school plan for student achievement template - local ... · 6/9/2020 · school plan for student...

School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) of 37 Fairmeadow Elementary School

School Year: 2020-21

SPSA Title Page

School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) Template Instructions and requirements for completing the SPSA template may be found in the SPSA Template Instructions.

School Name Fairmeadow Elementary School

County-District-School (CDS) Code

43-69641-6048268

Schoolsite Council (SSC) Approval Date

May 12, 2020

Local Board Approval Date

Purpose and Description Briefly describe the purpose of this plan (Select from Schoolwide Program, Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Targeted Support and Improvement, or Additional Targeted Support and Improvement) X Schoolwide Program

Briefly describe the school’s plan for effectively meeting the ESSA requirements in alignment with the Local Control and Accountability Plan and other federal, state, and local programs. The School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is meant to consolidate all school-level planning efforts into one plan for programs funded through the consolidated application (ConApp), pursuant to the California Education Code (EC) Section 64001 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The purpose of the SPSA is to


increase the overall effectiveness of the school program by crafting a strategic plan that maximizes the resources available to the school while minimizing duplication of effort with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement.The School Site Council (SSC) is required to develop and annually review the SPSA, establish an annual budget, and make modifications in the plan to reflect changing needs and priorities, as applicable, pursuant to EC 52853(b) and 52855. California’s ESSA State Plan significantly shifts the state’s approach to the utilization of federal resources in support of underserved student groups. The SPSA provides schools with the opportunity to document their approach to maximizing the impact of federal investments in support of underserved students. The implementation of ESSA in California presents an opportunity for schools to innovate with their federally-funded programs and align them with the priority goals of the school and the LEA that are being realized under the state’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF provides schools and LEAs flexibility to design programs and provide services that meet the needs of students in order to achieve readiness for college, career, and lifelong learning. The SPSA planning process supports continuous cycles of action, reflection, and improvement.


Table of Contents

SPSA Title Page ...............................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Description ...................................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................................3

Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................................................................................3

School and Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................4

Student Enrollment ....................................................................................................................................4

CAASPP Results .......................................................................................................................................6

ELPAC Results .......................................................................................................................................10

Student Population ..................................................................................................................................13

Overall Performance ...............................................................................................................................14

Academic Performance ...........................................................................................................................15

Academic Engagement ...........................................................................................................................20

Conditions & Climate ...............................................................................................................................22

Goals, Strategies, & Proposed Expenditures ..................................................................................................24

Goal 1 ......................................................................................................................................................24

Goal 2 ......................................................................................................................................................27

Goal 3 ......................................................................................................................................................30

Goal 4 ......................................................................................................................................................32

Budget Summary ............................................................................................................................................35

Budget Summary ....................................................................................................................................35

Other Federal, State, and Local Funds ...................................................................................................35

School Site Council Membership ....................................................................................................................36

Recommendations and Assurances ...............................................................................................................37

Stakeholder Involvement How, when, and with whom did the school consult as part of the planning process for this SPSA/Annual Review and Update? Involvement Process for the SPSA and Annual Review and Update The process for developing the SPSA involved the Fairmeadow School Site Council and Fairmeadow Staff. The framework for the plan was shared in February and May 2020 and the completed plan was due in May 2020. Principal communication and updates to all Fairmeadow staff and community members regarding School Site Council meetings were communicated via Principal newsletters. Also, solicitations for attendance and stakeholder input were sent out to the school community prior to School Site Council meetings.


School and Student Performance Data

Student Enrollment Enrollment By Student Group

Student Enrollment by Subgroup

Percent of Enrollment Number of Students Student Group

16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

American Indian % % %

African American 1.8% 1.71% 1.8% 9 8 8

Asian 37.7% 39.66% 42.02% 187 186 187

Filipino 0.6% 0.85% 0.9% 3 4 4

Hispanic/Latino 10.7% 11.30% 8.99% 53 53 40

Pacific Islander 1.2% 1.07% 1.35% 6 5 6

White 39.9% 35.61% 34.16% 198 167 152

Multiple/No Response % % %

Total Enrollment 496 469 445

Student Enrollment Enrollment By Grade Level

Student Enrollment by Grade Level

Number of Students Grade

16-17 17-18 18-19

Kindergarten 66 57 69

Grade 1 66 66 66

Grade 2 80 71 66

Grade3 92 86 68

Grade 4 96 96 80

Grade 5 96 93 96

Total Enrollment 496 469 445 Conclusions based on this data: 1. There is declining student enrollment.



Student Enrollment English Learner (EL) Enrollment

English Learner (EL) Enrollment

Number of Students Percent of Students Student Group

16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

English Learners 144 114 110 29.0% 24.3% 24.7%

Fluent English Proficient (FEP) 98 113 109 19.8% 24.1% 24.5%

Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)

20 24 12 25.0% 16.7% 10.5% Conclusions based on this data: 1. English Learner percentage of students overall remains unchanged at 24% the last two years.

2. Fluent English Proficient (FEP) percentage of students overall remains unchanged at 24% the last two years.

3. Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) percentage of students decreased about 6% in the last two years.



CAASPP Results English Language Arts/Literacy (All Students)

Overall Participation for All Students

# of Students Enrolled # of Students Tested # of Students with Scores

% of Enrolled Students Tested

Grade Level 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

Grade 3 91 84 67 87 80 64 87 80 64 95.6 95.2 95.5

Grade 4 96 95 82 91 93 81 91 93 81 94.8 97.9 98.8

Grade 5 96 95 93 91 93 93 91 93 93 94.8 97.9 100 All Grades

283 274 242 269 266 238 269 266 238 95.1 97.1 98.3 * The “% of Enrolled Students Tested” showing in this table is not the same as “Participation Rate” for federal accountability purposes.

