Brevard County Public Schools

Brevard County Public Schools School Improvement Plan 2013-2014

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

The Christa McAuliffe Elementary Community will empower students by challenging them to achieve their personal best in all areas of education and to utilize McAuliffe Life Skills to become life long learners. Each morning our students recite the Christa McAuliffe Pledge: “I believe in me, I will do my best each day. I believe that if I work hard I will succeed. I can learn. I will learn. I am worth it.”

Vision Statement: Our vision for the Christa McAuliffe Elementary community is to attain excellence by encouraging responsible, independent, life long learners.

Brevard County Public Schools School Improvement Plan 2013-2014

RATIONAL – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement)

One place to start – three year trend history (optional)

Christa McAuliffe Elementary School has earned an A for 10 years until last year when it dropped to a B and this year when we dropped to a C. However, with the changing of the percentage of students needing to earn a level three or above increasing each year we have not earned AYP status. Last year the subgroups (Total, Blacks, Hispanic, Economic Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities) did not meet the learning gains needed to earn a yes in these cells for reading or math. This year, due to the changes in calculating school grades and measuring performance on the FCAT, our student FCAT scores and school grade have decreased.

In analyzing the INDV report, possible factors contributing to this fact could be the higher percentage of transient students, an influx of students from the Charter Schools and the changes in the FCAT test scoring,

Our school’s demographics have changed considerably in the past 3 years. Our minority rate and free and reduced rates have increased. Our stability rate has decreased. During 2012-13 28% of our third graders, 35% of out fourth graders, 21% of our fifth graders and 27% of our sixth graders were new to our school. After attending Dr. Max Thompson’s training this summer our team has realized that we need to reevaluate our instructional strategies to ensure we are meeting the needs of all of our students on a consistent and pervasive basis. Dr. Thompson’s research shows that the higher the percentage of free and reduced students the fewer instructional options we have to reach maximum student achievement levels. This year 3rd – 6th grade will each have a non classroom teacher assigned to their grade level to share and disaggregate test data. This will ensure that all district and state assessment data is carefully analyzed and will be used to form S.M.A.R.T. groups and drive instruction in the differentiated groups.

Our FCAT Test scores for the 2012-13 school year dropped from the previous year for the percent of students meeting High Standards in reading and math. Third grade and sixth grade decreased in reading and math, 4th grade decreased in math and 5th grade decreased in math and science.. 4th grade writing scores showed growth when comparing the 3.5 and above scores in 2011-12 to the 2012-13 scores. However, the students making learning gains in reading and math and the students in our lowest 25% increased.

For the past three years our testing data from state (FCAT, ETC.) and district tests indicate a need for us to focus on raising the scores of our level 3 and above students. Our students making learning gains and our lowest 25% of students have remained the same or increased over the past two years in reading and math. Our task this year is to work on raising the number of students who meet the higher levels of achievement while continuing to raise our lowest 25%. We will do this by closer monitoring of our GSP program and our higher level S.M.A.R.T. time classes. One of the tools we will use is the use of our Walk Through Classroom tool on the administrator’s IPADs to more closely monitor the teachers’ use of best teaching practices and their use of the High Yield Strategies as outlined in our SIP plan. We will also adopt the practices learned this summer at Max Thompson’s training by using the information in his book, “Monitoring for Achievement”.

Grade level data 2010 – 2011 (FCAT) 2011 – 2012 ( FCAT) 2012-2013 (FCAT)

Third grade Reading 74% 71% 62%

Math 88% 69% 50%

4th grade Reading 74% 55% 60%

Math 78% 61% 60%

Writing 95% ( school grade) 67% 3.0> 73%3.0> 44% 3.5>

88% ( AYP%)

