams (across buildings) will correlate and analyze trends from climate survey data, TELL survey data (historic and new), discipline data, attendance data, and student achievement data to determine district trends and patterns. From the analysis, teams will develop strategies to be utilized across levels and buildings.

STRATEGY: High school participant in MDS3 grant will lead sessions with leaders on best practices around improving school climate and culture.

School System: Somerset County Public SchoolsName and Title of ETMA Contact: Patricia J. West-Smith Email: [email protected] Telephone: 410-651-1616Fax: 410-651-2931


Race to the Top Scopes of Work

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders

Highly Qualified Staff

No Child Left Behind Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.1: The percentage of classes being taught by “highly qualified” teachers, in the aggregate and in “high-poverty” schools.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parental involvement assistants) who are qualified.

Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), LSSs are required to report the percentages of core academic subject (CAS) classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, and the percentages of CAS classes being taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools compared to low-poverty schools. High-poverty schools are defined as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State, and low-poverty schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. NCLB also requires that school systems ensure that economically disadvantaged and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.

Plans for Reaching the 100% Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

LSS responses to Section I.D.vi in Part I and the Title II, Part A attachment in Part II will continue to serve as the school system’s Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement Plan.1 In this section, each LSS should address the factors that prevent the district from attaining the 100% HQT Goal. Please see the instructions on the next page.

1 Section 2141(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.


Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds.

School Year

% of Core Academic Subject Classes

Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Not

Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

School Year

Total Number of Core Academic

Subject Classes in Title I Schools

Core Academic Subject Classes in

Title I Schools Taught by Highly

Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes in

Title I Schools taught by HQT

2005-2006 69.0 31.0 2010-2011 317 317 100.0

2006-2007 71.4 28.6

2007-2008 83.3 16.7 2011-2012 349 343 98.3

2008-2009 92.0 8.0

2009-2010 97.7 2.3 2012-2013 369 369 100.0

2010-2011 96.8 3.2

2011-2012 95.1 4.9 2013-2014 337 337 100.0

2012-2013 97.7 2.3

2013-2014 95.0 5.0

Table 6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

School Year

Expired CertificateInvalid Grade

Level(s) for Certification

Testing Requirement Not

Met

Invalid Subject for Certification

Missing Certification Information

Conditional Certificate

# classes % #

classes % # classes % #

classes % # classes % #

classes %

2007-2008 1 1.4 5 6.9 17 23.6 3 4.2 19 26.4 24 37.52008-2009 9 22.5 0 6.0 15 8.0 20 5.0 12 12.0 30 40.0

2009-2010 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 22.0 14 77.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

2010-2011 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 14.8 23 85.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

2011-2012 0 0.0 3 7.3 0 0.0 30 73.2 0 0.0 8 19.5

2012-2013 0 0.0 3 15.8 0 0.0 11 57.9 0 0.0 5 26.3

2013-2014 5 12.8 3 7.7 0 0.0 22 56.4 5 12.8 4 10.3


Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level

Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT

High Poverty* Low Poverty

Total Classes Taught by HQT Total

Classes Taught by HQT

# # % # # %

2007-2008

Elementary 70 69 98.5 0 0 0.0

Secondary 320 250 78.1 0 0 0.0

2008-2009

Elementary 22 22 100.0 0 0 0.0

Secondary 84 88 92.0 0 0 0.0

2009-2010

Elementary 205 205 100.0 0 0 0.0

Secondary 266 255 96.0 0 0 0.0

2010-2011

Elementary 184 184 100.0 104 104 100.0

Secondary 549 522 96.8 0 0 0.0

2011-2012


Elementary 385 377 97.9 0 0 0.0

Secondary 450 427 94.8 0 0 0.0

2012-2013

Elementary 124 124 100.0 0 0 0.0

Secondary 416 397 95.4 0 0 0.0

2013-2014

Elementary 103 103 100.0 0 0 0.0

Secondary 411 372 90.5 0 0 0.0

Table 6.5: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience

Core Academic Subject Classes

School Year Level

High Poverty* Low Poverty

Classes Taught by Experienced HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced HQT

Classes Taught by Experienced HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced HQT

# % # % # % # %

2010-2011 Elementary 171 87.2 3 12.8 68 74.0 0 0.0

Secondary 444 81.0 105 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

2011-2012 Elementary 356 94.4 28 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Secondary 337 80.8 80 19.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

2012-2013 Elementary 94 75.8 30 24.2 0 0.0 0 0.0


Secondary 225 54.0 191 46.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

2013-2014 Elementary 74 71.8 29 28.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Secondary 257 69.1 115 30.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Table 6.6: Attrition Rates

Attrition Due To (Category):

Retirement Resignation Dismissal/Non-renewal Leaves Total Overall Attrition

Numer-ator

Denom-inator % Numer-

atorDenom-inator % Numer-

atorDenom-inator % Numer-

atorDenom-inator % %

2008-2009 6 282 2.1 20 282 3.5 5 282 1.7 1 282 0.3 7.62009-2010 7 275 2.5 7 275 2.5 2 275 0.7 2 275 0.7 6.42010-2011 8 271 2.9 7 271 2.5 1 271 0.3 2 275 0.7 6.42011-2012 4 243 1.6 12 243 4.9 1 243 0.4 0 243 0.0 6.92012-2013 12 236 5.0 8 236 3.4 3 236 1.3 0 236 0.0 9.72013-2014 7 246 2.8 13 246 5.3 0 246 0.0 1 246 0.4 8.5

Use the data available as of September 1st following each of the school years to be reported. Report data for the entire teaching staff or for teachers of Core Academic Subject areas if those data are available. Indicate the population reflected in the data:

X Entire Teaching Staff____ Core Academic Subject area teachers



Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds.