Overall Achievement for All Students Mean Scale Score % Standard

Exceeded % Standard Met % Standard Nearly

Met % Standard Not

Met Grade Level 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

Grade 3 2474.6

2494.8

2507.8

44.83 56.25 65.63 26.44 25.00 23.44 18.39 13.75 4.69 10.34 5.00 6.25

Grade 4 2531.8

2517.4

2540.4

50.55 46.24 54.32 26.37 21.51 28.40 15.38 18.28 8.64 7.69 13.98 8.64

Grade 5 2576.6

2561.2

2567.4

52.75 45.16 48.39 27.47 30.11 31.18 13.19 16.13 6.45 6.59 8.60 13.98

All Grades N/A N/A N/A 49.44 48.87 55.04 26.77 25.56 28.15 15.61 16.17 6.72 8.18 9.40 10.08

Reading Demonstrating understanding of literary and non-fictional texts

% Above Standard % At or Near Standard % Below Standard Grade Level

16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 44.83 57.50 67.19 39.08 35.00 23.44 16.09 7.50 9.38

Grade 4 48.35 44.09 53.09 46.15 46.24 39.51 5.49 9.68 7.41

Grade 5 52.75 45.16 52.69 37.36 46.24 37.63 9.89 8.60 9.68

All Grades 48.70 48.50 56.72 40.89 42.86 34.45 10.41 8.65 8.82

Writing Producing clear and purposeful writing % Above Standard % At or Near Standard % Below Standard

Grade Level 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

Grade 3 42.53 47.50 50.00 48.28 43.75 42.19 9.20 8.75 7.81

Grade 4 49.45 43.01 51.85 40.66 41.94 40.74 9.89 15.05 7.41

Grade 5 58.24 52.69 46.24 37.36 36.56 40.86 4.40 10.75 12.90

All Grades 50.19 47.74 49.16 42.01 40.60 41.18 7.81 11.65 9.66


Listening Demonstrating effective communication skills


16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 37.93 50.00 45.31 50.57 47.50 53.13 11.49 2.50 1.56

Grade 4 35.16 38.71 40.74 57.14 50.54 55.56 7.69 10.75 3.70

Grade 5 41.76 37.63 38.71 50.55 54.84 46.24 7.69 7.53 15.05

All Grades 38.29 41.73 41.18 52.79 51.13 51.26 8.92 7.14 7.56

Research/Inquiry Investigating, analyzing, and presenting information


16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 36.78 43.75 53.13 47.13 50.00 42.19 16.09 6.25 4.69

Grade 4 46.15 39.78 45.68 46.15 45.16 46.91 7.69 15.05 7.41

Grade 5 56.04 51.61 46.24 36.26 37.63 38.71 7.69 10.75 15.05

All Grades 46.47 45.11 47.90 43.12 43.98 42.44 10.41 10.90 9.66 Conclusions based on this data: 1. In the 2018-19 school year, 90% or more of Fairmeadow students were at or near standard or above standard in

the English Language Arts sub test areas of Reading, Writing, Listening, and Research. This is a 2% increase in percentage.

2. Instruction of English Language Arts at Fairmeadow is supporting a significant majority of Fairmeadow students to have them meet or exceed grade level benchmark. Our intervention efforts need to target the small student groups of students per grade level not achieving grade level benchmark in reading and writing specifically. Our Intervention TOSA and Reading Specialist target support for students reading below grade level benchmark and our EL Specialist targets supports for academic language use for English Language Learning students in and out of the classroom.



CAASPP Results Mathematics (All Students)

Overall Participation for All Students

# of Students Enrolled # of Students Tested # of Students with Scores

% of Enrolled Students Tested

Grade Level 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

Grade 3 91 84 67 90 84 64 90 84 64 98.9 100 95.5

Grade 4 96 95 82 95 95 82 95 95 82 99 100 100

Grade 5 96 95 93 95 94 93 95 94 93 99 98.9 100 All Grades

283 274 242 280 273 239 280 273 239 98.9 99.6 98.8 * The “% of Enrolled Students Tested” showing in this table is not the same as “Participation Rate” for federal accountability purposes.

Overall Achievement for All Students

Mean Scale Score % Standard Exceeded

% Standard Met % Standard Nearly Met

% Standard Not Met

Grade Level 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19

Grade 3 2496.9

2522.2

2528.4

56.67 65.48 68.75 26.67 23.81 25.00 8.89 5.95 1.56 7.78 4.76 4.69

Grade 4 2549.7

2553.0

2559.8

52.63 60.00 63.41 28.42 21.05 21.95 14.74 13.68 9.76 4.21 5.26 4.88

Grade 5 2588.0

2596.7

2587.1

60.00 61.70 60.22 16.84 19.15 12.90 16.84 13.83 21.51 6.32 5.32 5.38

All Grades N/A N/A N/A 56.43 62.27 63.60 23.93 21.25 19.25 13.57 11.36 12.13 6.07 5.13 5.02

Concepts & Procedures Applying mathematical concepts and procedures


16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 68.89 77.38 82.81 20.00 16.67 12.50 11.11 5.95 4.69

