The Gorham School Department

Adequate Yearly Progress:
Status Summary Update Report

2010 - 2011

White Rock School
Narragansett School
Village School
Gorham Middle School
Gorham High School

(Submitted and Endorsed, November 17, 2010)

The Gorham School Department Administrative Team

Table of Contents:

Background and Rationale                                Page 2

Current AYP Status Statement of Each School Page 3

AYP Action (School Improvement) Plan for K-5
(Village School, Narragansett School and
White Rock School)                                          Page 5

AYP Action (School Improvement) Plan for 6-8
(Gorham Middle School)                                  Page 12

AYP Action (School Improvement) Plan for 9-12
(Gorham High School)                                     Page 16

The Gorham School Department
Adequate Yearly Progress - Status Summary Update
2010 - 2011

Background and Rationale

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires states to develop plans to reward and sanction schools that receive federal funding under Title 1, the portion of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that aims to improve academic achievement of disadvantaged students.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the term used in the federal ìNo Child Left Behind Actî (NCLB) to describe the amount of academic progress expected of each school each year. The subjects included in AYP calculations are reading and math in grades 3-8 and grade 11.

AYP calculations are based on assessment score data, currently through assessment scores in reading and math on the New England Comprehensive Assessment Program (NECAP) for Grades 3-8 and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) for Grade 11, the state-adopted, standardized testing programs. These assessments measure student progress on Maine's academic standards, referred to as the Maine Learning Results, and most currently, the Parameters for Essential Instruction. NCLB-related testing data is collected by the Maine Department of Education each school year.

In addition to increased testing and accountability, NCLB requires an accountability system in which student test scores are separated into distinct categories, or ìsubgroupsî, to be sure that the students who are most at risk are performing well. The NCLB subgroups include: race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability, and low-income.

The ultimate goal of NCLB is for all students to score ìproficientî or above on state standard tests by the year 2014. Every state is required to develop a system of accountability to move toward this goal, known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as noted previously. The Maine Department of Education uses the NECAP and SAT test scores (previously the MEA (Maine Educational Assessment) scores) each year to rate schools on the AYP track and to determine whether or not schools are impacting the achievement of all students.

If a school does not have the required number of students (as a whole and in each subcategory) meeting or exceeding the standards, as measured by the NECAP or SAT scores, for AYP in any given year, NCLB mandates a series of consequences. There are three categories of identification for individual schools: Making AYP, Monitor status and Continuous Improvement Priority School (CIPS) status.

Schools that are identified as not meeting all AYP targets for the first time are identified as being on ìMonitorî status and are not subject to the federal sanctions applied to Title 1A schools. Schools identified as not meeting all AYP targets for two or more years are referred to as Continuous Improvement Priority (CIPS) Schools. CIPS schools that have a Title 1A program have various obligations under federal law. Schools that don't receive Title 1 funding aren't accountable to No Child Left Behind. Still, the Maine Department of Education expects all public schools to strive to meet educational standards outlined in Maine Learning Results.

Maine's approach to identification of schools is focused on the following key assumptions:

Maine's approach to NCLB and AYP is one of shared accountability.
Accountability requirements must be balanced with support.
Continuous improvement must be a critical component of the culture of all Maine schools.

To this end, all of the schools in Gorham work hard to use data to effectively raise our overall accountability relative to student performance and inform our instructional practices, programs and supportive services in order to facilitate the growth of all of our students.

Current AYP Status Statement of Each School

Narragansett Elementary School's 2010-2011 overall AYP status is identified as Making AYP. It is making AYP in the areas of Reading and Math. 2010 Annual Progress reflects that all learning targets were met. Narragansett's AYP status for 2009-2010 was also identified as Making AYP in the areas of Reading and Math.

White Rock Elementary School's 2010-2011 overall AYP status is identified as Making AYP. It is making AYP in the areas of Reading and Math. 2010 Annual Progress reflects that all learning targets were met. White Rock's AYP status for 2009-2010 was identified as Making AYP in the areas of Reading and Math.

Village Elementary School's 2010-2011 overall AYP status is identified as Monitor. It is on Monitor status in the areas of Reading and Math, as targets were not met for the subgroup, Students with Disabilities. 2010 Annual Progress reflects that all learning targets were met. Village's AYP status for 2009-2010 was also identified as Making AYP in the areas of Reading and Math.