Math 56% 48% 45%

Science 71% ( School grade ) 57% 47%

Math 70% 64% 60%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

% meeting High Standards in Reading 74% 63% 61%

% meeting High Standards Math 73% 61% 55%

S% meeting High Standards Writing 88% 67% 45%

% meeting High Standards Science 58% 57% 46%

% making Reading Gains 66% 67% 69%

% making Math Gains 70% 70% 70%

% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Reading 58% 65% 79%

% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Math 57% 65% 65%

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?) FCAT, FAIR, and District assessment data for the past three years indicates that we need to change our instructional strategies to those that are proven to be most effective through research. Over the past three years we have provided professional development for B.E.S.T., differentiated instruction and Thinking Maps. We have been doing our book studies on Marzano’s “Classroom Strategies That Work” and Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”. Last year’ we focused on implementing the use of graphic organizers and summarizing across all content areas in K-6th. We began the school year with a teacher survey on their implementation of the five high Yield strategies in Max Thompson’s book, “Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders” . The qualitative data from our teachers’ survey indicated that 64% of our teachers were comfortable with summarizing and 67% were comfortable with graphic organizers. This year our goal is to ensure that these strategies are being used with fidelity in every classroom and across all the curriculum content areas. Our focus this year will be to continue to focus on these in addition to higher order thinking questions.. Last years’ end of the year survey and walk through data indicated that 100% of our teachers were using these strategies but not on a consistent and pervasive basis. Although all teachers are making progress in these areas we want to continue in these areas. These strategies will continue to be “look fors” and “Ask Abouts”during classroom walk throughs and classroom observations. With the change from NGSSS to CCSS now is the optimal time for implementation. Our expectation is that the continued and more frequent use of these strategies as we move into the implementation of the Common Core State Standards will raise our student achievement levels in all curriculum areas. Teachers will follow the district and state timeline and administer assessments for reading, math, science, writing and social studies. Weekly formative assessments will also be given to all students to accurately monitor student progress. Data from all assessments will indicate achievement toward our goal of student achievement.

We currently teach the district core curriculum. We differentiate instruction in reading and math groups by providing small group strategy-based instruction. We individualize instruction in reading, math, and other subject areas as identified by the needs of students in each grade level by providing evidence-based intervention, enrichment or additional practice as needed during SMART Time. SMART Time is a 30-40 minute block of instructional time outside of the 90-minute reading block. Each grade level is assigned a designated SMART Time.

The teachers at McAuliffe work collaboratively using teacher editions, pacing guides and other support materials to plan for daily instruction. Grade level PLC meetings allow teachers time to collaborate. McAuliffe started RTI meetings three years ago and teachers have learned to compare students’ data from their classrooms to those of their peers at school, within district, or state-wide. Through the RTI meetings teachers have learned to differentiate instruction, locate applicable resources, implement appropriate strategies and progress monitor at appropriate intervals. Our goal is to have teachers implement research and evidence based instructional strategies consistently and pervasively across all content areas:, Summarization strategies and graphic organizers across all grade levels in all curriculum areas. Having weekly PLC meetings, additional planning on shortened days once a month and having vertical team planning after school once a month will provide necessary time for professional discourse and collaboration.

Continued discussions on Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion” will be ongoing . Information from Dr. Max Thompson’s books “Moving Schools: Lessons From Exemplary Leaders” and “Monitoring for Achievement”, will be discussed during PLCs and tied in with the other strategies. Classroom observations and walkthroughs will ensure that these strategies are being used throughout all grade levels to implement the CCSS in grade K-2 and to transition from NGSSS to CCSS in 3rd – 6th.

Administrators willactively be involved in working with teachers to develop and implement their PGPs which will be based on data from INDV, FCAT,FAIR, and district tests that is available in A3. They will study the data from the Instructor reports and student reports to determine their area of focus. Teachers will then reflect on their personal/professional understanding of the above mentioned strategies to determine which practices/strategies will be their focus for the goal of improving student achievement. This will be reflected in the PGP.

Our focus is to move our student achievement forward using research based teaching strategies. This year our school administrators and teacher leaders’ “Look Fors and Ask Fors” will be the consistent and pervasive use of those strategies across all content areas in the classrooms. These strategies are: Summarizing, Higher Order Thinking, Advanced Organizers (including Thinking Maps). The use of these teaching strategies will also help teachers and students bridge the gap as we move from the NGSSS to CCSS.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)

“To teach and test the skills that our students need, we must first redefine excellent instruction. It is not a checklist of teacher behaviors and a model lesson that covers content standards. It is working with colleagues to ensure that all students master the skills they need to succeed as lifelong learners, workers, and citizens.” (Tony Wagner – 2008)

In Rigor is NOT a Four-Letter Word, Barbara Blackburn defined rigor as “creating an environment in which each student is expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so that he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates learning at high levels.” (Blackburn, 2008).