Grade 4 67.37 73.68 81.71 27.37 15.79 10.98 5.26 10.53 7.32

Grade 5 65.26 69.15 63.44 21.05 20.21 24.73 13.68 10.64 11.83

All Grades 67.14 73.26 74.90 22.86 17.58 16.74 10.00 9.16 8.37

Problem Solving & Modeling/Data Analysis Using appropriate tools and strategies to solve real world and mathematical problems


16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 65.56 69.05 68.75 25.56 26.19 28.13 8.89 4.76 3.13

Grade 4 57.89 67.37 57.32 34.74 24.21 34.15 7.37 8.42 8.54

Grade 5 57.89 59.57 52.69 34.74 31.91 36.56 7.37 8.51 10.75

All Grades 60.36 65.20 58.58 31.79 27.47 33.47 7.86 7.33 7.95


Communicating Reasoning Demonstrating ability to support mathematical conclusions


16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 3 58.89 71.43 76.56 28.89 23.81 21.88 12.22 4.76 1.56

Grade 4 60.00 57.89 65.85 33.68 31.58 28.05 6.32 10.53 6.10

Grade 5 56.84 56.38 54.84 33.68 39.36 37.63 9.47 4.26 7.53

All Grades 58.57 61.54 64.44 32.14 31.87 30.13 9.29 6.59 5.44 Conclusions based on this data: 1. For the 2018-19 school year, 91% or more of Fairmeadow students were at or near standard or above standard in

the mathematics sub tests of Concepts and Procedures, Problem Solving and Modeling Data/Analysis, and Communicating Reasoning.

2. Fairmeadow students in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades are achieving at very similar levels across the sub categories of communicating reasoning, problem solving and modeling/data analysis, and concepts and procedures. This suggests that mathematics instruction is providing an appropriate balance of emphasis between these sub categories.

3. 12% of Fairmeadow students fall into the overall standard nearly met category, indicating a group of students close to standard who will benefit from targeted mathematics instruction to address assessed learning needs in specific areas of mathematics. 10-15% of students in grades 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades receive targeted Tier 2 mathematics intervention as a part of our after school math intervention program this year.



ELPAC Results

ELPAC Summative Assessment Data Number of Students and Mean Scale Scores for All Students

Overall Oral Language Written Language Number of Students Tested Grade

Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

Grade K 1487.6 1445.6 1480.7 1454.0 1503.5 1425.8 15 21

Grade 1 1507.6 1525.8 1492.6 1507.1 1521.9 1544.1 25 17

Grade 2 1562.3 1538.5 1561.1 1512.0 1563.0 1564.5 17 18

Grade 3 1523.2 * 1525.5 * 1520.4 * 20 7

Grade 4 1540.7 1536.5 1540.4 1531.1 1540.5 1541.4 17 11

Grade 5 * * * * * * * 9

All Grades 104 83

Overall Language Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level for All Students

Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Total Number of Students Grade

Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 93.33 23.81 57.14 14.29 * 4.76 15 21

1 88.00 52.94 * 47.06 * 0.00 * 0.00 25 17

2 88.24 50.00 * 27.78 * 16.67 5.56 17 18

3 * * * * * * * * 20 *

4 * 63.64 * 18.18 * 9.09 9.09 17 11

5 * * * * * * * *

All Grades 72.12 44.58 18.27 38.55 * 12.05 * 4.82 104 83

Oral Language Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level for All Students


Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 93.33 33.33 52.38 9.52 * 4.76 15 21

1 88.00 64.71 * 29.41 * 5.88 * 0.00 25 17

2 94.12 66.67 5.56 22.22 * 5.56 17 18

3 70.00 * * * * * * * 20 *

4 64.71 72.73 * 9.09 * 0.00 18.18 17 11

5 * * * * * * * *

All Grades 82.69 59.04 * 25.30 * 9.64 * 6.02 104 83


Written Language Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level for All Students


Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 86.67 9.52 * 61.90 * 23.81 4.76 15 21

1 88.00 41.18 * 58.82 0.00 * 0.00 25 17

2 76.47 44.44 * 33.33 * 16.67 * 5.56 17 18

3 * * * * * * * * 20 *

4 * 36.36 * 45.45 * 9.09 * 9.09 17 11

5 * * * * * * * * *

All Grades 57.69 31.33 25.00 45.78 * 18.07 * 4.82 104 83

Listening Domain Percentage of Students by Domain Performance Level for All Students

Well Developed Somewhat/Moderately Beginning Total Number of Students Grade

Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 93.33 38.10 * 57.14 4.76 15 21

1 92.00 82.35 * 17.65 * 0.00 25 17

2 94.12 72.22 * 16.67 11.11 17 18

3 60.00 * * * * * 20 *

4 64.71 63.64 * 18.18 * 18.18 17 11

All Grades 81.73 55.42 14.42 36.14 * 8.43 104 83

Speaking Domain Percentage of Students by Domain Performance Level for All Students


Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 73.33 23.81 * 71.43 * 4.76 15 21

1 76.00 35.29 * 64.71 * 0.00 25 17

2 94.12 38.89 55.56 * 5.56 17 18

3 75.00 * * * * * 20 *

4 * 63.64 * 18.18 18.18 17 11

All Grades 75.96 46.99 18.27 46.99 * 6.02 104 83


Reading Domain Percentage of Students by Domain Performance Level for All Students


Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 73.33 0.00 * 95.24 4.76 15 21