Gorham Middle School's 2010-2011 overall AYP status is identified as CIPS4. It did not make AYP in the area of Reading for the subgroup, Students with Disabilities. Gorham Middle School's Status in this area for 2009-2010 was CIPS3-on hold, as it had made AYP in this area for one year in 2009-10.

In Math, Gorham Middle School was identified as Making AYP for the 2010-2011 year, as all targets were met in 2010 in math through ìSafe Harborî (a designation given to schools that reduce the number of students not meeting proficiency by at least 10%). In 2009-2010, Gorham Middle School was identified as Making AYP in the area of Math.

Gorham High School's 2010-2011 overall AYP status is identified as CIPS4. It did not make AYP in the area of Reading for the Whole Group, as well as the subgroups, Caucasion Students and Economically Disadvantaged Students. Gorham High's School's AYP status for 2009-2010 was identified as CIPS3 in the area of Reading.

In Math, Gorham High School was identified as CIPS1 for the 2010-2011 year, as targets were not met in 2010 in math for the subgroup, students who are Economically Disadvantaged. In 2009-2010, Gorham High School was identified as Monitor Status in the area of Math.

As a side note, it takes two consecutive years of not making AYP to be identified for improvement under NCLB's accountability system. It also takes two consecutive years of making AYP for a school to no longer be identified as needing improvement.

If an identified school makes AYP for one year, it does not proceed to the next level of the improvement process (i.e., offer supplemental services, implement corrective action or restructuring, depending on what level the school was in).

If the school makes AYP for a second consecutive year, it is no longer identified as needing improvement. If the school only makes AYP for one year and then does not make AYP the next, it must continue implementing NCLB's school improvement process.

Consequent to these AYP designations at each level, each school is charged with developing, implementing and maintaining a continuous school improvement plan to address and mitigate areas of concern within the areas of reading and math. These are offered as follows.

Gorham School Department
Grades K-5

Village School,
Narragansett School
& White Rock School

AYP Action Plan / School Improvement Plan

2010-2011

Submitted and Endorsed: November 17, 2010

Brian A. Porter, Village School Principal

Jane Esty, Village School Assistant Principal

Polly Brann, Narragansett & White Rock Schools Principal

Jodi Mezzannote, Narragansett & White Rock Schools Assistant Principal

Katie Hawes, Director of Instructional Support Services

Kathy Hamblen, Assistant Director of Instructional Support Services

Cindy Muehle, Village School Instructional Strategist

Laurie Sibley, Narragansett and White Rock Schools Instructional Strategist

Reviewed, Approved and Endorsed by:

Narragansett and White Rock Schools Building Leadership Teams

Village School Governance and Professional Development Teams
Gorham School Department
Village School,
Narragansett School
& White Rock School

AYP Action Plan / School Improvement Plan

2010-2011

Summary of K-5 Initiatives and Interventions to Support our Progress
In Numeracy and Literacy: Our Plan for Progress

Developed and Adopted, November 2010

At the K-5 Level, we need to consider:
Short-Term (Triage) Interventions
Long-Term (Systemic) Interventions
Specific Strategies

Short-Term Interventions

Test Preparation:
Continue and Expand throughout K-5 Student Practice / Familiarity with Testing (Question) Formats
Staff integration of Parameters of Essential Understandings and Common Core State Standards into curriculum, instruction & assessment
Staff Professional Learning Opportunities through Professional Development Teams in each building relative to:
Building units of study
Creating unit assessments
Developing scoring rubrics
Data Analysis and Review
See: Data Analysis: Next Steps - 2010-2011
Team Level Strategic Planning and Interventions
Look at Best Practices in Assessment (Formative) and Integrating These into the Classroom
Use assessments as a tool to advance learning (promote this mindset)

Test Conditions:
Greater Testing Accommodation Implementation - IEP / PLP
Facilitated Conversations with Instructional Strategists
Facilitating Favorable Testing Conditions / Schedules / Environmental Factors, etc
Celebrate Assessment Successes K-5

Motivation (Adults and Students)
Differentiated Staff Professional Development in Terms of Numeracy and Literacy (Action Research Teams, Learning Teams, etc.)
Collaboration Between General and Special Education Staff
Development of Strategies to Motivate Students for NECAP / Test-Taking Skills
Give staff 'permission' to deepen use of local assessments in formative fashion