Total Number of Paraprofessionals Working in Title I

Schools

Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

# %2010-2011 41 41 100.02011-2012 37 37 100.02012-2013 36 36 100.02013-2014 31 31 100.0

2014-2015* 40 40 100.0

Instructions:1. Complete data tables 6.1 – 6.7.

2. Review the criteria associated with each table on the next two pages.

3. If the school system did not meet the targeted criteria for each data table, respond to the associated prompt(s) for each table. Be sure to respond to all prompts for each criterion not met.

4. If the school system has met all of the criteria in the following data tables, no additional written response is required.

Based on data in the table:

If your system does not meet the criteria:

Respond to the prompts:

6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Classes (CAS) Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

The percentage of CAS is 97% HQT or higher.

1. Describe where challenges are evident.- Challenges are evident by teachers

being assigned to teach invalid subjects for their certification.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress placing HQT in CAS.- Will provide better communication

with Principals regarding certifications that teachers possess. HR Generalist position has been filled to assist. Was not filled for two years.

- Will encourage teachers to become certified in multiple subject areas. Will reimburse teachers for passing appropriate Praxis tests.

6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subjects Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teacher in Title I Schools.

The percentage of CAS in Title I schools is 100% HQT.

1. Describe where challenges are evident.

2. Describe the strategies used to ensure all CAS in Title I schools are taught by HQT.

6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified

The combined percentage total of NHQT across all


2. Identify the practices, programs, or





(NHQ) Teachers by Reason.

reasons is less than 10%.

strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress in targeted areas of NHQT.




6.4: Core Academic Classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in both Elementary and Secondary Schools High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools.

The percentage of CAS taught by HQT in high-poverty is equal to or greater than the percentage of HQT CAS in low-poverty schools. (Explanation: Data represents an equal distribution of HQT staff between high and low poverty).


2. Describe the changes or adjustments to ensure an equal distribution of HQT staff in both High and Low poverty schools.

6.5: Core Academic Classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in both Elementary and Secondary High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience.

The percentage of inexperienced HQT in CAS in high-poverty schools is not greater than the percentage of experienced HQT in CAS in low- poverty schools.


2. Identify the changes or adjustments to ensure low-income and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. What evidence does the school system have that strategies are in place are having the intended effect?

6.6: Attrition Rates. Total overall attrition is less than 10%

1. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to address the overall retention of staff. What evidence


does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect?

6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools.

Percentage of qualified paraprofessionals in Title I schools is 100%

1. Describe the strategies used to ensure all paraprofessionals working in Title I schools will be qualified.


High Quality Professional Development

BTE 2014

No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.2: The percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development.Professional Development

Please provide your District Professional Development Plan. Be sure to include how your Plan addresses:

1. Underperforming populations;

All schools are staffed with instructional coaches. During common planning time, instructional coaches facilitate the Classroom Focused Improvement Process (CFIP) to analyze assessment data, including teacher groups, classes, subgroups, and individual students. Assessments are implemented on various schedules, according to the content area and/or level; some assessments are given weekly, some every 3-4 weeks, some quarterly, and some as diagnostic and summative pairs. Teachers meet collaboratively to review data by sub-group. As part of these conversations, facilitators and teachers review progress toward goals, including AMO targets in particular subgroups as well as any achievement gaps evident in the formative assessment data.

Based on the data analysis process, teachers identify the students who need re-teaching of particular concepts and the instructional strategies that have proven to be effective based on the data. Once a concept has been re-taught, teachers then re-assess to determine growth. These strategies are used to support both underperforming populations and other individual students who need remediation.

During the school year, there are four elementary Early Dismissal Professional Development (EDPD) sessions in which students are dismissed at noon and teachers stay for professional development. A variety of topics are included in the professional development including:

Common Core math curricular and pedagogy changes Dreambox Learning Six traits writing Kagan’s Structures for Cooperative Learning Disciplinary literacy for science and social studies Financial literacy standards for social studies C3 – College, Career & Civic Life Framework Environmental literacy Next Generation Science Standards STEM


At the secondary level, SCPS has weekly Afternoon Professional Development Session that meet on Monday or Wednesday from 2:45 to 4:00 PM.

Common Core math curricular and pedagogy changes Six traits writing Disciplinary literacy for science, social studies, fine arts, and PE Financial literacy standards for social studies C3 – College, Career & Civic Life Framework Environmental literacy Next Generation Science Standards STEM

Professional Development (PD) provided during EDPD and APD is prepared and facilitated by content supervisors and building administrators. Following the PD presentation, teachers generally break into grade-level or content area teams and examine the instructional approaches necessary to meet the needs of underperforming populations. Special Education Teachers are included in all PD and grade-level or content area team discussions. Differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, and UDL infused instructional approaches are utilized to support the learning of underperforming populations. Additionally, core area teachers and building level administrators have designed Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) which address multiple math, reading, and writing standards, practices, and instructional shifts. Specific modifications of PD offerings are generated through teacher-to-teacher and administrator-to-teacher discussions, data-analysis, instructional supports and strategies relevant to the critical content, skills, and standards that drive these SLOs.

2. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Guidelines and Principles for all student populations;

All principals received training in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and began initial training with staff in the 2012-2013 school year. All instructional supervisors have also participated in UDL training. Principals are required to include UDL principles in their school-based professional development plans and activities, and instructional supervisors will also include UDL in their content meetings and trainings. UDL training was provided during Afternoon Professional Development (APD) at Somerset Intermediate School, Crisfield Academy High School, and The Promise Academy. Special educators received job specific training on UDL.