1 88.00 58.82 * 41.18 * 0.00 25 17

2 82.35 55.56 * 33.33 * 11.11 17 18

3 * * 55.00 * * * 20 *

4 * 27.27 * 63.64 * 9.09 17 11

5 * * * * * * * *

All Grades 58.65 32.53 29.81 60.24 11.54 7.23 104 83

Writing Domain Percentage of Students by Domain Performance Level for All Students


Level 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19 17-18 18-19

K 86.67 61.90 * 33.33 4.76 15 21

1 60.00 47.06 * 52.94 * 0.00 25 17

2 64.71 38.89 * 50.00 * 11.11 17 18

3 * * 55.00 * * * 20 *

4 * 54.55 * 36.36 * 9.09 17 11

All Grades 54.81 48.19 40.38 45.78 * 6.02 104 83

Conclusions based on this data: 1. Total number of students assessed decreased from 104 to 83.



Student Population This section provides information about the school’s student population.

2018-19 Student Population

Total Enrollment

445 This is the total number of students enrolled.

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

8.8 This is the percent of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.

English Learners

24.7 This is the percent of students who are learning to communicate effectively in English, typically requiring instruction in both the English Language and in their academic courses.

Foster Youth

This is the percent of students whose well-being is the responsibility of a court.

2018-19 Enrollment for All Students/Student Group

Student Group Total Percentage

English Learners 110 24.7

Homeless 2 0.4

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 39 8.8

Students with Disabilities 40 9.0

Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity

Student Group Total Percentage

African American 8 1.8

Asian 187 42.0

Filipino 4 0.9

Hispanic 40 9.0

Two or More Races 48 10.8

Pacific Islander 6 1.3

White 152 34.2 Conclusions based on this data: 1. Information from 2018-19 school year.



Overall Performance

2019 Fall Dashboard Overall Performance for All Students

Academic Performance

English Language Arts

Blue

Mathematics

Green

Academic Engagement

Chronic Absenteeism

Orange

Conditions & Climate

Suspension Rate

Blue

Conclusions based on this data: 1. This is reflective of the 2018-19 school year. Fairmeadow's academic performance in ELA and Math remains

consistently in the GREEN or BLUE levels. 2. This is reflective of the 2018-19 school year. Fairmeadow's Chronic Absenteeism is at the orange level. This is an

area that needs to be addressed in the upcoming school year since it is in the ORANGE level overall. 3. This is reflective of the 2018-19 school year. Fairmeadow's Suspension Rate is now in the blue level overall, which

is an improvement from previous year. We will keep this as a goal to address the student group categorized in the ORANGE level.



Academic Performance English Language Arts

The performance levels are color-coded and range from lowest-to-highest performance in the following order: Lowest Performance

Red

Orange

Yellow

Green

Blue

Highest Performance

This section provides number of student groups in each color.

2019 Fall Dashboard English Language Arts Equity Report

Red

0 Orange

0 Yellow

0 Green

0 Blue

3 This section provides a view of Student Assessment Results and other aspects of this school’s performance, specifically how well students are meeting grade-level standards on the English Language Arts assessment. This measure is based on student performance on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment, which is taken annually by students in grades 3–8 and grade 11.

2019 Fall Dashboard English Language Arts Performance for All Students/Student Group

All Students

Blue

66.9 points above standard

Increased ++12.2 points

234

English Learners

Blue


Increased Significantly

++27.3 points 81

Foster Youth

No Performance Color

0 Students

Homeless


Less than 11 Students - Data Not Displayed for Privacy

1




Increased Significantly ++36 points

22

Students with Disabilities


25.7 points below standard

Maintained -0.1 points

19


2019 Fall Dashboard English Language Arts Performance by Race/Ethnicity

African American



4

American Indian


0 Students

Asian

Blue



++15.4 points 93

Filipino



3

Hispanic




23

Two or More Races



Maintained ++1 points

27

Pacific Islander



4

White

Blue



80

This section provides a view of Student Assessment Results and other aspects of this school’s performance, specifically how well students are meeting grade-level standards on the English Language Arts assessment. This measure is based on student performance on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment, which is taken annually by students in grades 3–8 and grade 11.

2019 Fall Dashboard English Language Arts Data Comparisons for English Learners

Current English Learner

17.4 points below standard


23

Reclassified English Learners



++16.3 points 58

English Only



118

Conclusions based on this data: 1. Both All Students and English Learners are in the BLUE categories.

2. There are no student groups in the RED, ORANGE, or YELLOW categories in the 2018-19 school year.



Academic Performance Mathematics


Red

Orange

Yellow

Green

Blue

Highest Performance


2019 Fall Dashboard Mathematics Equity Report

Red

0 Orange

0 Yellow

0 Green

1 Blue

2 This section provides a view of Student Assessment Results and other aspects of this school’s performance, specifically how well students are meeting grade-level standards on the Mathematics assessment. This measure is based on student performance on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment, which is taken annually by students in grades 3–8 and grade 11.

2019 Fall Dashboard Mathematics Performance for All Students/Student Group

All Students

Green


Declined -3.7 points

234

English Learners

Blue



81

Foster Youth

Homeless



1



27 points above standard


22





19


2019 Fall Dashboard Mathematics Performance by Race/Ethnicity

African American



4

American Indian Asian

Blue



93

Filipino



3

Hispanic




23

Two or More Races




27

Pacific Islander



4

White

Green


Declined -5 points

80

This section provides a view of Student Assessment Results and other aspects of this school’s performance, specifically how well students are meeting grade-level standards on the Mathematics assessment. This measure is based on student performance on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment, which is taken annually by students in grades 3–8 and grade 11.