“Essential questions reside at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1954). They require students to EVALUATE (make a thoughtful choice between options, with the choice based upon clearly stated criteria), to SYNTHESIZE (invent a new or different version) or to ANALYZE (develop a thorough and complex understanding through skillful questioning).” (From Now On, 1996)

One of the most significant factors that impacts student achievement is that teachers commit to implementing a guaranteed and viable curriculum to ensure no matter who teaches a given class, the curriculum will address certain essential content. For learning to be effective, clear targets in terms of information and skills must be established. (Marzano, 2003).

Research has shown (McREL study) that there are nine categories of instructional strategies that affect student achievement. These categories are identifying similarities and differences; summarizing and note taking; reinforcing effort and providing recognition; homework and practice; nonlinguistic representations; cooperative learning; setting objectives and providing feedback; generating and testing hypotheses; and questions, cues, and advance organizers (Marzano, 1998). “The use of formative assessments, or other diagnostic efforts within classrooms, provides information that should help facilitate improved pedagogical practices and instructional outcomes” (Karee E. Dunn & Sean W. Mulvenon, 2009). By utilizing formative assessments and higher level questioning, students will gain the foundation knowledge to be successful in the 21st century workplace.

Marzano has organized academic goals into one single category “challenging goals and effective feedback”. Our goal is to assist teachers in utilizing teaching methods, providing learning experiences and materials that will facilitate enduring understanding. Research proves that designing and using "good" questions should be part of the instructional repertoire.

Max Thompson’s Learning Concepts, Inc. is dedicated to promoting comprehensive, continual school improvement and increasing achievement for all students (Thompson & Thompson, 2000). The acceptance of this statement by school leaders has created a groundswell of support of the strategies that appear to have an extended life past what might be termed an educational fad. His research shows that the evidence based strategies promote student achievement. These include: Extended Thinking Strategies, Summarizing, Vocabulary in Context, Advance Organizers and Non-Verbal Representations.

As part of our implementation plan for CCSS, we will incorporate the nine research-based strategies from Classroom Instruction that Works by Robert Marzano and the high yield strategies from Max Thompson, book “Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders”. Through Marzano training, the work of William Sanders is cited as establishing the clear implication of the critical difference an effective classroom teacher can make with any level student. With this research in mind, Christa McAuliffe will be focusing on ensuring that our teachers are including those effective strategies during planning for student achievement as well as executing the strategies within the classroom. Using these strategies will guide classroom practice and maximize the possibility of enhancing student achievement for all students Following the techniques presented in Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion” will ensure that teachers are using the most effective teaching strategies for the delivery of curriculum.

For the past several years we have provided professional development on differentiated instruction, and Thinking Maps. Last year we did book studies on Marzano’s, “ Classroom Instruction that Works” , Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”, B.E.S.T. and provided professional development on differentiated instruction. This summer the leadership team and I attended Max Thompson’s overview of learning focused schools. Max Thompson ‘s implementation of these research based strategies provided strategies for increasing student achievement. This year our focus will be ensuring teachers are implementing these best practices, particularly summarizing , advanced graphic organizers and higher order thinking strategies in the classroom across all curriculum content areas.

The new Instructional Appraisal System will be discussed and analyzed to align with teachers’ growth and overall student achievement. After teachers have been given the opportunity to reflect on past and current instructional practices, individual teacher conferences for PGP’s will be held with administrators and teacher leaders to discuss what they see as instructional strengths and weaknesses through the analysis of data ( A3, FAIR, FCAT, district assessments, etc.). The PGPs will be aligned with our School Improvement Plan. CONTENT AREA: Reading Math Writing Science Parental Drop-out Programs Involvement Language Social Arts/PE Other: Arts Studies

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)

All teachers at Christa McAuliffe Elementary will use standards based instruction focusing on use of strong essential questions which will lead to rigor and improved student achievement in all curriculum areas.

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible Timetable Budget In-Process Measure 1. Lack of All teachers will All classroom August – May 2013 - Administrative, consistency in post the essential teachers 2014 district and peer questions in mentor observations classrooms and refer to them during instruction. 2. Lack of full 2. Continue to All instructional staff August – May 2013- Administrative implementation utilize with fidelity 2014 observations strategies from Scheduling Classroom times through Instruction that Administrative out the day walkthroughs Works by Robert ( administrators using a data and Leadership Marzano, Teach collection tool “ teams) Like a Champion Classroom Walk – by Doug Lemov, Through” software and Moving designed to monitor Schoosl: Lessons the use of our SIP from Exemplary Instructional Leaders, by Max Strategies Thompson, and Peer observations BEST trainings, which tie into the highly effective teaching practices needed to implement CCSS and NGSSS. Our main focus will be on Advanced Graphic Organizers and summarization Throughout the school and curriculum areas this year.