3. Implementation of the new Maryland’s College & Career Readiness Standards, including those related to English Language Arts and disciplinary literacy; mathematics; science; and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education.


RELA Common Core FrameworkOrientation to the Frameworks

How are they organized? How are they aligned?

Rigor: New vs. OldBegin: July 2013

Continue Throughout 2014-2015 School YearProng One: Text Complexity

3 Lenses of Text Complexity

How do we integrate the lenses to identify appropriately complex text? (ongoing)

Identify and come to consensus, re: anchor texts for each grade level (appropriate rigor); 8-10 per course (2-3 identified July 2013; Expand 2013-2014 SY; continue refinement and implementation 14-15 SY)

Multi-media resources to develop integrated units (APD 14-15 SY)

Continue implementation of close reading strategies (14-15 SY)

How do we scaffold so that ALL students can access complex text (appropriate rigor)? (July 2013; continue through 2013-2014 SY, refine summer 2014, continue implementation 14-15 SY)

How do we use text-dependent questions to push students to think deeply about text? (Begin July 2013; continue through 2013-2014 SY, refine summer 2014, continue implementation 14-15 SY)

Prong Two: Writing Instruction

How to Teach Writing

Consistent application of 6 Traits rubric and cross-walk with PARCC’s draft rubric (July 2013; 2013-2014 SY, refine summer 2014, continue implementation 14-15 SY)

Building student independence (Students need to be able to independently identify purpose, audience, format and then select appropriate strategies for development at all stages of the writing process.) (Begin July 2013; Continue APD 2013-2014 SY, refine summer 2014, continue implementation 14-15

Instructional Implications of 3 Writing Tasks/6 Traits; Curriculum Maps/planning (Begin Spring 2013; Continue throughout 2013-2014 SY; refine summer 2014, continue development and implementation 14-15 SY)

Increase use of paired texts with balance of genre (ongoing)

Use of evidence in writing (to source and elsewhere) and speaking (Begin July 2013; continue through 2013-2014 SY, refine summer 2014, continue implementation 14-15 SY)

Vertically aligned Curriculum Maps for each unit and each course (ongoing)

Pilot 2 diagnostics (2 writing types): (Fall 2013) Flesh out Summative Tasks with EBSR/TECR items

(ongoing) Anchor Papers; 2 writing types (Diagnostics: Fall

2013; Summatives: Spring/Summer 2014, continue development & implementation 14-15 SY)

Increased rigor of language/gap fill (ongoing)

Somerset Count Math, Transition to MD College & Career Readiness Standards2014-2015

Common Core FrameworkCurricular and Strategy Implementation

Mathematics Problems: New vs. OldBegin: July 2013

Continue Throughout 2014-2015 School Year The Nuts and Bolts of It All- UDL, CMS, PARCC Frameworks, Infusing the Practices, Scope and Sequence How to Teach Using Integrative and Practice Forward Tasks


Common Core FrameworkCurricular and Strategy Implementation

Mathematics Problems: New vs. OldBegin: July 2013

Continue Throughout 2014-2015 School YearAdjustments, Math Frameworks, Reading Literacy Standards

Making connections between instruction and the standards of mathematical practice.

Identify what is mathematics and what does it mean to do mathematics? What would you expect to see if observing students who are doing mathematics?(Refinement of the walkthrough tool for mathematics will be ongoing)

Close look at PARCC frameworks. (ongoing through 14-15 APD)

Elementary Curriculum Changes:K-3: Common Core:Grades 4-5: Commom Core Origo Math Implementation

Middle School Math Course Sequence Implementation.Sixth Grade: CC 6; Seventh Grade: CC7, Algebra IA; Eighth Grade: CC8, Alg. I CC

High School Math Course Sequence Implementation: 9th Grade: Alg. CC, Geometry Yr. Long; Universal Design for Learning (UDL)- What are the three Principles of UDL? Teachers will have the opportunity to utilize (new) MSDE lesson seeds, lesson plans and/or unit plans to identify which Principle for UDL is in the plan. Teachers will add at least one principle of UDL into a minimum of 6 lessons per quarter and share those ideas/lessons during APD throughout the year. (ongoing).

6 Shifts in Mathematics (Continued focus) What are the two PARCC task types? Similarities

and Differences between Integrative and Practice Forward Tasks (ongoing)

How do I write practice forward and integrative tasks? (Teachers will work together to develop tasks to use during the first quarter of the school year and determine when and where in the scope and sequence to teach the tasks. Student work from these tasks will be used in APD to revise the tasks to the place on the shared drive). Teachers will also develop and teach at least one more task during each of the three remaining quarters of the school year and will bring those along with student work to APD) (ongoing)

SCPS Science, Transition to MD College & Career Readiness Standards2013-2014

Common Core FrameworkOrientation to the Framework

Begin July 2013Continue Through 2014-2015 School Year

Parallel Initiatives Focus One: Disciplinary Literacy

Maryland Common Core Disciplinary Literacy for Science and - Maryland’s College & Career Readiness Standards for Language Arts/English includes specific content area literacy tasks for social studies. Since every

Argumentative Writing and Thinking

1. Require students to Justify answers orally and on paper

2. Teach Hierarchy of information-




Parallel Initiatives Focus One: Disciplinary Literacyteacher will be partially evaluated with the School Performance Index, we need to do our part to teach skills which will initially be tested in the RELA assessments and eventually in our own.http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Intro_gr6-8.pdf