2019 Fall Dashboard Mathematics Data Comparisons for English Learners

Current English Learner



23

Reclassified English Learners



58

English Only



118

Conclusions based on this data: 1. All Students are at the GREEN level. English Learners are at the BLUE level.

2. No student groups are in the RED, ORANGE, or YELLOW levels.



Academic Performance English Learner Progress

This section provides a view of the percentage of current EL students making progress towards English language proficiency or maintaining the highest level.

2019 Fall Dashboard English Learner Progress Indicator

English Learner Progress


65.5 making progress towards English language proficiency

Number of EL Students: 55

Performance Level: Very High

This section provides a view of the percentage of current EL students who progressed at least one ELPI level, maintained ELPI level 4, maintained lower ELPI levels (i.e, levels 1, 2L, 2H, 3L, or 3H), or decreased at least one ELPI Level.

2019 Fall Dashboard Student English Language Acquisition Results

Decreased One ELPI Level

11

Maintained ELPI Level 1, 2L, 2H, 3L, or 3H

8

Maintained ELPI Level 4

19

Progressed At Least One ELPI Level

17

Conclusions based on this data: 1. Information is from the 2018-19 school year. 17% of English Learners Progressed at least one ELPI Level, 19%

maintained their ELPI Level 4, and 8% maintained their ELPI Level 1, 2L, 2H, 3L, or 3H. 2. Information is from the 2018-19 school year. 11% of English Learners decreased one ELPI Level.



Academic Engagement Chronic Absenteeism


Red

Orange

Yellow

Green

Blue

Highest Performance


2019 Fall Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism Equity Report

Red 0

Orange 3

Yellow 1

Green 3

Blue 0

This section provides information about the percentage of students in kindergarten through grade 8 who are absent 10 percent or more of the instructional days they were enrolled.

2019 Fall Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism for All Students/Student Group

All Students

Orange

6

Increased +1.9

463

English Learners

Green

3.4

Declined -3.3

117

Foster Youth



0

Homeless



2


Orange

14.6

Increased +9

48


Green

7.1

Declined -7.1

42


2019 Fall Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism by Race/Ethnicity

African American



8

American Indian



0

Asian

Yellow

3.6

Increased +1.5

197

Filipino



4

Hispanic

Orange

20

Increased +7

40

Two or More Races

Green

4.2

Declined -6.5

48

Pacific Islander



6

White

Orange

5.6

Increased Significantly +3.8

160

Conclusions based on this data: 1. In the 2018-19 school year, All Students are at the ORANGE level.

2. In the 2018-19 school year, the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, Hispanic, and White student groups are at the ORANGE level.

3. In the 2018-19 school year, the Asian student group is at the YELLOW level.



Conditions & Climate Suspension Rate


Red

Orange

Yellow

Green

Blue

Highest Performance


2019 Fall Dashboard Suspension Rate Equity Report

Red

0 Orange

1 Yellow

0 Green

2 Blue

4 This section provides information about the percentage of students in kindergarten through grade 12 who have been suspended at least once in a given school year. Students who are suspended multiple times are only counted once.

2019 Fall Dashboard Suspension Rate for All Students/Student Group

All Students

Blue 0.6

Declined Significantly -1.2

470

English Learners

Blue

0

Declined -3.3

120

Foster Youth

Homeless



2


Green

2

Declined -3.5

49


Orange

4.7

Maintained 0

43


2019 Fall Dashboard Suspension Rate by Race/Ethnicity

African American



8

American Indian Asian

Blue

0

Declined -0.5

201

Filipino



4

Hispanic

Blue

0

Declined -7.4

40

Two or More Races

Blue

0

Maintained 0

49

Pacific Islander



6

White

Green

1.2

Declined Significantly -1.2

162

This section provides a view of the percentage of students who were suspended.

2019 Fall Dashboard Suspension Rate by Year

2017 2018

1.9

2019

0.6

Conclusions based on this data: 1. The number of suspensions decreased from 2017-18 to 2018-19 school year.

2. The Students with Disabilities group is in the ORANGE level for the 2018-19 school year.


Goals, Strategies, & Proposed Expenditures Complete a copy of the following table for each of the school’s goals. Duplicate the table as needed. Goal Subject English Language Arts-Writing

LEA/LCAP Goal High Quality Teaching and Learning

Goal 1 We will maintain or exceed the goal of having 90% of Fairmeadow K-2nd grade students will make one year's growth and/or meet grade level benchmark in writing as measured by the Informational Writing Assessments, from Fall 2020 to Spring 2021 (This metric may be adjusted contingent on the conditions of teaching and learning during the 2020-21 school year). We will maintain or exceed the goal of having 90% of Fairmeadow 3rd through 5th grade students score in the ‘at or near standard’ or ‘above standard’ range in the CAASPP ELA Writing section CAASPP 2019 to CAASPP 2021 (State suspended CAASPP 2020).

Identified Need Given the changes that will be required due to Covid-19 safety precautions, maintaining overall student achievement levels on ELA-writing will be a significant accomplishment.

Annual Measurable Outcomes Metric/Indicator Baseline/Actual Outcome Expected Outcome

Analysis of grades K-2 on-demand informational writing assessments at the start (BOY) and end of year (EOY). CAASPP ELA, Writing Section data for 3rd through 5th grade students.