3. Provide All instructional staff August – May 2013- Teacher 3. SMART Time 2014 observations and Lack of instruction, classroom walk consistency including the use throughs of summarization and Graphic Organizers including Thinking Maps, and extended thinking question with fidelity to provide differentiated enrichment and intervention instruction for all students K-6th 4. 4. Conduct bi- Guidance counselor August – May 2013- Meeting notes Lack of monthly K-6th Classroom teachers 2014 knowledge of MTSS meetings to Principal Response to discuss and Reading and Math Intervention document student Coaches resources/strateg AP progress and ies. response to interventions.

5. 5. Conduct K-6th IPST Team August - May 2013- Meeting notes Lack of Individual Problem 2014 Referral paperwork knowledge of Solving Team Response to (IPST) meetings as SMART time data Intervention needed to refer resources/strateg IPST and MTSS students who have ies. notes received interventions but are not making adequate progress for further evaluation and determine who may qualify for GSP or enrichment.

6. 6. Discuss grade All teachers August – May 2013- Classroom walk Lack of level formative Principal 2014 throughs consistency assessments in Leadership team grade level PLCs Launch teams Teacher to ensure AP observations Literacy coach consistency across Title 1 math and PLC meeting notes each grade level science teacher and to modify assessments to test higher order thinking skills as required by CCSS.

Teachers will be required to bring updated data notebooks to PLCs

7. Lack of Data Notebooks teachers August – May 2013- Administrative consistency will be kept by all 2014 observations students Administrative Walk Throughs and follow up discussions

Peer observations 8. Lack of “Look fors” and All instructional staff August – May 2013- Administrators and knowledge 2014 Leadership Team “Ask Abouts” will will share with be shared with instructional staff instructional staff Data will be Essential questions, collected during Advanced graphic walkthroughs, organizers, formal and informal summarization and observations Higher order Administrators and questions , Peer Mentors will standards based take the standards in instruction hand when doing the walks throughs to insure standards based instruction is being done in the classrooms. 9. Lack of “Look Fors” in Administrators August – May 2013- Administrators will knowledge teachers’ lesson Peer mentors 2014 look at lesson plans plans will be: during walk throughs. Essential questions for the lesson Administrators will randomly ask for High order teachers’ lesson questions plans

Graphic organizer Use the essential and summarization questions rubric activities related to the lesson

Lack or Focus on regular All instructional staff August – May 2013- Meeting notes.PLC knowledge timely feedback 2014 and Kid Talk, Data with teacher notebooks regarding student achievement on Administrative observations and district assessments walk through notes provided to all teachers 11. Lack Of Training on Higher All instructional staff October 4, 2013 Sign in sheets, knowledge Order Questioning evaluation forms by Rick Dillon on and final projects our October 4th PDD day and follow up on PDD Wednesdays

12. Lack of On going training All instructional staff August 20, 2013 Sign in sheets, use consistency and on DATA analysis, Neyda Francis shared of information in knowledge CCSS across the the INDV file with teachers’ data curriculum and all teachers. notebooks INDV file Review data at PLC meetings twice a month from August – May 2013-14 13. Lack of Reading coach and All teachers August – May 2013- Observation notes, knowledge district resource 14 in-service records teachers will model and discussion lessons for math, notes. reading and writing District resource teachers have been scheduled for PDD, walk throughs and PLC meetings

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school)

Essential questions for both reading and math will be posted and referred to throughout the lesson in every classroom. These will be the “Look Fors” during administrative walk throughs, using the essential question rubric designed by the McAuliffe Leadership team based on the Max Thompson’s rubric.

Teacher surveys will be developed and distributed assessing teachers’ working knowledge of Essential Questions. (pre, and post surveys). According to our first survey done September 19, 2013, 11% of our classroom teachers indicated they had an understanding of essential questions. Our expectation is that 90% of our classroom teachers will indicate on the post survey that they have an understanding of essential questions and how to use them to drive instruction.