Next Generation Science Standards- The Maryland State Board of Education voted unanimously to adopt the standards, which were released after two years in development with the aim of spelling out practices and content that all K-12 students should know to be college-and-career ready after high school. Full implementation in public schools in Maryland is expected to be complete in time for the 2017-18 school year.

http://www.achieve.org/files/NextGenerationScienceStandardsFactSheet.pdf

Environmental Literacy- In the spring of 2012, a new requirement for high school environmental literacy was passed by the general assembly. At the high school level, a new course was implemented for 9th graders. The goal continues to be to develop field experiences in all science courses to promote this initiative.http://marylandpublicschools.org/msde/programs/environment

facts, opinions, thesis, theory, concept, enduring understanding

3. Adapt the argument frame to scientific thinking

4. Teach the scientific method5. Learn how to cite/attribute sources6. Identify sources from text, internet7. Scoring rubric- sample and then

adopt8. Identify exemplar/sample arguments

based on enduring understanding/essential questions

9. Reference Six traits writing to promote good writing and to support English/Language Arts

http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Science_gr6-8w.pdf


Parallel Initiatives Focus One: Disciplinary LiteracySTEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)- STEM refers to Trans-disciplinary instructional practices that will prepare students to have 21st Century skills. In Industry and research, projects are engaged by teams rather than individuals and require the skills of multiple content areas.http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/stem/index.html

Assessment for Learning- AfL- Maryland has a Maryland RTTT initiative that focuses on the fact that continual “real-time” assessment and adjustments within the teaching period is the most critical form of formative assessment. A new resource website for teachers is

Reading

Text Complexity- The Disciplinary literacy requirements stress ramping up reading level, especially spending time with primary source documents. A evaluation method has been developed to evaluate text complexity.

Content Reading- There is much research that reading is different in each content area, and teachers should assist students to be competent deriving meaning from all science sources


http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/stem/index.html





http://marylandpublicschools.org/msde/programs/environment




http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Intro_gr6-8.pdf

http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Intro_gr6-8.pdf



Parallel Initiatives Focus One: Disciplinary Literacybeing developed to help teachers improve their skills in this area.http://mdk12.org/data/afl/index.html

Student Learning Objectives- Teacher evaluation will continue to have the Student Growth component evaluated through two academic Student Learning Objectives (SLOs). Guidelines have been established to provide structure for the development and implementation of quality SLOs. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/167F463A-3628-47B7-8720-353C3216AD1A/32836/SLOs_Guiding_Questions_071812.pdf

Making Inferences and Drawing Conclusions- Students will be asked to derive meaning from challenging text and must be able to cite evidence that support their ideas.

Content Specific Vocabulary- Students must be familiar with vocabulary not only specific to science but also academic vocabulary that applies to a variety of disciplines.

http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Science_gr6-8r.pdf


Focus Two: 5-E Lesson Planning

The 5-E lesson plan is a framework to promote more active engagement of students in science classrooms and to encourage scientific thinking and inquiry. The 5-E supports constructivist theory that students must construct meaning from new material by re-organizing previous knowledge into a structure that includes the new understanding.(templates at scps\secondary\science directory\5E Lesson Plan)

http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html

Focus Three: Science and Engineering Practices

The Next Generation Science Standards include behaviors all students should be proficient in while engaging in science or engineering.


http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html





http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/167F463A-3628-47B7-8720-353C3216AD1A/32836/SLOs_Guiding_Questions_071812.pdf



http://mdk12.org/data/afl/index.html



Parallel Initiatives Focus One: Disciplinary Literacy

Scientific practices are the behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world. The engineering practices are the behaviors that engineers engage in as they apply science and mathematics to design solutions to problems. These science and engineering practices were a focal point of professional development and will continue to be part of the after school professional development (APD) teachers receive throughout the school year.http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

SCPS Social Studies, CCSS Transition Plan2013-2014

Common Core Frameworks

Parallel Initiatives Focus: Disciplinary LiteracyMaryland Common Core Disciplinary Literacy for Social Studies- Maryland’s College & Career Readiness Standards for Language Arts/English includes specific content area literacy tasks for social studies. Since every teacher will be partially evaluated with the Comprehensive School Performance Index, we need to do our part to teach skills which will initially be tested in the RELA assessments and eventually in our own.http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/social_studies/index.html

C3 - College, Career, and Civic Life FrameworkThis national framework for social studies is anticipated to drive development of a Maryland Framework. The State School Board has approved the C3 framework and is currently revising COMAR language to reflect this adoption.

Argumentative Writing and Thinking

10. Require students to Justify answers orally and on paper

11. Teach Hierarchy of information- facts, opinions, thesis, concept, enduring understanding

12. Learn the argument frame13. Learn how to cite/attribute sources14. Identify sources from text15. Scoring rubric- MSDE for Government,

others up in the air16. Identity exemplars based on enduring

understanding/essential questions17. Benchmarks- add argumentative and

writing as constructed responses


http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/social_studies/index.html

http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/social_studies/index.html

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards


Parallel Initiatives Focus: Disciplinary Literacy

Universal Design for Learning- This framework encourages planning for diverse learners from the ground up. Rather than re-teaching students who didn’t “get it”, why not present new material in a variety of ways to ensure that we teach to the strengths of all students? COMAR requires that all curriculums developed in MD must adhere to UDL principles.http://marylandlearninglinks.org/1021

http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_SocialStudies_gr6-8w.pdf


Non-nNon-negotiables (We will work on these in APD)

One writing/thinking piece a week minimum

Examples- bcr, ecr, argument outline, argument, mini-research, essay, document analysis