For grades K-2, in the fall of 2020, student scores from the writing calibration will be reported and compared to Spring of 2021.(This metric may be adjusted contingent on the conditions of teaching and learning during the 2020-21 school year).

We will maintain or exceed the goal of having 90% of Fairmeadow K-2nd grade students will make one year's growth and/or meet grade level benchmark in writing as measured by the Informational Writing Assessments, from fall 2020 to spring 2021.


Metric/Indicator Baseline/Actual Outcome Expected Outcome

As shown in the 2018-19 CAASPP ELA: Writing results, 90.34% of grades 3 through 5th are "Above" or "At or Near Standard". This is an increase of students at the "Above or "At or Near Standard" during the 2017-18 school year.

We will maintain or exceed the goal of having 90% of Fairmeadow 3rd through 5th grade students score in the ‘at or near standard’ or ‘above standard’ range in the CAASPP ELA Writing section.

Complete a copy of the Strategy/Activity table for each of the school’s strategies/activities. Duplicate the table, including Proposed Expenditures, as needed.

Strategies/Actions to Reach this goal:

Who is responsible for facilitation of this strategy/action item:

Monitoring Implementation Data/evidence we will collect to ensure that this

strategy/action is being implemented: Implementation of the Lucy Calkins Units of Study in Writing in all grade levels following our School-wide Workshop Commitments for implementation.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, Literacy TOSA/Specialist

Staff meeting notes and agendas Teacher professional development plans Grade level meeting notes and agendas School-wide agreements regarding Units of Study implementation in all classrooms

Grade level meetings and grade level release days provided to analyze student work and to plan Units of Study in writing.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, Literacy TOSA/Specialist

Grade level meetings and release day agendas and notes Student samples of work

Partner with district Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) team to support innovative instructional practice across the curriculum.

Principal, TOSAs, Classroom Teachers Teacher attendance and scheduling of meetings with TOSAs

Calibrate and score beginning of the year (BOY) informational writing assessments and end of the year (EOY) informational writing assessments with grade level colleagues.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, District TOSA Team Student writing samples and calendared writing Collaboration dates at the beginning and end of the school year

Grade Level Teams map out the Units of Study in Writing for the course of the year with grade level colleagues. Writing Unit Maps are revisited at all grade level meetings to monitor implementation.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, Literacy TOSA Team

Grade level meeting agendas and notes Lesson plans

Students use checklists and/or Learning Progression Rubric to self-monitor progress as writers.

Classroom Teachers Writing checklists for student use Learning Progressions for student use Student samples to be discussed throughout the year and discussed at grade level meetings





strategy/action is being implemented: Introduce Lucy Calkins Phonics program in all classrooms in grades K-2.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, Literacy TOSA Team

Teacher attendance in Lucy Calkins Phonics summer trainings and Professional Development throughout the school year, as available


Goals, Strategies, & Proposed Expenditures Complete a copy of the following table for each of the school’s goals. Duplicate the table as needed. Goal Subject Equity and Access-Reading

LEA/LCAP Goal Equity and Access

Goal 2 Elementary Principals will continue to work as a high-functioning professional learning community (PLC) where principals collaborate around standards-aligned, student data-driven teaching and learning best practices in reading to ensure Historically Underrepresented Students meet grade level reading benchmark commensurate with their advantaged peers.

Identified Need Historically Underrepresented Groups meet grade level reading benchmark commensurate with their advantaged peers.


PAUSD BAS Reading Assessment Beginning of Year, Mid Year and End-of-Year

By end of year, Underrepresented Fairmeadow students in the cohort who have not been identified to receive Tier 3 intervention, will increase a minimum of one year's growth based upon the BAS expected time frames in reading by Spring 2021.

Underrepresented Fairmeadow students in the cohort who have not been identified to receive Tier 3 intervention, will increase minimum of one year's growth based upon the BAS expected time frames in reading by Spring 2021. Students who are not reading at the End of Year Benchmark, will be identified and receive Tier 2 intervention in reading to specifically



address areas of need to increase reading proficiency.





strategy/action is being implemented: Time allotted at Principal Meetings to discuss, plan and implement PLC action items.

Elementary Principals, Associate Superintendent of Student Services, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education, Assistant Superintendent of Student Affairs

Elementary Principal Meeting agendas PLC Agendas Data collection

We will conduct cycles of improvement to focus on closing achievement gaps and elevating academic performance.


Elementary Principal Meeting agendas PLC agendas Data collection

Analyze data (MTSS forms, BAS and ELPAC), progress monitoring, and identify students that have mastered specific learning targets to inform best practices.

Principal, Classroom Teachers, Reading Specialist, Literacy TOSA


Classroom teachers design instruction catered to meet the assessed reading needs of each learner, delivered in the small group setting.

Classroom Teachers, Principal Principal observations of small group instruction in classrooms Specialist team meeting notes on student progress from Tier 1 interventions BAS assessment data by class

Use of Raz-Kids, Learning A-Z, Leveled Literacy Intervention, and Leveled Readers for small group instruction.

Classroom Teachers, Reading Specialist, Principal Principal observation of classroom instruction Agendas for Staff Development Days, Staff Meetings, and Grade Level Meetings Frequency of technology use by classroom and grade level

Partner with Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) team to support innovative instructional practice across the curriculum, including support of Reading Workshop and reading intervention.