Data Analysis: Next Steps 2010-2011

1. Meet with K-5 Math and Literacy Leaders to address:
Recent data reviews
Teachers who need coaching
Supplements to core programs, i.e. fact fluency
Other professional development needs
Plan for the above

2. Meet with Leadership Teams to address:
Process with which to share instructional strategies from data review meetings
AYP plan that is due to the Superintendent by November 17th
Time remaining until next administration of CBM/DIBELS (including holidays)
3rd through 5th Grade Data Analysis

3. Grade Level Teams:
Share and discuss instructional strategies from data review meetings
Share and discuss strategies for student involvement, i.e. goal setting, targets
Share and discuss strategies for parent involvement
Share and discuss test taking strategies
2nd grade team to research deflated scores for ORF from spring of 1st grade to fall of 2nd grade
1st grade team to incorporate addition activities as a supplement to EM

4. RTI reviews/meetings with individual teachers:
Individual student improvement plans
PLP's now on Infinite Campus makes for easier access

5. Goal-setting meetings with individual teachers
Math efforts and supports needed
Reading efforts and supports needed
Social / emotional / behavioral efforts and supports needed

6. Goal-setting for all Ed techs:
Reading, math and/or management
Supports needed
Professional Development Follow-up

7. January 2011 data reviews to analyze performance and growth
For classroom teachers in both schools
For teachers with Tier 2 students in both schools
For teachers with Tier Three students in both schools

8. Investigate and integrate new opportunities for K-2 assessment of reading comprehension.

9. Investigate and implement new opportunities for parent involvement K-5 in understanding assessment practices and connections to children's readiness for assessment

10. Additional Actions, Interventions and Strategies

Completed RTI Reviews at all three schools for individual students
Data Reviews conducted with individual teachers twice yearly
Class Overview
How is your group as a whole?
Besides identified students in RTI or Special Ed, are there others you are concerned with?
What instructional strategies are working for you?
What have you done to differentiate for individual students within the classroom setting?
What else do we need to know?
Share instructional strategies in team meetings
For 2nd Grade, research ìflatî CBM Scores
To determine discrepancy between the end of 1st grade and beginning of 2nd grade scores on CBM
Boost instructional strategies at Tier 1
Evaluate the effectiveness of the Extended K program and student achievement results
Evaluate the effectiveness of intensive 1st and 2nd Grade programs
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficacy of the intensive 3rd - 5th Grade Reading & Math Labs in terms of student achievement and progress.

 

 

Specific Special Education Interventions and Strategies:
Reviewing Each and Every IEP (Director and Assistant Director of Instructional Support Services)

 

Added 5 laptops to Village RR place

 

Research Based Program Purchase with ARRA Stimulus Funds

All Special Ed Teachers and Techs are trained in SPIRE and SRA Math Program (some limitations are noted here due to carry over in day-to-day practice within the classroom.)

Ongoing Progress Monitoring

Individualized, Goal-Oriented Personal Learning Plans with:

RTI Team meets weekly to review student cases and progress

SOAR (Study Skills Program) purchase for special ed students to be used by special educators for kids with organizational or other study skill deficits

Special Education Teams meet consistently with techs to align goals with specific student needs

Working directly with classroom teachers and speech and language therapists to target and support vocabulary development with specific language-based disabilities (Vocabulary is 20% of the reading portion of NECAPs)

Special Educators are part of data screening teams and the data analysis protocol through instructional strategists and in whole school data analysis work.

Meetings with Special Educators to ìbump kids upî in conjunction with math and literacy screening

Identify who are the kids with IEPs that are close to meeting the standards on the NECAP

Additional Strategies:
Preschool Meetings with entering Kindergarten parents / Kindergarten screening.

In-depth and formalized implementation of Code of Conduct through aspects of school community with implications on classroom management and increased instructional time.

Implementation with Safety First Training (Student De-escalation and Restraint Training)
Identify how many Extended K students move into Special Education

Conduct a longitudinal screening of Extended K students over time.

Key SAT/AYP Facts:

- Every third year high school student in Maine takes the SAT on the first Saturday of May.

- Maine students are tested in the four above areas, Maine high schools are only measured for AYP purposes based upon their performance on the reading and mathematics sections of the SAT exam.

- For those two sections benchmark scores have been established for the whole school and fifteen subgroups to reach each year. These benchmark scores go up each year.

- AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is measured based upon student performance on reading & math portions

- AYP requires 95% of students participating on the test & an 80% graduation rate.

- Whole school performance (Student performance must improve by certain % each year) The target score goes up each year.

- Subgroups must improve each year (GHS: economically disadvantaged & students w/ disabilities)

- Even if the whole school or a subgroup does not meet the target score it is still possible to make AYP by earning safe harbor or through the confidence interval. Safe harbor is attained if the number of students in a subgroup not meeting the standard decreases by at least 10% when compared to the group from the previous year.

¨ For the 09-10 school year the AYP reading target score was 71% of students meeting the standard score.

¨ In 09-10, as a whole GHS had 52% meet the target reading score.

o In our economically disadvantaged group 29% of our students met the standard.

o In our students with disabilities group 30% of our students met the standard. We made AYP through safe harbor determination.

¨ In 06-07, as a whole GHS had 52% meet the target reading score. (50% target)
¨ In 07-08, as a whole GHS had 59% meet the target reading score. (61% target)
¨ In 08-09, as a whole GHS had 59% meet the target reading score. (64% target)
¨ In 09-10, as a whole GHS had 52% meet the target reading score. (71% target)

¨ GHS is now at CIPS4 (Continuous improvement priority school) because of our student performance (This year it was Whole group, Caucasian, Economically Disadvantaged)

¨ ïIn 10-11, as a whole GHS needs 78% to meet the target reading score or a 10% decrease in the number of students not meeting the target score in order to make safe harbor.

¨ For the 09-10 school year the AYP math target score was 54% of students meeting the standard score.

¨ In 09 - 10, as a whole GHS had 52% meet the target math score & met AYP through the confidence interval. However, we did not perform as well in the two subgroups of economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities.

In our economically disadvantaged group 37% of our students met the standard.

In our students with disabilities group 32% of our students met the standard. We made AYP through the safe harbor determination.

In 06-07, as a whole GHS had 51% meet the target math score. (20% target)
In 07-08, as a whole GHS had 54% meet the target math score. (31% target)
In 08-09, as a whole GHS had 51% meet the target math score. (43% target)
In 09-10, as a whole GHS had 52% meet the target math score. (54% target)

GHS is now at CIPS1 because of our student performance (This year it was Economically Disadvantaged)

In 10-11, as a whole GHS needs 66% to meet the target math score.

Goal #1
Increase the number of students meeting proficiency as measured by the SAT reading assessment from 52% of the whole school (third year students) to 57% whole school (third year students) meeting the standard. This 5% increase results in GHS reaching safe harbor status. A component of this goal is to continue to make safe harbor in our subgroups of economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities. This means decreasing the number of students not meeting the standards in these subgroups by at least 10%.

Rationale
Long-term we are working towards the district goal of 90% of all students meeting proficiency, as measured by the SAT, GHS intends to take a step by step approach toward increasing the SAT performance level of our students. We must achieve another 5% increase in whole totals and that would translate to approximately 10 additional students meeting proficiency from the whole school group. For economically disadvantaged students we need to have at least 3 additional students meet the standard and for students with disabilities we need to have at least 6 additional students meet the standard.

Action Plan

Measurement
The only final judgment available as a measurement device is the SAT. Whole school, we will have 57% of all students meeting proficiency as measured by the SAT. In the subgroups of economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities we will make safe harbor by decreasing the number of students not being proficient by at least 10%.

Goal #2
Increase the number of students meeting proficiency as measured by the SAT math assessment from 52% of the whole school (third year students) to 57% whole school (third year students). A component of this goal is to continue to make safe harbor in our subgroups of economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities. This means decreasing the number of students not meeting the standards in these subgroups by at least 10%.

Rationale
Long-term we are working towards the district goal of 90% of all students meeting proficiency, as measured by the SAT, GHS intends to take a step by step approach toward increasing the SAT performance level of our students. We aim achieve another 5% increase in whole totals and that would translate to approximately 10 additional students meeting proficiency from the whole school group. For economically disadvantaged students we need to have at least 4 additional students meet the standard and for students with disabilities we need to have at least 7 additional students meet the standard in order make safe harbor.

Action Plan

Measurement
The only final judgment available as a measurement device is the SAT. Whole school, we will have 57% of all students meeting proficiency as measured by the SAT. In the subgroups of economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities we will make safe harbor by decreasing the number of students not being proficient by at least 10%.