Responding to multiple sources

Student Learning Objectives- For the 2014-2015 session, each teacher will write at least one SLO that covers new skills associated with Common Core. Teachers who teach HSA Government will have an SLO relating to HSA achievement improve. All teachers will be working collaboratively to develop assessments and rubrics for use with their SLOs.http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/167F463A-3628-47B7-8720-353C3216AD1A/32836/SLOs_Guiding_Questions_071812.pdf

Environmental Literacy- In the spring of 2012, a new requirement for high school environmental literacy was passed by the general assembly. Although a new science course was developed for 9th graders, social studies is a key part of environmental literacy and activities and lessons will be developed. 40% of the EL standards are covered in social studies.http://marylandpublicschools.org/msde/programs/environment

Assessment for Learning- AfL- Maryland has a Maryland RTTT initiative that focuses on the fact that continual “real-time” assessment and adjustments within the teaching period is the most

Reading

Text Complexity- The content literacy requirements stress ramping up reading level, especially spending time with primary source documents. An evaluation method has been developed to evaluate text complexity. There is much research that reading is different in each content area, and teachers should assist students to be competent deriving meaning from all social studies sources.

Emphasis on using primary sources- “Let them struggle with the original rather than read a summary.”

Historical Literature and informational text

Response and Synthesis of multiple sources

Use of Document Analysis Frame


http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/














http://marylandlearninglinks.org/1021


Parallel Initiatives Focus: Disciplinary Literacycritical form of formative assessment. A new resource website for teachers is being developed to help teachers improve their skills in this area.http://mdk12.org/data/afl/index.html

Financial Literacy- Maryland has K-12 standards included in the Maryland Framework for Personal Financial Literacy that are taught within a variety of content areas and school guidance services. In SCPS, social studies is the key content area for implementing the Maryland Framework. At the intermediate level, short units are provided in the two social studies courses. At the high school, nine weeks of the 9th grade U.S. History 2 course is devoted to financial literacy. During After-School Professional Development, teachers will specifically identify the course unit that corresponds with each financial literacy standard. http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/financial_literacy/index.html

CCSC_SocialStudies_gr9-12w.pdf

Reading, Thinking, and Writing like an Historian- Helpful strategies and lesson plans developed by Stanford University that correlate well with the transition to Common Corehttp://teachinghistory.org/best-practices/using-primary-sources/24001

4. Implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation (TPE) System. SCPS piloted the State Plan for Teacher and Principal Evaluation in 2012-13 for a

few teachers and the principal for each school All teachers were evaluated using the Danielson Model for Qualitative Evaluation All teachers and staff received professional development on SLOS and TPE

during the summer and fall of 2013 Supervisors all attended regional TPE training workshops Time was allotted during collaborative work sessions for teachers to share out

SLO design Staff members took advantage of training opportunities provided by MSDE.

During 2014-2015, Somerset County will send a team to attend the MSDE SLO Convening sessions. Material provided by CTAC (Community Training and Assistance Center) will be distributed and reviewed with Principals. Dissemination and use of these tools will be handled during professional development opportunities at the building level.

Supervisors assisted principals in approval of SLOs A rubric for evaluation of SLO design was developed The state model for scoring SLOs will be used.


http://teachinghistory.org/best-practices/using-primary-sources/24001

http://teachinghistory.org/best-practices/using-primary-sources/24001


http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/financial_literacy/index.html

http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/financial_literacy/index.html

http://mdk12.org/data/afl/index.html

SCPS will use TPE Implementation Grant for purchase of Laptop/tablet devices and a software system which will aggregate observation and walkthrough results so appropriate professional development can be scheduled.

During 2014-2015, teachers and building level administrators will receive professional development for the input of Student Learning Objectives into Performance Matters. Building level administrators will also receive professional development on the use of the Fast e Observer to input classroom observations.

Supervisors will direct implementation of strategies and assessments associated with completion of SLOs.

Revised guidelines for 2014-2015 instituted cut ranges to determine the SLO ratings. Guidelines specific to building level administrators have been modified. SLO Conference Expectations for teachers have also been developed and implemented to maintain a consistent and efficient approach to these important professional development opportunities.

A replacement for the SPI called the Comprehensive School Performance Index was developed in conjunction with Calvert County and was approved both by MSDE and the local educational association

Teacher Induction

Please provide the following information regarding your District Teacher Induction/Mentoring Program:

1. A description of your Comprehensive Teacher Induction Program, including orientation programs, standards for effective mentoring, and mentoring supports. Options to include your LEA Action Plans and TELL Survey Data.

In compliance with COMAR 13A.07.01 and supported by Race to the Top and local funding, Somerset County Public Schools has in place a comprehensive induction program for its new teachers. The purpose is to provide on-going support for all non-tenured teachers which is focused, systematic, high quality, and geared to the needs of each individual teacher.

To support these efforts the following initiatives are implemented:

Before the school year begins a three day orientation program is offered which allows the incoming staff to meet and gain information from central office staff as well as become familiar with the county and school expectations. This year the orientation dates were August 13th – 15th.

Each new teacher has on-going support from a district level program mentor as well as several sources of support at the building level: a school level buddy, a math facilitator, a reading coach / instructional facilitator as well as the school administration. Program mentors observe new teachers often and provide feedback which will help to improve their teaching.


Opportunities are made available for new teachers to observe master teachers and conference with mentors regarding what was observed.

On-going professional development is provided for new teachers throughout the first year focused on their needs (three follow-up professional development sessions are being planned.)

Ongoing training is being provided for our program mentors through MSDE and the new teacher center.