Classroom Walk through data from the first month of school indicated that 22% of our classroom teachers had essential questions posted in their classrooms. However, none of them were referring to them during instruction at that time. It is expected that by May of 2014, 90% of the classroom teachers will have essential questions posted for reading and math. Observation data and the essential questions rubric will indicate that they are referred to during instruction. Lesson plans will be checked randomly to ensure that essential questions, higher order thinking questions, advanced graphic organizers and the use of summarization are being incorporated into those plans.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures of student achievement)

Scores on all state and district assessments (FAIR,; FCAT2.0; district math, science, social studies, and writing tests; BELAA) as well as grade level formative assessments, will increase due to teachers consistently and pervasively using evidenced based strategies (advanced graphic organizers, summarization, and higher order thinking) and standards based instruction across the curriculum. Students who score level 3 or above on FCAT 2.0 will increase by at least 8% in reading and 6% in math. Students who make learning gains will also increase by 8% in all areas and in all subgroups.

Walk through indicators will show that the students are able to verbalize to observers the essential questions and how they assist their learning.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI (Identify the MTSS leadership team and its role in development and implementation of the SIP along with data sources, data management and how staff is trained in MTSS)

The MTSS leadership team consists of the principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, staffing specialist, reading coach, and classroom teachers. The MTSS Leadership Team meets one time per week, with additional meetings added as necessary. The primary focus of the meetings: How do we develop and maintain a problem solving system to bring out the best in our school, our teachers, and ultimately our students? The team reviews data to help make instructional decisions and identifies professional development needs based on commonalities in data. The team works collaboratively to problem solve, share best practices, evaluate implementation, and make decisions. The team shares information with other staff members during faculty and/or professional learning communities.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT:

396 parents responded to the District Title 1 Parent Survey in 2012-13 compared to 133 the previous year. We will continue to increase the number of responses by doing the following Distribute paper copies of the District Title 1 Parent Survey to all parents. Have a copy of our school’s Parent Involvement Plan in the office. See uploaded PIP on our school web site.

Early Warning Systems (Formerly Attendance, Suspension, and Graduation Rate)

1. Elementary School Indicators The following data shall be considered by elementary schools.

a. Students who miss 10 percent or more of available instructional time 48 FAMILIES(2012-13) 20 GAOL FOR (2013-14) b. Students retained, pursuant to s. 1008.25(4)(c), F.S. 3.2% OF OUR STUDENTS IN K-6TH WERE RETAINED c. Students who are not proficient in reading by third grade 6.3% WERE NOT PROFICIENT IN READING BY THIRD GRADE d. Students who receive two or more behavior referrals 30 e. Students who receive one or more behavior referrals that lead to suspension, as defined in s.1003.01(5), F.S.10 10 STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS: Students will be asked mid year and at the end of the school year how they felt data notebooks and the use of the evidence based strategies ( summarization, advanced graphic organizers and higher order thinking questions) helped them with their learning. These results will be shared with our school community.

APPENDIX C

(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)

Highly Effective Teachers Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.

Descriptions of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date 1. Regular meetings of new teachers with principal Principal Ongoing

2. Partner new teachers with veteran mentor teachers Principal and Assistant Principal Ongoing

3. Place junior and senior UCF interns in classrooms with Principal, UCF coordinator Ongoing teachers who are CET certified 4. Provide quality professional development Principal, Reading Coach, Ongoing Math/Science Coach, Assistant Principal

Non-Highly Effective Instructors Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]). Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of- Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support field/and who are not highly effective the staff in becoming highly effective

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS

FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 + 3 + NOTE: DATA ON NOTE: DATA ON DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE READING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL POPULATION 74% 63% 61% TOTAL POPULATION 73% 61% 55% WHITE 77% 67% 66% WHITE 75% 66% 62% BLACK 73% 49% 52% BLACK 65% 40% 38% HISPANIC 66% 66% 64% HISPANIC 78% 70% 58% ED 69% 55% 56% ED 70% 56% 48% ELL na 50% 56% ELL NA 61% 40% EWD 45% 41% 54% EWD 45% 35% 47%

FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA ( DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT) (DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT) READING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013 LEVEL 1 13% 15% 16% LEVEL 1 10% 19% 20% LEVELS 3 and Above 84% 61% 61% LEVELS 3 and Above 83% 61% 55% LEVELS 4 & 5 14% 32% 30% LEVELS 4 & 5 37% 29% 25% LEARNING GAINS (LG) 66% 67% 69% LEARNING GAINS 70% 70% 70% LOWEST 25% (LG) 58% 65% 70% LOWEST 25% (LG) 57% 65% 65% WRITING (3.5 +) 88% 67% 45% WRITING (3.5 +) 88% 67% 45% SCIENCE (% 3 +) 59% 57% 47% SCIENCE (% 3 +) 58% 57% 47% End of Course Testing (EOC) ALGEBRA 2011 2012 2013 BIOLOGY 2011 2012 2013 LEVEL 3 NA LEVEL 3 NA NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA GEOMETRY 2011 2012 2013 US HISTORY 2011 2012 2013 LEVEL 3 NA NA LEVEL 3 NA NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA LEVELS 4 & 5 NA NA Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) NOTE: DATA ON THE FAA REPORT READING 2011 2012 2013 MATH 2011 2012 2013 LEVELS 1, 2,3 na LEVELS 1, 2,3 na LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA

WRITING 2011 2012 2013 SCIENCE 2011 2012 2013 LEVELS 1, 2,3 NA LEVELS 1, 2,3 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 4,5,6 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA LEVELS 7,8,9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA Proficient LVS 4-9 NA

COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CELLA) LISTENING/SPEAKING 2011 2012 2013 READING 2011 2012 2013 KG 68% 30% KG 57% 0% 1 56% 90% 1 56% 40% 2 100% 100% 2 92% 100% 3 0 38% 3 0% 13% 4 50% 67% 4 50% 33% 5 80% 75% 5 80% 50% 6 60% 83% 6 20% 33% 7 na 7 8 NA 8 9 NA 9 10 NA 10

WRITING 2011 2012 2013 KG 45% 0% 1 44% 40% 2 58% 57% 3 0 25% 4 50% 33% 5 60% 63% CELLA NOTE: REPORT % PROFICIENT BY GRADE 6 60% 0% LEVEL (DATA ON THE CELLA REPORT) 7 8 9 10 R- % R-% HP Target Maintainin Percent Scoring Scoring Qualifyin AMO Safe g or Percent Tested Satisfactor Satisfactor g in Readin Met Harbor, Improving, Declining, Declining Tested Subgroup Reading y 2012 y 2013 Reading g Target R Reading Reading Reading , Reading Math ALL STDS 100% 63% 61% n 71 n n no yes yes 99% AME INDIAN NA ASIAN NA B/AA 100% 49% 52% n 69% no no yes no no 100% HISPANIC 100% 66% 64% n 62% yes NA NA na na 100% WHITE 100% 67% 66% n 74% no no no yes yes 99% ELL 100% 50% 51% n 63% no no yes no no 100% SWD 100% 41% 30% n 48% no no n yes yes 99% FRL 100% 55% 56% n 64% no no yes no no 100% Math

M-% M % Maintainin LG Pts Scoring Scoring HP Target Met Safe g or LG Pts for for Low Satisfactor Satisfactor Qualifying AMO Target Harbor, Improving Declining, Declining, Low 25% 25% Subgroup y 2012 y 2013 in Math Math Math Math , Math Math Math Reading Math ALL STDS 61% 55% N 67% no no no yes yes 79 65 AME INDIAN na ASIAN na B/AA 40% 38% N 58% no no no yes yes HISPANIC 70% 58% N 70% no no no yes yes WHITE 66% 62% N 69% no no no yes yes ELL 61% 34% N 71% no no no yes yes SWD 35% 24% N 44% no no no yes yes FRL 56% 49% N 63% no no no yes yes Other

Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Writing % AMO AMO AMO AMO AMO Target AMO AMO Graduation Graduation Satisfactor Reading, Math, Reading Math, Reading, AMO Math, Reading, Math, ALL STDS Rate, 2010 Rate, 2011 y 2014 2014 , 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 AME INDIAN na ASIAN na B/AA 52% 72% 62% 75% 66% 78% 70% 82% 75% HISPANIC 50% 66% 73% 69% 76% 73% 79% 77% 82% WHITE 39% 77% 72% 79% 75% 82% 78% 85% 82% ELL 44% 66% 74% 70% 77% 74% 80% 78% 83% SWD 28% 54% 50% 59% 55% 64% 61% 69% 67% FRL 41% 68% 66% 71% 70% 75% 74% 79% 78% School Grade School Grade Number of School Gr. Change to Year Pts. Earned Current Yr. School Letter Grade 2011 584 0 A 2012 515 -1 B 2013 490 -1 C