Principal, Literacy TOSAs, Leadership Team, Classroom Teachers

Monthly Fairmeadow Leadership Team agendas and minutes Monthly Fairmeadow TOSA team calendar





strategy/action is being implemented: Provide targeted Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions using student data to prioritize needs.

Principal, Specialist Team, Classroom Teachers, Intervention TOSA

Specialist team meeting agendas and minutes RTI Monitoring Tool Fairmeadow Response to Intervention data tracking form Kid by Kid meeting notes Intervention TOSA schedule

Collaborate across elementary school sites to determine high leverage instructional practices:

• Instructional Rounds • Digital Walkthroughs • Implementation of Instructional Best

Practices • Read articles and participate in Teacher's

College Webinars



Grade level teams engage in protocols to discuss struggling students and to work together strategically to address student needs.

Principal, Leadership Team, Classroom Teachers, Reading Intervention Teacher

Leadership team meeting agendas and notes Grade level team meeting agendas and notes

Teachers create appropriate, flexible student reading groups using BAS assessment data and teacher observation.

Classroom Teachers, Reading Intervention Teacher BAS assessments three times per year Teacher anecdotal notes Teacher reflection on Professional Development Plan goal process

Provide targeted Tier 2 intervention for students K-5 reading below grade level benchmark utilizing research based intervention curriculum/strategies including Reading Recovery and Leveled Literacy Intervention.

Principal, Reading Specialist, Intervention TOSA, Specialist Team

Specialist Team Meeting notes and agendas RTI Monitoring Tool Reading Specialist Schedule Intervention TOSA Schedule

Analyze FAR Screener to identify students needing a multi-sensory approach to teaching reading.

Elementary Principals, School Psychologists, Reading Specialists, EL Specialist and Classroom Teachers

Reading data FAR Screener Tier 2 intervention MTSS forms IST and SST Meeting notes.


Goals, Strategies, & Proposed Expenditures Complete a copy of the following table for each of the school’s goals. Duplicate the table as needed. Goal Subject Chronic Absenteeism

LEA/LCAP Goal Wellness and Safety

Goal 3 The percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, White, and Hispanic student groups designated as chronically absent and in the ORANGE category will be reduced by 3% during the 2020-21 school year. Fairmeadow Elementary's Chronic Absenteeism improved in the following student groups for the 2018-19 school year (as indicated at the GREEN level) Students with Disabilities, English Learners, Two or More Races. Fairmeadow Elementary is maintaining this as one of our goals to continue with our attendance efforts. (CA Dashboard metrics for Fall 2020 TBD by CDE in summer 2020).

Identified Need Increase attendance and ensure all students attend school daily.


Chronic Absenteeism rate as defined by absence from school of 10% or more of the school days in the school year as reported by the California School Dashboard.

2018-19 California School Dashboard chronic absenteeism category in ORANGE: Hispanic: 20% chronically absent Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 14.6% White: 5.6%

Reduction in chronic absenteeism rate for students in corresponding categories. CA Dashboard metrics for Fall 2020 TBD by CDE in summer 2020.






strategy/action is being implemented: Attendance information will be shared with parents through the Principal's newsletter and the school website. All information will be provided in English, Spanish, and Mandarin.

Principal Attendance reports and attendance letters to parents generated

Articles and information will be shared periodically with parents through Principal and classroom newsletters.

Principal and Classroom Teachers Articles distributed

Topic will be discussed at a Principal's coffee periodically.

Principal Principal's Coffee agenda

PAUSD Elementary Principals will meet to research and share strategies for reducing chronic absenteeism for various subpopulations within our schools.

Principals Meeting agenda and notes

Principal will send notification letters to families who are showing increased absences.

Principal Attendance reports

Principal will continue to meet with parents and families to find out how to support their child in ensuring their attendance.

Principal Attendance reports


Goals, Strategies, & Proposed Expenditures Complete a copy of the following table for each of the school’s goals. Duplicate the table as needed. Goal Subject Suspension Rate

LEA/LCAP Goal Wellness and Safety

Goal 4 Reduce suspension rates by an average of 2% in the following student group: Students with Disabilities, during the 2020-21 school year compared to the 2018-19 school year as reported and defined in the California Dashboard indicating ORANGE student groups (CA Dashboard metrics for Fall 2020 TBD by CDE in Summer 2020).

Identified Need Reduce the number of students who are suspended by reinforcing problem solving skills and positive expectations.


Suspension rate as defined by suspensions per Ed. Code 48900 from school during the given school year as reported by the California School Dashboard.

2018-19 California School Dashboard suspension rate student category in ORANGE:

Students with Disabilities: 4.7%. This student group had no change from the 2017-18 California School Dashboard suspension rate category in ORANGE.

Reduction in suspension rate by an average of 2% for students in corresponding subgroups, with the exception of the categories in the Mandatory Recommendation for Expulsion per Ed. Code 48915(c) and Discretionary Mandatory Recommendation for Expulsion per Ed. Code 48915 (a)(1).



However, all other student groups showed an improvement and are no longer in the ORANGE or RED categories:


English Language Learners White Hispanic





strategy/action is being implemented: Continue breakfast program, Breakfast Club, to ensure all students have access to a healthy breakfast. This also helps ensure that hunger is not a trigger for behaviors.

Principal, Staff Member The amount of food being ordered An account of how many students come to Breakfast Club on a daily basis

Provide a more structured morning routine by having an 8:30am bell to indicate all students should be inside their classrooms.