2. Data regarding the scope of your mentoring program, including the number of probationary teachers and the number of mentors who have been assigned. Also, please indicate the breakdown of your mentors’ roles in the district as indicated in the chart below: (1) FULL-TIME MENTORS: Mentoring is their full-time job, (2) PART-TIME MENTORS: Mentoring is their part-time job, (3) RETIREES: Mentoring is done by retirees hired to mentor, and (4) FULL-TIME TEACHERS: Teaching is their full-time job and they mentor. Please complete the chart below:

Mentor Ratio 2014-2015LEA 1st Year

Teachers2nd Year Teachers

3rd Year Teachers

Newly Hired Experienced

Teachers

Total # Teachers

Total # Mentors

Mentor to

Teacher Ratio

Somerset County

21 28 9 3 61 #Full-Time Mentors:____

1: 31__ Ratio

#Part-Time Mentors:__1__

#Retirees:__1__#Full-Time

Teachers:____TOTAL:____

3. The process used to measure the effectiveness of the induction/mentoring and the results of that measurement.

Teachers are given surveys at the end of induction which is held before the school year. The teachers also given a mid-year and end of year assessment. There were a limited number of non-tenured teachers that turned in the survey. Overall the response was positive.


Persistently Dangerous Schools

No Child Left Behind Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 4.1: The number of persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state.

NCLB requires states to identify persistently dangerous schools. In Maryland, a “persistently dangerous” school means a school in which each year for a period of three consecutive school years the total number of student suspensions for more than 10 days or expulsions equals two and one-half percent (2½%) or more of the total number of students enrolled in the school, for any of the following offenses: arson or fire; drugs; explosives; firearms; other guns; other weapons; physical attack on a student; physical attack on a school system employee or other adult; and sexual assault. Schools are placed into “persistently dangerous” status in a given school year based on their suspension data in the prior year.

1. Where Persistently Dangerous Schools are identified, list the schools and describe what steps are being taken by the school system to reverse this trend and prevent the schools(s) from moving into probationary status. None


Attendance Table 5.1: Attendance Rates All StudentsAnnual Measurable Objective (AMO): 94% 90%* 94% 94% 94% 94%

Subgroups by Level2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

All Students

Elementary 94.9 94.4 94.8 95.1 94.5 95.4Middle 93.5 93.2 94.0 94.0 93.8 94.2High 92.8 92.3 92.4 93.3 91.6 92.9


Elementary 95.9 95.8 94.5 96.1Middle 96.4 95.5 95.8 95.5High 94.8 94.6 93.9 93.0



Asian






White


Two or more races


Special Education






Attendance (Cont’d) Table 5:1: Attendance

Male Female


Rates (Cont’d)Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 94% 90%* 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90%* 94% 94% 94% 94%

Subgroups by Level2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

All Students

Elementary 94.9 94.4 94.7 95.3 94.4 95.3 95.0 94.5 94.9 95.0 94.5 95.4

Middle 93.1 92.7 93.6 93.4 93.6 94.1 93.9 93.7 94.4 94.6 94.0 94.2

High 92.4 92.5 92.7 93.8 92.1 93.2 93.3 92.1 92.1 92.8 91.1 92.5


Elementary 96.5 96.1 95.2 96.4 95.4 95.6 93.9 95.7

Middle 95.9 96.0 96.4 96.8 97.2 94.9 95.3 94.7

High 96.6 96.8 94.0 91.9 93.4 92.8 93.9 94.2


Elementary 97.5 95.2 0.0 0.0 97.6 94.3 88.1 95.3

Middle 0.0 75.3 0.0 0.0 89.5 93.1 89.3 0.0

High 92.9 92.4 77.8 0.0 83.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Asian

Elementary 95.5 97.8 96.5 97.8 97.3 97.5 97.2 92.9

Middle 97.5 95.2 93.9 90.7 94.8 97.9 97.4 92.4

High 99.2 97.9 98.8 94.3 96.0 96.2 92.9 91.2


Elementary 95.2 96.1 95.1 95.8 96.0 95.8 95.6 96.1

Middle 94.4 93.6 94.3 94.9 95.4 95.5 95.0 95.7

High 92.9 94.5 93.8 94.1 92.5 93.4 91.2 92.9Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Elementary 0.0 93.1 0.0 0.0 95.4 96.9 98.3 94.6

Middle 97.5 97.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0

High 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

White

Elementary 93.9 94.5 93.7 94.6 93.8 94.2 93.7 94.5

Middle 92.7 93.2 92.6 92.9 93.7 93.6 93.0 93.1

High 92.1 93.0 90.8 92.7 91.3 92.0 90.5 91.9

Two or more races

Elementary 95.4 94.5 93.8 94.7 94.2 94.7 93.2 96.5

Middle 89.8 93.0 94.5 95.9 90.5 93.8 94.0 91.2

High 94.9 92.7 87.8 91.0 94.6 94.5 92.1 93.0

Special Education

Elementary 94.5 93.3 93.4 94.6 93.9 94.4 94.8 93.9 94.0 93.4 92.4 94.9

Middle 91.1 92.1 91.6 92.3 93.0 92.1 93.6 89.8 93.8 93.6 93.7 92.1

High 89.8 90.6 91.5 91.6 91.0 91.6 92.1 90.2 88.9 89.7 83.3 90.3


Elementary 96.0 96.1 96.9 96.5 95.8 97.1 93.9 94.5 95.8 96.4 95.5 96.2

Middle 92.4 79.5 97.2 91.1 97.7 98.1 94.8 97.0 99.3 98.5 92.8 95.1

High 94.4 97.4 94.8 96.6 98.7 97.2 97.4 100.0 95.9 97.9 98.1 96.2


Elementary 94.8 94.2 94.3 94.9 94.0 95.1 94.6 94.0 94.6 94.7 94.1 95.2

Middle 91.8 91.7 92.6 92.6 93.3 93.7 93.0 93.3 93.8 93.9 93.5 93.8

High 91.7 90.5 90.8 92.4 90.5 92.4 92.4 91.2 90.6 91.2 90.1 91.5

Based on the Examination of the Attendance Data:

1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups.


a. Decreases in attendance occurred in the following groups: Hispanic female students attendance decreased slightly in middle school

specifically, females went from 95.3% in 2012-2013 to 94.7 % in 2013-14. Attendance for Special education male students decreased at the middle (.9%

points) and high school (1.5% points) levels; LEP attendance decreased at the high school level by 1.7% points. The

largest decrease for LEP student attendance was for High School males (1.5% points)

The lowest percent of attendance occurs at high school level with special education females at 90.3%; however, there was a significant increase from the previous year of 83.3%.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. (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 explain the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted. If the source is restricted IDEA, Title I or ARRA funding – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source as unrestricted and include attributable funds.)

SCPS has seen notable improvements in attendance; Specifically, the elementary and middle schools exceeded the State Standard of 94% and the high school improved slightly. Therefore, current program and strategies will be continued.

a. SCPS will implement and monitor attendance policy in 2014-15 . Inform school staff, students, and parents of the new attendance policy and

procedures; Monitor attendance daily and inform parents via telephone calls when absences

have occurred; Execute the Learning Support team process when students have four or more

unexcused absences; Limit family trip approvals during school hours; Distribute attendance brochures to appropriate parents; Ensure students receive make-up work; Continue to collaborate with community partners to enforce good attendance;

b. SCPS will continue to fund staff and services impacting attendance.

Modify procedures attendance staff and school counselors use at all levels to include personal calls to families from identified groups;

Continue the Connect Ed contract which will have a feature for translating messages into Spanish;

Maintain all counseling, learning support staff, and other support personnel Continue to utilize the PBIS initiative to incorporate strategies for attendance


c. SCPS will continue to work with parents.

Continue to educate parents about the importance of regular school attendance Increase communication between LEP staff and families in their home

language Target attendance concerns in ELL and IEP discussions, including a review of

the data. IEP Clerks will make home contacts for all Special Education absences. Continue to partner with community agencies in assisting parents in

understanding the importance of good attendance.

d. School staffs will continue to search for effective strategies to increase attendance.

Utilize data analysis of the attendance rates for each subgroup to help determine areas of need as well as possible interventions;

Include attendance in PBIS incentive strategies; Include attendance as an item to discuss during IEP meetings if it is

warranted.

ADJUSTMENTAND TIMELINE RESOURCE

Assign staff to manage attendance program


Staffing

Local Funds

Continue to utilize truancy court & State’s Attorney’s Office


Staff Time

Local Funds

Continue Connect Ed automated attendance contract

Timeline: July, 2014-June, 2015

License Agreement

Local Funds

Utilize PBIS Incentives for each school and Professional Meetings

Staff Time

Local Funds

Implementation of revised attendance policy

Timeline: August, 2014 – June, 2015

Administrators/Staff

Local Funds


Graduation and Dropout Rates (4-Year Cohort) 1

No Child Left Behind Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate each year with a regular diploma.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of school.

Based on the Examination of Graduation and Dropout Rate Data:Table 4.1: Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

Subgroup

All Students

2011-2012 2012-2013

# Graduates # Students

Grad Rate

# Graduates # Students

Grad Rate

All Students 168 201 83.58 164 213 77.00Hispanic/Latino of any race 4 8 50.00 5 5 100.00

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.00 1 1 100.00

Asian 0 0 0.00 3 3 100.00

Black or African American 71 81 87.65 72 87 82.76

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.00

White 81 98 82.65 77 106 72.64

Two or more races 12 14 85.71 6 10 60.00


Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1 3 33.33 2 3 66.67



Male Female2011-2012 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013

# Graduates

# Students

Grad Rate

# Graduates

# Students

Grad Rate

# Graduates

# Students

Grad Rate

# Graduates

# Students

Grad Rate

76 94 80.85 91 116 78.45 92 107 85.98 73 97 75.261 3 33.33 2 2 100.00 3 5 60.00 3 3 100.000 0 0.00 1 1 100.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.000 0 0.00 2 2 100.00 0 0 0.00 1 1 100.00

31 34 91.18 42 52 80.77 40 47 85.11 30 35 85.710 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.00

38 50 76.00 43 56 76.79 43 48 89.58 34 50 68.006 7 85.71 1 3 33.33 6 7 85.71 5 7 71.438 13 61.54 10 16 62.50 10 15 66.67 2 7 28.570 1 0.00 1 1 100.00 1 2 50.00 1 2 50.00

44 55 80.00 54 73 73.97 46 57 80.70 35 48 72.92Table 4.2: Four-Year Cohort Dropout Rate

Subgroup

All Students

2011-2012 2012-2013

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

All Students 25 201 12.44 40 213 18.78

Hispanic/Latino of any race 2 8 25.00 0 5 0.00

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.00

Asian 0 0 0.00 0 3 0.00

Black or African American 8 81 9.88 12 87 13.79

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0.00 1 1 100.00

White 13 98 13.27 24 106 22.64

Two or more races 2 14 14.29 3 10 30.00


Limited English Proficient (LEP) 2 3 66.67 1 3 33.33



Male Female2011-2012 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

# Dropouts

# Students

Dropout Rate

14 94 14.89 20 116 17.24 11 107 10.28 20 97 20.621 3 33.33 0 2 0.00 1 5 20.00 0 3 0.000 0 0.00 0 1 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.000 0 0.00 0 2 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.003 34 8.82 8 52 15.38 5 47 10.64 4 35 11.430 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 1 100.009 50 18.00 11 56 19.64 4 48 8.33 13 50 26.001 7 14.29 1 3 33.33 1 7 14.29 2 7 28.573 13 23.08 2 16 12.50 1 15 6.67 2 7 28.571 1 100.00 0 1 0.00 1 2 50.00 1 2 50.008 55 14.55 15 73 20.55 8 57 14.04 11 48 22.92