Principal Ensuring the bell rings at 8:30 am each morning

Continue to communicate with families about expected behaviors. At the beginning of school year, send home "Behavior Compact" which outlines roles and expectations between home and school.

Principal Classroom Teachers will collect and keep signed

Continue to utilize Family Engagement Specialist (FES) to communicate with families regarding school events and supports available to our students and families.

Principal, FES Continued meetings and conferences with FES

Implement a social skills group to address behavior concerns.

Psychologist, CASSY Therapist, Principal Teacher recommendation Specialists weekly discussions of how to support students and monitoring Once the group has formed, communication between home and school will be provided to give updates on the progress of the social group.





strategy/action is being implemented: School-wide assemblies that focus on expectations and safe behaviors.

Principal, Classroom Teachers

Continue to utilize Responsive Classroom strategies and techniques. Continue to have teachers trained in Responsive Classroom.

Principal, Classroom Teachers Teacher attendance in summer trainings and trainings throughout the school year. Responsive Classroom common vocabulary being utilized.

Implement a Communication Form to be completed between Classroom Teachers and Principal in regards to behaviors and discipline.

Principal, Classroom Teachers Copies of Communication Form

Implement and utilize the Behavior Flow Chart for minor and major offenses for when to send students to the office.

Principal, Classroom Teachers When students miss instructional minutes and are sent to the office for major offenses, this will be documented in a data base.

Annual Review SPSA Year Reviewed: 2018-19 Respond to the following prompts relative to this goal. If the school is in the first year of implementing the goal, an analysis is not required and this section may be deleted. ANALYSIS Describe the overall implementation of the strategies/activities and the overall effectiveness of the strategies/activities to achieve the articulated goal. Incorporated school-wide common language centered around "Safe, Responsible, Respectful" behaviors at school. We also reiterated and practiced Project Cornerstone monthly lessons with students and parents (through community message). Briefly describe any major differences between the intended implementation and/or the budgeted expenditures to implement the strategies/activities to meet the articulated goal. n/a Describe any changes that will be made to this goal, the annual outcomes, metrics, or strategies/activities to achieve this goal as a result of this analysis. Identify where those changes can be found in the SPSA. This metric may be adjusted contingent on the conditions of teaching and learning during the 2020-21 school year


Budget Summary Complete the table below. Schools may include additional information. Adjust the table as needed. The Budget Summary is required for schools funded through the ConApp, and/or that receive funds from the LEA for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI). Budget Summary

Description Amount

Total Funds Provided to the School Through the Consolidated Application $17,195

Total Federal Funds Provided to the School from the LEA for CSI $

Total Funds Budgeted for Strategies to Meet the Goals in the SPSA $

Other Federal, State, and Local Funds List the additional Federal programs that the school is including in the schoolwide program. Adjust the table as needed. If the school is not operating a Title I schoolwide program this section is not applicable and may be deleted. startcollapse

Federal Programs Allocation ($)

Subtotal of additional federal funds included for this school: $ List the State and local programs that the school is including in the schoolwide program. Duplicate the table as needed. startcollapse

State or Local Programs Allocation ($)

Subtotal of state or local funds included for this school: $ Total of federal, state, and/or local funds for this school: $


School Site Council Membership California Education Code describes the required composition of the School Site Council (SSC). The SSC shall be composed of the principal and representatives of: teachers selected by teachers at the school; other school personnel selected by other school personnel at the school; parents of pupils attending the school selected by such parents; and, in secondary schools, pupils selected by pupils attending the school. The current make-up of the SSC is as follows: 1 School Principal 2 Classroom Teachers

1 Other School Staff

4 Parent or Community Members startcollapse

Name of Members Role

Patrick Leong X Parent or Community Member

Nirmala Patni X Parent or Community Member

Karrie Chen X Parent or Community Member

Richa Agarwal X Parent or Community Member

Alicia Gonzales X Other School Staff

Sara McNinch X Classroom Teacher

Penelope Sanders Jones X Classroom Teacher

Iris Wong X Principal At elementary schools, the school site council must be constituted to ensure parity between (a) the principal, classroom teachers, and other school personnel, and (b) parents of students attending the school or other community members. Classroom teachers must comprise a majority of persons represented under section (a). At secondary schools there must be, in addition, equal numbers of parents or other community members selected by parents, and students. Members must be selected by their peer group.


Recommendations and Assurances The School Site Council (SSC) recommends this school plan and proposed expenditures to the district governing board for approval and assures the board of the following: The SSC is correctly constituted and was formed in accordance with district governing board policy and state law. The SSC reviewed its responsibilities under state law and district governing board policies, including those board policies relating to material changes in the School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) requiring board approval. The SSC sought and considered all recommendations from the following groups or committees before adopting this plan:

Signature Committee or Advisory Group Name The SSC reviewed the content requirements for school plans of programs included in this SPSA and believes all such content requirements have been met, including those found in district governing board policies and in the local educational agency plan. This SPSA is based on a thorough analysis of student academic performance. The actions proposed herein form a sound, comprehensive, coordinated plan to reach stated school goals to improve student academic performance. This SPSA was adopted by the SSC at a public meeting on May 12, 2020. Attested:

Principal, Iris Wong on 5/18/2020

SSC Chairperson, Nirmala Patni on 5/21/2020

school plan for student achievement template - local ... · 6/9/2020 · school plan for student...

Documents