1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.a. The Special Education subgroup continues to have a low graduation rate and

high dropout rate. The graduation rates for Special Education (52.17%) and White students

(72.64%) are the two lowest. The dropout rate for Special education females increased by 21.9 percentage

points.b. The overall student graduation rate decreased by 6.58% and the overall dropout

rate increased by 6.34%, therefore Somerset County did not meet the graduation/dropout rate.

White students and Special Education students have the highest dropout rates.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. (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 explain the source of the funding as restricted or unrestricted. If the source is restricted IDEA, Title I or ARRA funding – include the CFDA number, grant name, and the attributable funds. Otherwise, identify the source as unrestricted and include attributable funds.)

Provide School Counselor developed individual learning plans for students at risk of not graduating.

Provide case management by Learning Support staff for students at risk of dropping out.

Implement the revised discipline policy (600-17), which provides guidance in strategies to keep students engaged.


Implement the Tiers of Interventions & Disciplinary Response Matrix (600-17 Administrative Procedures), which provides strategies for all staff to prevent and redirect negative behavior.

Continue the Somerset Promise Academy with core area teachers to assist students with barriers to academic success.

Continue Summer School for middle and high school students to follow a remediation format in math and reading.

Maintain Instructional Facilitators to support technology integration in instruction at each high school and middle school.

Maintain Central Office Instructional staff- Supervisor of Secondary Math/Science/Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, (STEM), a Supervisor of Instructional Programs and an additional Supervisor of Special Education.

Continue data meetings in which teachers using the Classroom Focused Improvement Process, (CFIP), use data to modify instruction and identify student weaknesses.

Continue After-School Professional Development, (APD), at the secondary level on a weekly basis (75 minutes).

Continue Bridge Project remediation at both high schools. Maintain extended contract for Bridge Coordinator. Maintain Reading and Math intervention teachers at Somerset Intermediate

School. Pilot a Math intervention program (Math 180), at one of our high schools. Continue Read 180 at the 2 high schools and implement at the middle school. Conduct a school climate survey with students and parents in grades 3-12 and

all staff through a partnership with Johns Hopkins University through the Maryland Safe Schools Grant (grant administered by MSDE).

Training was provided to both high schools through the Maryland Safe Schools Grant (MDS3) to increase capacity of the staff to engage our students.

Maintain the PBIS program at each school to improve school climate and encourage positive behavior.

Encourage Special Education teachers to continue inviting students to the IEP meetings to discuss transition goals and the resources needed to achieve those goals.

Implement Naviance, a web-based College and Career Readiness program for grades 6-12.

ADJUSTMENTS AND TIMELINE RESOURCESMaintain 3 full-time Supervisors


Staffing

Salary & Wages (Unrestricted)Maintain Learning Support Staff Staffing


ADJUSTMENTS AND TIMELINE RESOURCESTimeline: July 2014- June 2015 Salary & Wages (Unrestricted)Continue APD at secondary schools.



Salary & Wages (Unrestricted)Maintain Somerset Promise Academy Staff


Staffing

Salary & Wages (Unrestricted)Continue Read 180

Timeline: August 2014- June 2015

Core Program

UnrestrictedMaintain contract for Bridge Coordinator

Timeline: August 2013-June2014

Staffing

Salary & Wages (Unrestricted)Climate Survey (partners with MDS3 grant)


Survey

RTTT (Restricted)Continue the PBIS program at each school

Timeline: August 2014- June 2015

Core Program

RTTT (Restricted)


Adjustments:

Will continue After-School Professional Development (APD) at the middle and high schools on a weekly basis (75 minutes). Instructional Supervisors will assume leadership in providing district-wide and content area professional development twice a month to increase effectiveness of APD.

Content Area Leaders have been identified at each middle and high school, and will be paid a stipend to assume leadership to assist with coordinating APD at the middle and high schools. This will help ensure that APD sessions are connected to school improvement goals, as well as district-wide goals.

Continue the implementation of Naviance, a web-based College and Career Readiness program. Training will be provided this year to middle and high school teachers to be used in daily lessons to expand the student usage of the program. School Counselors and Learning Support Specialists will continue to teach Naviance lessons. This program was started in January 2014, so we are still in the early implementation stages.

Pilot Math 180 program at one of our high schools. If it is successful we will expand to the other high school. Effectiveness of the reading and math intervention program last year was impacted due to scheduling constraints. Additional training will be provided to teachers.


Maintain the PBIS program at each school to improve school climate and encourage positive behavior. It is expected that the impact of PBIS takes at least three to five years to manifest. Monthly data analysis will help to ensure that the strategies are helping to positively impact the climate and culture of each school.

New Strategies: Implement the revised discipline policy (600-17), which provides guidance in

strategies to keep students engaged Implement the Tiers of Interventions & Disciplinary Response Matrix (600-17

Administrative Procedures). The matrix identifies strategies for teachers to implement in their classrooms to prevent disciplinary referrals. This will assist in keeping students engaged and increasing graduation rates. Training has been provided to administrators and teachers.
